Conceived by Anthony Marr circa 1979
Copyrighted in its present form in 2023

Critiques

from scholars of
the University of California @Berkeley

Biology, UC Berkeley, Professor Richard W. Holms: “I have listened to a presentation by Anthony S. Marr. His synthesis of ideas from a remarkable broad perspective of sciences truly deserves the name OMNI-SCIENCE. His presentation was precise and clear, and I believe he would be an effective speaker for groups at varying levels of expertise… This is a person of great depth who speaks and writes both with confidence and ease. I am happy to recommend him as a speaker and a writer.”

Astronomy and Physics, UC Berkeley, Professor Marc Davis: “… As one who actually specialize in cosmology as a research endeavor, I was at first very skeptical that Mr. Marr would be yet another crackpot of the type that seems to congregate in this field. However, after only a few minutes of listening to his explanation of his viewpoint, my fears were allayed… His ultimate goal appears to be to provide a forward looking moral framework for progress in human social evolution, one that is consistent with empirical science and which is not based on historical writings…an important contribution…”

Anthropology, UC Berkeley, Professor Tim White: “… I have not seen a draft of the book, but I can say that after spending a few hours with Mr. Marr, I am very much looking forward to reading it…Mr. Marr is an exceedingly unique individual – I have never crossed paths with such a person. He is very serious, very dedicated, and very polished in his presentation… The care with which he has proceeded is commendable… his synthesis is formidable…”

Paleontology, UC Berkeley, Professor Carole S. Hickman: “… deserves the attention of serious scholars…an extraordinary intellectual undertaking… a unique framework… both intellectually and aesthetically stimulating… a bold and eclectic piece of scholarship that is, above all, refreshingly honest…His clarity of expression is exceptional. His logical consistency is a delight. The aesthetic quality of the model, in particular his attention to symmetry, provides a dimension that is appealing but sadly lacking in much of Western thought and tradition. The optimism, concern and compassion for humanity that are expressed in the application of the model to human behavior likewise commands attention…”

Zoology, UC Berkeley, Professor Richard C. Stroman: “… His views and thinking are quite original…a thoroughly logical system… might indeed fill a large gap in the way we think about evolutionary connections between ourselves and our world. I sincerely encourage you to listen to Mr. Marr. And I have one suggestion. His presentation is quite detailed and covers very large areas. My thought is that he and his listeners would all do much better in a small seminar setting so that there would be a symmetry between his own very wide knowledge and the ability for him to obtain meaningful feedback.”

Botany, UC Berkeley, Professor Herbert G. Baker: “… an extremely interesting experience…worthy of the attention of a wide variety of persons. If he writes as clearly and understandably as his oral communication, the book should be an important contribution towards understanding cosmology.”

Paleontology, UC Berkeley, Professor Donald E. Savage: “Professors and scientists at the universities of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California, to date, have each spent two hours or more listening to the powerful presentation of Anthony Marr of his erudite synthesis of scientific, philosophic and sociologic theory: OMNI-SCIENCE, A New Theory of Cosmology. I can add nothing to the praise that has been heaped upon Mr. Marr and his ideas by these (intellectuals), and Indorse their statements without reservation. Now is the time for Mr. Marr’s ideas to be published, for the scientific world and general public should become aware of his synthesis.”

Institute of Human Origins, Berkeley, Dr. William H. Kimble, President: “I have recently had the great pleasure of listening to Anthony Marr describe the results of his thinking on cosmology. “Owing to the large number of half-baked ‘pop’ theories on cosmology currently in circulation, I admit that I faced the prospect of my meeting with Mr. Marr with some trepidation. From the outset, however, it was clear that Mr. Marr is no amateur popularizer. On the contrary, he is a dedicated scholar who set theories, I believe, make a profound contribution to the fundamental definition of humankind in relation to the broader universe. / Although Mr. Marr has an uphill battle ahead of him, I firmly believe that his ideas deserve very serious consideration by a wide audience. Not only do they unify the fragmented Western scientific disciplines, but they have implications of great depth and breadth for the future course of human actions. In the current atmosphere of censorship and anti-intellectualism, Mr. Marr’s concept of OMNI-SCIENCE is too important to ignore.”

 

* * * *

More from the University of British Columbia, the University of Washington, the University of Oregon, and Stanford University after the Prelude.

 

* * * * *

Prelude – a journalist’s view on how the Omni scientific Cosmology was conceived, and received

Bloody Superstition (and BRAVE NEW COSMOLOGY)
by Shawn Blore, 1997, Georgia Straight Magazine, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Pessimists give the world’s tigers five years. Realists, ten. They’re the kind of numbers that make you want to quietly despair, to give up, to flip the channel and think about something more pleasant. Melrose Place maybe, or Roseanne. Anthony Marr, however, whether from a sense of conceit, ignorance, or a staggering sense of confidence, saw nothing impossible in the task of bringing the tiger back from the brink…

… To highlight the extent of Vancouver’s tiger trade, Marr kicked off a media blitz in November 1995. Local journalists were invited on an endangered species tour through Chinatown’s apothecaries. The tour began in the low-ceilinged warren that serves as Western Canada Wilderness Committee’s headquarters. Marr upended his briefcase, spilling out 15-20 boxes of Chinese patent medicines: tiger plasters, tiger pills, tiger-based TCMs (traditional Chinese medicine) for rheumatism, tired blood, soft bones, and sexual impotence, all of them purchased in shops in Vancouver’s Chinatown. Pointing to the ingredients lists on the diverse packages, Marr picked out the symbols, words, and phrases that in Latin, English and Chinese spelled out “tiger bone”. The next part of the tour was a trip along Pender, Main and Keefer Streets, with Marr indicating here and there the shops and apothecaries dealing in tiger medicinal and inviting journalists to go in and check the shelves for themselves. Six shops out of ten stocked a variety of boxes, cartons and bottles labeled with some variation of the word Os’ Tigris — tiger bone. The media loved it. Marr made it on to TV news both locally and nationally, and stories appeared in city magazines and community papers. He used his pulpit to heap scorn upon Canadian wildlife regulations. “Canada’s wildlife laws could use an aphrodisiac,” Marr said, “because right now, they’re totally impotent.”

He was equally hard-hitting in his presentations to Chinese community groups and at Eastside Vancouver high schools. Traditional Chinese medicine’s use of parts of animals like tigers and rhinos, Marr said, and the cutting of many urban trees for that matter, were  based on nothing but pure superstition. That superstition was destroying a magnificent species. The fact that the practice was tolerated by the Chinese-Canadian community only blackened their reputation in mainstream Canadian society.

Environmentalists heaved a sigh of relief. Here was someone tackling a problem they had long known about but dared not touch. “It’s great that it’s a Chinese person doing the work he’s doing.” said Nathalie Chalifoux, World Wildlife Fund Canada’s tiger expert,  “because when it’s a person like me doing it, well, I’m white; I’m more likely to be accused to being racist, which is really unfortunate, but it does happen.”

Vancouver’s Chinese media were as quick to jump on the story as their English counterparts. Marr’s campaign was covered by both the Ming Pao and the Sing Tao newspapers, and he appeared on several Chinese language radio programs. According to Ming Pao  columnist and CJVB radio host Gabriel Yiu, the Chinese community’s reaction to Marr’s campaign was mixed. His straight talk on  superstition did offend some, but there was also those who took pride in the fact that a Chinese Canadian was working on  environmental concerns. “For a long period of time when people are talking about monster homes, tree cutting, killing wild animals for some of their body parts,” Yiu said, “people do have the impression that the Chinese community is the cause of that. I think the work Anthony did set a very good example that we do have people in the Chinese community who are concerned about these issues.”

According to Vancouver city councilor Don Lee, Marr’s effectiveness was limited… “I don’t know Anthony Marr that well. The Chinese Community doesn’t know him well at all. We don’t know where he comes from. We don’t know why he’s doing all this.” As it turns out, those are two of the most interesting questions that could be asked about Anthony Marr…

Born in February 1944, in southern China, Anthony Seeu-Sung Marr fled to Hong Kong along with the rest of his family shortly after the Communist revolution. Family legend has Marr’s father burning the deeds of the family’s extensive land-holdings for a moment’s warmth during the first refugee winter…

In 1965, Marr came to Canada to study science at the University of Manitoba… In 1966, Marr switched over to the physics department of the University of British Columbia. His summers he spent in the bush in northern Manitoba and British Columbia, working as a geologist’s assistant. It was work that can only be idealized by someone who has never done it.

Marr said, “The student is the geologist’s personal servant — more like slave, considering the pay, which was only $280 per month, 24/7. I made and carried his lunch, and at every outcrop the geologist would dislodge a rock sample about twice the size of my fist and drop it into my knapsack. I had to carry that ever heavier thing all day, up and downhill, wading into swamps that would sometimes come up to my chest or higher. Your shirt and pants would be black with flies and mosquitoes. There could be a bear behind every tree. It was brutal, but also absolutely beautiful. And this was how I bonded with nature.”

After he graduated with a B.Sc. in 1970, Marr took a job as a live-in house father for emotionally disturbed kids, then a career in real estate. He said he had a heavy student loan to pay off. One senses he also had a need to gain acceptance among the Vancouver business community. “I made rookie of the year, then Gold Club, Diamond Round Table, all that,” Marr said. “I bought a couple of horses —
hunters–jumpers — and got involved with the high social elite you see down in Southlands.” Snapshots from the time show a short-haired Marr in riding boots and breeches, sitting astride a bay Thoroughbred gelding.

The real estate phase continued for several years. Marr bought a small acreage in the suburbs. He dated but never married. “The work first became routine, then boring, then irksome, then unbearable. I was still good at it, but the initial challenge was gone,” he said.
About this time, things took a strange turn. Whether from boredom, a need to be alone, or perhaps simply a desire to see the sights, he left his job, gave away his belongings, and set off on a solo journey in East Africa, primarily in the Kilimanjaro, Serengeti, Ngorongoro Crater and Olduvai Gorge region of Tanzania. At some point during that three month sojourn, something happened that changed the whole focus of Marr’s life.

“If you want to be dramatic, you could Hollywoodize it and say it came to me all at once in a blinding flash while I was camping on the savannah, but really, it developed very gradually.”

What Marr was catching sight of was a completely new philosophical system, a new model of the universe, one that in Marr’s view is comprehensive enough to explain the organization and development of life, society and the Cosmos itself. The full tenet of this system came to him in dribs and drabs over a period of many months during and after his solo camping adventure from which he brought home a thick, hand-written field journal. Marr bought a couple of boxes of blank card, and fill each card with an individual idea, ending with more than 1,000 of them when finished – and worked at ordering, arranging, and reordering and rearranging them, trying to assemble them into a coherent whole. The process took months. Marr’s live-in girlfriend walked out. “I really shouldn’t be living with someone at that point,” Marr said. “I had to have my own room. I had to have a ‘DO NOT DISTURB’ sign on the door, and if anybody as much as knocked, my tenuous mental construct would fall down like a house of cards. Even the prospect that someone might knock was disturbing.” The net result of his shuffling and reshuffling, typing and retyping, was a manuscript more than 800 pages in length, describing a new and comprehensive philosophical and phenomenological system. Marr christened it OMNISCIENTIFIC  COSMOLOGY, OMNI-SCIENCE for short.

At first glance, OMNI-SCIENCE bears some resemblance to the ideas of the Jesuit philosopher- scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Both suggest that the development of humanity must logically proceed in a converging upward spiral, which Marr calls Integrative Transcendence, towards ever- higher levels of organization and unity. Marr, however, is quick to point out how his system differs
from those of other western philosophers. “No philosophical or religious system I’ve encountered is cosmic enough,” said Marr. “They’re too narrowly focused, too anthropocentric.”

Marr’s system purportedly incorporates everything — inorganic and organic – throughout the universe, from the Big Bang to whatever end, all participating in the multi-levelled Integrative Transcendence spiral towards universal life and consciousness.
Hogwash? Possibly. Even Marr himself had doubts, principally about the total validity and social acceptability of his system, in the eyes of the scientific community, and especially in the philosophical community and religious communities already with their own belief systems with which Marr’s system may or may not be in agreement.

In the late 80s, he tossed both manuscript and portable type-writer into his little green Toyota Celica and set off down the West Coast to test his system with the best academic minds he could find. One of the stops was the University of California at Berkeley; another  was Stanford.

“I would have aimed for Cornell, Princeton, Yale and of course Harvard as well, but they were a little too far to drive for my budget. In any case, this was when my sales training paid off. I had no problem ‘cold-calling’ anyone. When I got to town, the first thing I’d do was to find the course catalog of the university I had in mind and look up the professors who were teaching the courses I deemed relevant. Back in my motel room, I’d crank out a dozen or so letters. ‘Dear Prof. so and so, I have a 0matter of philosophical interest that I’d like to discuss with you… The time required would be about two uninterrupted hours…’ Then I’d go back to campus and put the letters into the professors’ cubby-holes. The next day, I’d call and ask for an appointment. Of the thirty or so contacts I made in total, there was only one decliner. We’d talk for two hours, and at the end, I’d ask for a letter of critique.”

ood professors’ reactions to this approach can be discerned from the letter written by Dr. William Kimbel, president of the Institute of Human Origins at Berkeley:

“Owing to the large number of half-baked theories on cosmology currently in circulation, I admit that I faced the prospect of my meeting with Mr. Marr with some trepidation. From the outset, however, it was clear that Mr. Marr is no amateur popularizer. On the contrary, he is a dedicated scholar whose theories, I believe, make a profound contribution to the fundamental definition of humankind in relation to the broader universe… implications of great depth and breadth for the future course of human actions… too important to ignore.”

Marr received similarly effusive letters from other professors at Berkeley, Stanford, the University of Oregon, the University of Washington and the University of British Columbia.

Heady stuff. Yet, more than a decade later, the manuscript remains unpublished. Professor Braxton Alfred of Physical Anthropology, UBC, said he even offered to help find a publisher, but Marr said his manuscript was not yet ready for publication. He did leave a photo-copy-copy of the then- manuscript behind after his presentation, but due to professional pressures, Alfred didn’t get around to looking at it until recently. Reading it now, Alfred said, only increases his respect for Marr. It also sheds light on what it was that set him on his current crusade.

“The presentation he gave me was hard science, very thoroughly presented. He was right on the numbers with everything in the presentation. I presumed likewise in these documents,” Alfred said, referring to the OMNI- SCIENCE manuscript, “but these are quite a different thing. That man had a revelation in Africa. There’s no other way to characterize it. It’s clear that he was experiencing some sort of emotional trauma, and something touched him, and what these documents record are the revealed truth of that contact.”
According to the manuscript, Alfred said, Marr had reached a crisis and was sitting in the snows of Kilimanjaro, pointing a gun at his head. Then, as stated in Marr’s text: “The sun went down, the moon came up, and more than my hand had begun trembling. It was then that this mysterious source of wisdom address me for the first time:

‘I am seeking a miracle worker, to work a miracle upon this Earth, on my behalf. Since you seem to have no further use of this body of yours, which seems to be in prime condition, will you surrender it to me?’”

“That’s when the entity, or whatever it is, first made contact with him,” Alfred said, “but, apparently, the contact continues. It seems that there is no end to it. I would not be surprised if he has conversations with this entity still.”

Having read the manuscript, Alfred said he is no longer puzzled by Marr’s decision to turn away from the task of perfecting his book to work on behalf of endangered species. “It was in Africa that this naturism force first came to the fore…” The manuscript also gives some indication of the source of Marr’s willingness to take on seemingly hopeless causes. “He clearly came to a crisis point in his life,” Alfred said, “and the heavens opened up and truth was revealed, and he’s been going strong ever since.”

Wherever his confidence came from, when the ’19th-century scholar’ decided to prove himself as an environmental savior, he displayed a thoroughly 19th century sense of ambition..

… Although some conservationists predict the tiger will be extinct in five years, Anthony Marr is convinced he can reverse the prophecy…

Marr has shifted his efforts from reducing consumption into preserving tiger habitat. With the aid of a $75,000 grant from the Canadian International Development Agency, Marr has gone to India to work towards protecting two Indian tiger reserves from encroachment and poaching by local villagers. The plan is to take a traveling multi-media show to villages around the tiger reserves and convince the villagers that the tiger is worth more to them alive than dead…

… Other conservationists from other groups have made these arguments before, often with little success, but with characteristic confidence, Marr is convinced he will succeed.

* * * * *

Critiques from the scholars of
University of British Columbia

 

Biology UBC, Professor Ian McTaggart-Cowan: “This will introduce Mr. Anthony Marr… We met for a full afternoon during which he presented his objectives and his background preparation, and led me through the development of his novel theory. We had an extended discussion in which I probed deeply in my area of expertise. / I emerged highly impressed with his seriousness of purpose, his intellectual capacity, his ability to grasp and use unusually detailed information drawn from a broad range of scientific disciplines. He met my challenges forthrightly, thoughtfully and in detail. / Subsequently, I read his book manuscript. In this he develops a philosophy that rests securely on basic scientific understanding. I followed with fascination the evolution of his theoretical concept of the progress of life on earth from inception to society… / I am convinced that what he is striving to achieve is important. / Mr. Marr is an unusually talented and discipline individual. He is one of the many millions of people who are deeply distressed by many of the directions and consequences he sees in the world today, but unlike so many, he has dedicated himself to struggling intellectually to develop and  promote new attitudes. / Mr. Marr is a serious scholar who both writes and speak with ease and confidence. I urge you to give his book the serious attention it deserves.”

Geology and Oceanography, UBC, Professor R.L. Chase: “… The work is a brave attempt to give us a new, science-based philosophy, with the aim of giving humankind a common purpose to unite the planet and seek societies beyond it. As a geologist I found his synthesis stimulating and refreshing. I have tried to work out for myself a philosophy based on paleontology and the physical sciences, but Mr. Marr has gone further to produce a more comprehensive worldview.”

Evolutionary Biology, UBC, Professor G.G.E. Scudder: “… I spent about three hours with Anthony Marr… I found his approach to be logical and thorough. He has a good grasp of the basic principles and ideas in the natural sciences and is aware of the limitations of our current knowledge… I believe that his contribution is original and well founded. Mr. Marr is clearly dedicated and talented…”

Astronomy and Geophysics, UBC, Professor T.K. Menon: “… I was highly impressed by his breadth of knowledge… There is no question in my mind about the seriousness of his pursuit and the need to have his ideas widely discussed. He deserves to have a wide audience to expose his ideas for scholarly appraisal, and I urge that such an opportunity be made available to him.”

Biology, UBC, Profession Lee Gass: “I am writing on behalf of Anthony Marr. My purpose is to document his seriousness of purpose, the strength of his commitment to understanding, his intellectual solidity and honesty, and his willingness and ability to consider an extremely broad range of issues in a way that can potentially clarify them for large numbers of people… / He has responded to my most
rigorous challenges extremely well, demonstrating a degree of intellectual discipline that is rare even among professional scholars… / I have no doubt that he has dedicated his life to this project…”

Physical Anthropology, UBC, Professor Braxton M. Alfred: “… Mr. Marr’s effort is in the tradition of 19th Century scholarship, but is based solidly on 20th Century science. There is simply no modern parallel for his accomplishment. “His system is extraordinarily ambitious… it purports, and is successful in my opinion, to explain hierarchical structure in the phenomenal world… It is truly a grand scheme… “He speaks with the power and confidence of one who totally commands the material. The presentation was scheduled for two hours. After four hours, mutually fatigued, we adjourned – and I was very reluctant to quit. / It is a compelling indictment of the structure of contemporary academic departments that, undoubtedly, no graduate would be allowed to pursue such a project with any
expectation of being awarded a degree. This is in spite of the fact that Mr. Marr’s product is in every way superior to any of the Ph.D. degree this department has awarded in the twenty years of my appointment. / It is characterized by careful, thoughtful attention and rigorous development. I recommend it, and him, without qualification.

 

 

* * * *
University of Washington

 

Ecology, Ethology, Sociobiology, Environmental Studies, UW, Professor Gordon H. Orians: “During the past month I have had an opportunity to listen to a lengthy presentation by Anthony Marr of his comprehensive cosmological system. In addition, I have read most of his book-length manuscript titled OMNI-SCIENCE. These encounters have revealed to me that Anthony Marr is a deep thinking and widely read person. In those area of biology where I am competent to judge, Mr. Marr is thorough and accurate in his presentation of fact. He has delved deeply into evolutionary, ecological and behavioral literature. He has also had extensive field experience, upon which he draws repeatedly in his book. / Mr. Marr’s mode of presentation of his ideas deviates strikingly from  standard scientific ones, reflecting his philosophical ancestry and his goals. Primarily he is attempting to develop a philosophical scheme that can encompass both modern science and religion in a way that can be acceptable to both. His is also a futuristic perspective, offering hope at a time when so many of us feel a deep sense of despair. This is a daunting task but one which we avoid at considerable peril. Given the religious rejection of science that are so rampant in American culture today, thorough attempts to develop comprehensive cosmologies are badly needed and should receive our serious attention. Mr. Marr has provided one such system. I hope that it can be published and made available to a wide audience so that it can receive serious discussion by persons of many walks of life and varied persuasions.”

Medicine, Biomedical History, UW, Professor Keith R. Benson: “… I found his presentation to be creative, highly synthetic, scientifically sound and eclectic, and extremely comprehensive. Obviously, Mr. Marr has read and studied extensively; moreover, his new theory reveals his impressive ability to think carefully and critically. / As an historian of biology, I am aware of the reluctance to construct cosmologies at the present time because they inevitably involve major speculative activity. However, I also think that it may be necessary for scientific literati like Mr. Marr to engage in this work. After all, we are bombarded constantly with cosmological schemes with the barest of scientific support. I find many aspects of Mr. Marr’s system compelling. I urge additional support for his work.

Geology, UW, Professor Stephen C. Porter: “… an interesting and enlightening experience. It quickly became apparent to me that Mr. Marr is an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable person and his devoted a considerable amount of time and thought to the philosophical system he set forth in his manuscript. He is articulate and obviously is widely read in many fields of science. His  knowledge, however, is not superficial, but demonstrates a keen sense of scholarship. / He has undertaken a task, indeed a mission, that to many would appear overwhelming – the integration of many fields of knowledge, both scientific and cultural, in a hierarchical  scheme that illustrates the place of human beings in the natural and temporal order of the universe. / His thesis is thought provoking  and, as far as I know, original in its approach. The subject is one that should interest both professionals and nonprofessionals, and  could elicit considerable discussion. Assuming that the manuscript is engagingly written at the appropriate level, it could command a  wide audience.”

 

* * * *

 

University of Oregon

 

Geology, UO, Professor Greg Retallack: “… Although initially skeptical, I found his whole system quite fascinating and thought provoking… I thought that his model was superior to those already available. His proposed books will be important advances in  thinking on the origin and evolution of life and society… His presentation was made with the care and rigor of a serious and dedicated scholar. He has a good and up to date understanding of the natural sciences. I could not detect a trace of mysticism or journalistic pseudo-science in his presentation. Mr. Marr is a hard-headed thinker in the best scientific tradition. He deserves serious attention.”

Biology, UO, Professor Stanton A. Cook: “Anthony Marr has explained to me his thoughts on physical hierarchies and evolution of organic hierarchies on earth. He elaborated a novel way of diagramming or organizing these thoughts that should be quite useful to an audience that has not thought much on these matters. I do believe that comprehension and appreciation of levels of organization has been hampered by a want of just such a methodical and visual approach… a well developed message…”

Biology, UO, Professor Dennis Todd: “Anthony Marr has developed a new theoretical framework that integrates a great deal of scientific information from diverse fields. His thesis deserves your careful attention. “Mr. Marr impressed me with the breadth of his knowledge, the seriousness of his intellectual pursuit, and the keenness of his insight. He is a rare person: one who can understand the
findings of specialized branches of various sciences, apply them to other branches, synthesize a meaningful and coherent overview, and present his conclusions in a masterly and cogent fashion. “His philosophy unites the multiplicity of levels of organization, both biotic and abiotic, into a coherent system of analysis. The system that he proposes, with parallels between levels ranging from the atomic to the cosmic, provides a fresh perspective for those who wish to understand the workings of nature. Furthermore, his principles can function as a springboard for leaps into realms that, at least for the present, are purely philosophical – teleology, epistemology and ontology. “Mr. Marr is a serious and dedicated scholar. I commend him and ask that you grant him an opportunity to present his ideas
to you.”

Ecology, UO, John Burket: “This letter is to urge the serious and positive consideration for the work done by Anthony Marr. / I spent an afternoon talking with Anthony and learning the system of thought as set down in his manuscript. That short experience has instilled in me the kind of wondered awe that arises when previously nebulous thoughts, ideas and feelings suddenly crystallized into a
framework of order. / It is my opinion that Anthony Marr’s system of Integrative Transcendence is the germ of a new worldview, and that the minds of people today are very fertile ground for this philosophy. The clarity and logical order of this system gives an immediate sense of recognition of ones place in the scheme of existence. / Further, one can see from this philosophy how the future of our planet can be seen in terms of undeniable purpose and hope, a state of mind so lacking in these times. / I urge you to listen to Anthony Marr and publish his work. His is an idea whose time has come.”

 

*  *  *  *

 

Stanford University

 

Astrophysics and Applied Physics, Stanford U, Professor Vahe Petrosian: “… elaborate… clearly well thought out and researched… I was fascinated by his novel ideas in this very ambitious task… a beautiful synthesis… what I heard was captivating and should be of interest not only to experts but to all thinking people of the world… will find a wide and interested audience…”

Anthropology, Stanford U, Professor John W. Rick: “… very thought provoking… an integrative scheme capable of making sense out of a wide variety of natural science knowledge, which at the same time reaches out to philosophy and epistemology… clearly deserves extensive discussion… a serious, well- founded vision, not the product of trivial or eccentric thought. My feeling is that he deserves attention and his ideas should be published. I would recommend that those who have the time listen and argue over his presentation. One should not underestimate the time this may take, however, since his model covers a broad expanse of knowledge. I would think that his presentation would be an ideal forum in an academic department where a group of faculty and graduate students could take time to thoroughly examine his proposition…”

Physics, Stanford U, Professor Leonard Susskind: “… the cosmic significance of life and evolution. Although this is not exactly my ‘meat’, I thoroughly enjoyed the two hours… I found myself stimulated, educated… His ideas are worth listening to, even for those of us who are not of the same philosophical bent…”

Philosophy, Stanford U, Professor John Bogart:’ [I spent 3.5 hours with Mr. Anthony Marr… held my attention for the entire period… has plainly synthesized a great deal of information in a number of distinct disciplines… organized it into an interesting and coherent whole… compelling… intended to have moral import… can be cast into a form of interest to moral philosophy… would be of interest to a wide audience…”

Philosophy, Stanford U, Professor John Dupre: “… A few days ago, I had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Anthony Marr about his philosophical ideas. I can certainly confirm the impressions gained by the various other scholars who have written on his behalf. Marr is a highly intelligent, thoughtful man who has evidently acquired a thorough knowledge of the impressively broad range of topics over which his ideas range. As we were talking, I asked him all the difficult questions that occurred to me as he was outlining his ideas. He was always very quick to get the point, and had intelligent and relevant responses. I was very impressed with his various intellectual accomplishments. / Though his ideas are extremely intriguing and provocative, I must confess to having considerable skepticism about his project which he did not altogether dispel. However, I very much doubt whether anyone could dispel this skepticism, and certainly not in two hours. I am not convinced, that is to say, that a systematic view of the scope that Marr attempts is really an intelligible project. However, there is no doubt that such projects will be forthcoming, and such a system informed by Mr. Marr’s deep and thorough understanding of the current state of scientific theory will undoubtedly be incomparably more edifying than the vast majority of such attempts, whether religiously based, or grounded on superficial impressions of science. Indeed, I am open to being convinced that such a project will address a pressing social need: if people insist on adopting comprehensive cosmological systems, then I would certainly encourage them to try his. I certainly share his concern about the dangers of many contemporary religious, especially fundamentalist, cosmologies. / One thing, then I would say without any qualification is that I would strongly encourage any publisher to accept his book. I have not read the manuscript, but assuming, as I have no reason to doubt, that Marr is as articulate, clear and cogent on paper as he is in person, his system would make fascinating reading, and would, I suspect, attract a large audience…”

Geology, Stanford U, Professor W.R. Evitt: [… I agree wholeheartedly… about his sincerity, imagination, intellectualism and scholarship. This afternoon was for me a unique and stimulating experience. In a highly logical series of simple steps, he developed a comprehensive concept of the interrelations and interdependence of all things… an immensely logical construct… should be accessible and acceptable to persons with a wide range of cultural, social, scientific and philosophical sophistications… meticulously thought out, with great care, to making his thesis externally consistent with the facts of science as currently perceived, and internally consistent in the interrelationships among its arguments… majestic in scope but intrinsically simple, satisfying and optimistic… should have a very broad appeal… These are important ideas with great potential for lessening the conflicts in a troubled world…”

 

*   *  *  *  *

 

Author’s note:
I have reserved the following critique by Professor Alex Inkeles of Stanford University to present here:

Sociology, Stanford U, Professor Alex Inkeles: “Recently Mr. Anthony Marr persuaded me to give him an hour of my time, all I could spare in that cycle of my calendar, and at that it had to be at the end of a busy day. This obliged Mr. Marr, as he told me, to adopt a different style of presentation than the one he usually used, one much more compressed and involving a more top-down approach instead of his usual inductive procedure. Despite these handicaps, Mr. Marr managed to impress me not only with the quality of his presentation, but also the quality of his thinking. The range of his knowledge is broad, and for something so broad seems impressively authoritative. At the heart of his approach is a conception of all living and indeed nonliving matter as organized in systems, and this gave him a considerable edge with me since my own propensity is to think in system terms… exceptionally comprehensive…”

 

*   *   *

There are indeed two ways to present the OMNISCIENTIFIC COSMOLOGY and its associated new science of GEO-EMBRYOLOGY – namely the top-down approach and the inductive procedure as mentioned in Professor Inkele’s critique. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. In general, I find that a plain prose format suits the top-down approach better, and a dialogue format better suites the inductive procedure, and both are employed in this book. And when I use the dialogue format, I will be conversing with my interstellar friend and mentor “Raminothna”, “R” for short.

 

*  *  *  *

 

Dear Homo Sapiens – a forewarning to Humanity

 

Dear Homo Sapiens, whose foot-prints now roam the craters of the Moon: Beware! Beware of the Critical Symptoms of Earth, one of which being your footprints on the Moon. While you were walking on the lunar plain, you must also have seen the most spectacular Critical Symptom of them all. For millions of years, except for lightning, wildfire and volcanic eruptions, the night side of Earth had remained invisibly dark, until, not long ago, someone wrote “Let there be light”, and now behold, there is light, a new light in the lunar sky, an electric light emitted from the night side of the Earth.

And if on the lunar plain you set up an observatory with remote sensing instruments, you would also have detected simultaneous changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere and hydrosphere of the planet, what those on the ground would call  “pollution”, as well as large scale deforestation, unprecedented thermal nuclear explosions, rise in radioactivity and sudden and drastic increase in the heat content of the planet, leading to major climate change, among others. In isolation some have occurred before, but  in concert? Never.

So, the question is: What are these critical symptoms symptomatic of?
The answer is: If Earth is a planetary egg, it is about to hatch, or fail to do so. Needless to say, a failed and rotting planetary egg is not a pretty sight to behold, and absolute hell to live in.

And the way to the successful hatching of a planetary egg and successful birth of a new Planetary Organism is a two word phrase to live by: INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE. May IT be with you.

Raminothna,
the Fortunate and the Called Upon,
at your service.

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Foreword – Why an OMNISCIENTIFIC Cosmology?

Next to “What is the Meaning of Life?”, the most universal question asked by all questioning beings in the universe at some point in their lives must be “What am I?” And the only line even more universal is the truism that “The part cannot know itself fully without knowing the whole and its part in this whole.” The UNIVERSE is all-things, plural, amongst which we count ourselves. As a whole, singular, it is the COSMOS, of which we are integral parts. Thus we build cosmologies instinctively in which to find ourselves.
A COSMOLOGY is a complete model of the Cosmos. I emphasize “complete” because by definition the cosmos includes “everything”, and a cosmology should be without exception, omission or dismissal. But in reality some cosmologies omit and dismiss vast swaths of reality that contradicts that cosmology’s unfounded dogma. These incomplete or false cosmologies are by and large of the mythological type.

In general, there are two major types of cosmologies. One is the myriad localized MYTHOLOGICAL COSMOLOGIES (plural), each based on one local creation-myth, ancient or recent. Because creation-myths are generally not based on fact, they are usually wildly different from truth and from each other, and so are the mythological cosmologies based upon them, so are the religions based upon the mythological cosmologies, so much so that they could be diametrically opposed and be the cosmological basis of religious warfare.
The other type is the one-and-only SCIENTIFIC COSMOLOGY (singular), “one-and-only” because nature is universal, and the study of nature, which is science, is accordingly universal, and based on nothing but fact, often the same facts manifest from locale to locale, such as the sun always rising in the east no matter which village you live in. But even Scientific Cosmology itself, though true to fact, can be incomplete. It does fall short in one regard, that While it glorifies planets and stars and nebulae and galaxies in their astronomical splendor, it seldom if ever delve into the biospheres of those planets that have them, in spite of the fact that biospheres too are integral parts of their planets and these planets too are integral parts of the Cosmos; which is why I call out this type of scientific cosmology as the ASTROPHYSICAL COSMOLOGY, in which only the physical sciences seem to be relevant, but not the life and social sciences. For the If the biospheres And the complete scientific cosmology is based not only on the scientific Cosmology to be complete, it must include the scientific fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, ecology, sociology and psychology, thus, OMNI- SCIENCE.

I am by no means denigrating the current ASTROPHYSICAL COSMOLOGY, which in fact is the solid foundation upon which the new SOCIOBIOLOGICAL COSMOLOGY is to be built. And together, foundation and edifice, shall be the OMNISCIENTIFIC COSMOLOGY
For those asking “What on Earth am I?”, the first thing to realize is that cosmically speaking they don’t live ON Earth, but are integral parts OF Earth. Likewise for those who ask “What in the universe am I?” They don’t live IN the universe, but are integral parts OF the universe. And the best way for the part to understanding itself is for it to first understand the whole, then its part in this whole.

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Ch. 1 – The Astrophysical Cosmology

 

This chapter is an update for astrologers from astronomers.
1. The observable universe is 13.7 billion years old.

2. As observed from the Earth with our current instruments, the universe is about 46.5 billion light years in radius or 93 billion light years in diameter, centered upon the Earth, which does not mean that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe as once believed. For all we know, the universe may not have any center at all.

3. The known observable universe comprises approximately 100 billion galaxies, which are mutually spaced millions of light years apart. As for the unknown, unobservable part(s) of the universe, how many more galaxies there are still beyond our perception, We’ll know when we see them.

4. Galaxies range in size from dwarf galaxies with just a few billion stars to giant galaxies like our close neighbor the Andromeda Galaxy with over 1 trillion stars. Our own Milky Way Galaxy is “average” or “medium”, with up to 400 billion stars and their planetary systems (e.g. the Soar System of the star Sol).

5. Most galaxies originated from the original universal cloud shortly after the universe began, so, they are all about 13 billion years old.

6. Stars generally range from small-and-coldish to huge-and-superhot, with a few rare exceptions that are small-and-hot and large-and-cool. Excepting the exceptions, when the stars of a galaxy are plotted mass-vs-temperature, they end up being arrayed on a diagonal. This diagonal line of stars is known as the Main Sequence, which contains the vast majority of all stars in the galaxy. There are 7 types of Main Sequence stars ranging from huge and superhot to small and coldish, namely, types O, B, A, F, G, K and M (“O Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me.”), with O-type stars being the largest and hottest, and M-type stars being the smallest and coolest. Generally, the hotter a star, the faster it burns and the shorter its lifespan, whereas M-type stars, known as Red Dwarfs, are by far the most numerous and longest lived stars of the galaxy. Our star Sol is a G-type star, not too big, not too small, not too hot, not too cool, and good for 10  billion years or so from start to finish; currently, it is about 5 billion years old, with another 5 billion to go. In our galaxy, G-type stars make up about 7% of the stellar population, numbering about 30 billion.

7. Whereas F-type stars and K-type stars would likely have planets in their habitable zones, we just don’t know enough about them to speculate about life in their planetary systems. The goldilocks zones of K type stars are probably too narrow to easily coincide with the orbit of a planet, and vice versa, but G-type stars are more than enough for the following discussion. For the fecundity of G-type
stars, the Planet Earth is the proof.

According to the Standard Model of the Astrophysical Cosmology, the Universe originated with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. The resulting expanding universal cloud of hydrogen (75%) and Helium (25%) gasses broke up into billions of sub clouds, each condensing into a galaxy by the formation of stars.

The first generation stars of the early galaxies were composed of nothing but hydrogen and helium, meaning that there was no solid matter in existence at all. It is in the interior of the larger First Generation Stars that nuclear fusion took place, thereby synthesizing the elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, such as nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, calcium, Sulphur, silicon and other elements
necessary for life, including the metals. This process of elements building from light to heavy is known as NUCLEOSYNTHESIS.
Nucleosynthesis begins with fusing hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, with a massive release of energy. The Sun is doing this continuously near its surface as we speak, and has been doing so continuously since it was formed 5 billion years ago. Deeper in its interior, the pressure increases enough to fuse helium, or even carbon. In “carbon burning”, heavier-than-carbon fusion can occur with
more output in energy than in “hydrogen burning”. The product would be oxygen, neon, sodium, magnesium and even aluminum atoms, with vast increases in energy release. and these heavier atoms can be fused into heavier atoms still, with ever greater releases of energy.

A G-type star like Sol is not heavy enough to fuse medium heavy elements like iron. At that point, the star would begin burning out, and become a “red giant”. But for heavier stars than the Sun, such as a type-O or type B star, there would be enough pressure at their core to force iron fusion, which would release enough explosive power to blow the star apart. When this happens, the star would explode as a supernova, Where iron atoms are forced to fuse into super heavy elements, it would be like a trillion megaton thermal nuclear bomb going off at once. The result of a supernova explosion are interstellar clouds loaded with heavy elements, which will  contribute to the formation of planets.

The galaxies originated about 13 billion years ago shortly after the Big Bang, and the star Sol is only about 4.6 billion years old. This means that it is far from being an early generation star. What generation of star Sol is I won’t hazard a guess. Suffice to say that it was late enough generation- wise to have started with enough heavier elements for solid-bodied planets, of which the Earth is one.

As for the planet Earth, about a billion years after its formation, life emerged in the form of unicellular organisms. About 800 million years ago, the multicellular organisms interactively transcended from the unicellular organisms. And 120 million years ago, the social insect society came to be fore, which in 1911 was hailed by social insect researchers as a SUPERORGANISM, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

At this point, quantity (“which has a quality of its own”) wants to know how many planetary eggs there are in the universe. This goes back to our primitive question of “Are we alone?” If we were, then perhaps there is only one planetary egg in the entire universe. If not, the simplest answer is “Billions.”

Let’s start on safe ground and limit planetary eggs to “Earth-like planets in the habitable goldilocks zones of G-type stars only”. G-type stars account for about 7% of the stellar population in the Milky Way Galaxy, which has up to about 400 billion stars, 7% of which being 28 billion G-type stars in this galaxy alone. There are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, so, to try to calculate exactly how many planetary eggs there are in the universe is almost meaningless. I mean, to our puny human minds, does it make any perceptible difference if there are 1 billion or 10 billion or 100 billion or 1 trillion planetary eggs in the universe?

I: So, I stand by my answer of “Billions”. If your answer is “only one”, or even “none”, then divine arbitration is required.

R: At this juncture of the human development on planet Earth, the equally important but far more urgent question is: However many planetary eggs there are in the universe, what will happen to the one you live in, or rather, of which you are an integral part?

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Ch. 2 – INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE

 

Based on the single simple concept of an ORGANISM on any level of organization, say, Level (X), being also a SOCIETY of its own basic Level (x-1) living parts, e.g. a human organism being also a society of its own human cells, or social cellular organisms of the  human species line, we can easily work out how a lower-leveled organism can give rise to a higher-leveled organism.

From the time of its inception 4.6 billion years ago to now, the Earth has ascended through four O.S.E.S. Cycles of the I.T. Spiral, and undergone four rounds of ORGANISMIZATION, each time producing organisms on a higher level. Thus, the Earth has produced the Cellular organisms, the Metazoan organisms, the Cation organisms and the National organisms, and is poised to produce the Planetary organism Earth, singular, or fail to do so according to its cosmic schedule. These organisms on these distinct levels are distinctly different from each other, not just in size or shape or form or function or level of organization. It is also in their level by level increase in awareness and power, the point about which to be made being that the increase is neither linear nor continuous, but occurs in discontinuous quantum leaps from level to level. The following “dream” will illustrate.

It would be strange enough for a human to dream of being a non-human – a lion maybe, an eagle, even just a dragonfly, but of everything on Earth, I dreamed of being an amoeba, one living on the bottom of the pond beside which I was camping.

“I”, the amoeba, had climbed up the stem of a bulrush, a “Stairway to Heaven” in amoeba lingo, for the pond was my universe, the realm beyond which being “Heaven”.

I was pushing as hard as I could to penetrate the water/air barrier, in vain. Finally, in frustration, exhaustion and resignation, I began my dispirited descent back down to my bottom-feeding, amoeba-eat-amoeba existence, when I heard, “Can I help you?”

I sensed the presence of a huge heavenly being attached to the Stairway just above me. Despite its size, it seemed benign, and I felt safe.

“I’m trying to go to Heaven,” I said, without shame. “I’m glad you’ve failed, since you would have died had you succeeded.” “Died? Of what?”
“Exposure to dry air.”
“Who are you?”
“My name is Raminothna.”
“What are you?” “I am an egg.”
“What is an egg?”
“An egg is a single cell that will develop into a multicellular organism.”
“What is a multicellular organism?”
“In the present context, it is something that, unlike you, can go to your Heaven – without dying in the process.” “I want to go! I’m tired of my mundane amoeba-eat-amoeba existence. I want to
transcend to a higher realm and live with the gods!”
“I can appreciate the sentiment, but I’m afraid you are going about it the wrong
way,” said the egg without condescension. But I took it another wrong way. “Oh yeah? Well, if you know the right way, why are
you still stuck in here, eh? At least I have my freedom of movement, unlike you!”
“I will be out of this pond before the next full moon.”
“You are quite sure of yourself, aren’t you?” “I know what will happen.”
“So, what will happen?
“INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE.”
“Trying to intimidate me with big words?”
“Tell me. How do you reproduce?”
“That’s a bit personal, do you mind?”
“You did ask.”
“Okay, I reproduce asexually, if you must know, by dividing into two, then two into four, four into eight, eight into sixteen, and so on. How about you?”
“The same.”
“So, what’s the difference?”
“You are a single cell and I’m a single cell, but the difference lies in how we reproduce, and how our descendants will behave.”
“How?”
“Tell me. Are your descendants detached or attached to each other?”
“Detached. And might I proudly add, they have unrestricted freedom of movement as I do.”
“Are they differentiated from or identical to each other?”
“Identical.“
“Are they mutually competitive or cooperative?”
“Mutually competitive – for food, bacteria mostly, paramecium when encountered, if not other amoebae. And what about your descendants? Are they detached or attached?”
“They are attached to each other.”
“So they can’t crawl about as I can?”
“No, by and large, they cannot.”
“So, they don’t even have the freedom of individual movement? Then I don’t see how you can help me.

“Here is how. Unlike your descendants, who are generalized and competitive, mine will be specialized and cooperative. They will be differentiated in relation to each other, structurally, physiologically, functionally and behaviorally. And though they have limited individual freedom, they will give rise to and share a discontinuously higher level of collective freedom.”

“I have no idea what you are talking about.”
“Let me explain. Some of my descendants will become eyes so all can see the divine sights of your Heaven. Others will become legs so all can walk with gigantic strides. Some will form an exoskeleton so all can live in the rarified atmosphere beyond this pond. Still others will become wings so all can fly in the heavenly winds, not just from pond to pond, but clear over the mountain, not at your amoebal speed of a meter per day, but at 100 kilometers per hour. A quantum leap in power if you’ve ever imagined one.”
“Wow! What kind of a god-in-heaven would that make?!” “A dragonfly, of which I am an egg.”

That same evening, beside that same pond, I lay down on the warm earth to do some star-gazing. R: What are you doing?
I: I’m looking up at the stars. In your terms, I’m using my eyes for the Earth to look outward with. R: Better put would be the Earth looking outward through your eyes. And considering that you are an integral part of Earth, your eyes are Earth’s eyes. I: In this  perspective, it is quite frightening. I’m just a tiny part of an egg floating around in deep, cold, dark space, not knowing even where the nearest egg to me is. R: What is the nearest star out there that you can see with your naked eyes?
I: That would be Proxima Centauri, right over there by Alpha Centauri, 4.24 light- years away.
R: And what is the farthest non-stellar  object you can see with your naked eyes?
I: That would have to be a galaxy, but only one. My naked eyes can see only the galaxy nearest our own, and the brightest one in the Local Group, and that is the one-trillion- stars-strong Andromeda Galaxy, 2.54 million light years away.
R: Beyond the Andromeda  galaxy, what do you see?
I: With my naked eyes? Nothing, nothing but a dark bottomless void.
R: And what does an amoeba in the pond perceive?
I: It might have a light-sensitive organelle for it to tell day from night. It might have a heat sensitive organelle as well to help determine its direction of travel, or maybe an acidity sensor as well. But in terms of fine focused perception, it would be taste and touch. By “taste” I mean its ability to detect molecules in the water exuded perhaps by a fleeing prey, say a bacterium, and by “touch” I mean physical  contact, both being in the millimeter range at most.
R: So, your maximum radius of focused unaided perception is 2.54 million light  years and that of an amoeba is less than 1 millimeter. I: Quite a quantum leap, as you say.
R: In Power and Awareness.

 

*  *  *  *   *  *

 

Ch. 3 – Beyond the SUPERORGANISM Concept

 

The Superorganism is not some physically incoherent monster in some 20th Century sci fi. The idea of the superorganism was a  serious scientific concept advanced in 1911 by entomologist William Morton Wheeler and his team of social insect researchers.

In the 20s and the 30s, it was all the rage in and out of academia. As of the 40s, however, it had begun to wane. By the 50s, it had by and large faded from the public consciousness, while in academia it had even fallen into some dispute, and even a degree of disrepute. One point of dispute stemmed from subsequent discoveries of less than 100% altruistic and even somewhat anti-social behavior in some members of insect societies which in Wheeler’s time had been regarded as having been perfected as animal societies. These were just jabs that stung, but the knock out blow was what some described as its “inability to lead to further insights” and “having no  predictive value”. But in hindsight, these further insights are in fact legion and almost ubiquitous – if the early critics knew where and how to look. It is in fact these “further insights” that have led to the founding of the OMNISCIENTIFIC COSMOLOGY.

Thus, the Superorganism, though not killed outright, was put into indefinite mental hibernation. However, there are also reasons as to why it captured the public’s imagination from the outset. Undeniably, it is a fascinating concept, perhaps a little too fascinating were one to regard it as sci-fi fantasy.

So, for those readers not already familiar with the Superorganism, I will bring them back to its scientific root in 1911, when Wheeler, trained in classical biology, applied its “test of the 7 Vital Functions” to ascertain that a termite mound, or an ant hill, or a wasp nest, or a bee hive, is a bona fide living organism. But since a termite mound is composed of termites, which are living organisms, he called the mound itself a SUPER-organism.

I see enough potential importance in the Superorganism concept I am willing to bring it out of hibernation, or better yet, recreate it as Wheeler et al once created it, or as I myself once did while solo camping in Africa well before I had even heard of the term  “Superorganism”. My path of reasoning and Wheeler’s, though separated by decades, would likely be very similar. I will invoke my “cosmic mentor” Ramanathan to facilitate the thinking in dialogue format .

The open savanna is dotted with widely spaced acacia trees and what appeared to be sandstone spires of various statures, some looking as if just budding from the ground and others towering over ten feet tall. Amongst the trees and spires roamed predators and prey.

Ramanathan suggested that I take a “mental video” of the scene covering one millennium, and play it back in the time-lapse mode in one minute.

In play back mode, the animals moved too fast to be individually discernible, but are instead vaguely perceptible as a ground hugging probability fog. Strangely enough, what do look animated are the trees – sprouting from the ground, rising in stature, widening in  shade, exhibiting annual flowering flashes, then toppling over, all within seconds. Unexpected and quite stunning are the “sandstone spires”, which behaved almost exactly like the trees – sprouting from the ground, rising in stature, widening in girth, exhibiting annual mating flashes, then rapidly eroded back down to the ground, all within seconds. If a tree is a living organism, then by all appearances so were the “sandstone spires”

As I settled back into normal time and space, I recognized the spires for what they were – termite “mounds”, of the termite species Macromeres natalensis to be specific.

Conventional thinking intrudes and I said to Ramanathan: A termite mound may look like an organism and even behave like one, but is it really, I mean scientifically speaking, a bona fide organism?

Ramanathan suggested to put one of them through classical biology’s Seven Vital Functions test and see what it says.

The “Seven Vital Functions” test of classical biology is a low-tech 19th Century scientific means by which a test subject is determined to be a true organism or not, which remains valid to this day, so I did as suggested.

1. Respiration – Since the termites do breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, so then does the entire population of the termite society, so then the entire “mound”.

2. Nutrition – The mound ingests dead wood as a whole. By “as a whole” I mean not the individual termites ingesting dead wood, but the mound as an entity taking in dead wood from the surroundings brought in by its foraging workers. The termites themselves do not ingest wood. The dead wood brought in by the workers is chewed into a mulch by other workers, which serves as a substrate for growing a specific species of mushroom which the minor workers cultivate in the agricultural chambers inside the mound. It is the mushrooms that the termites ingest, not the dead wood. So, the food of the individual termites is the mushroom, but the food of the entire mound is dead wood. The mulching, the mushroom planting, tending and harvesting, the termites feeding upon the mushrooms, etc., can be seen as the internal metabolism of the society.

3. Excretion – Again, as in nutrition, there is a difference between the excretion of individual termites and the excretion of the entire society. The termite mound as a whole does expel waste material,  including exhausted wood mulch, dead termites, loose sand and miscellaneous debris, which are carried outside the mound by the  workers, and this is the excretion of the entire society as a whole. Of course the termites themselves excrete, but the excreta of  individual termites is used as mortar for building the mound and for cementing its internal partitions.

4. Awareness or Irritability – the ability of the mound to perceive its surroundings and respond to external stimuli. If it is attacked, by ants, say, it can defend itself with  its soldiers. If damaged by an ant-eater, it can repair itself by means of its major workers. It has the ability to regulate its own heat  exchange to maintain a constant core temperature regardless of external temperature fluctuations. This is done by the termites  building access tunnels down to the water table beneath the mound. When it is hot outside, the termites would descend the tunnels and bring up droplets of water which they would paste on to the partition walls to cool the nest by evaporation. When it is cold outside, the  termites would cluster together in central chambers to maintain a constant core temperature at the mound. Thus, the tower’s  awareness of its immediate environment and its capability of reacting to external changes, and to maintain homeostasis within itself  year round.

5. Movement – While a tree has a limited ability of movement, restricted to orientating the leaves in relation to the position of the sun, and in growing towards the light, a termite tower has the greater mobility of sending out hoards of workers, guarded by  troops of soldiers, to actively forage for food, i.e. dead wood, and in safeguarding the tower itself.

6. Growth – Again, there is a  difference between the termites and the mound. Obvious, each termite can grow, from when they emerged from their pupae to full size. But the growth of the termite society is in term of its termite population, and the grow of the mounds in terms of its stature and biomass.

7.  Reproduction – Again we have to differentiate between the reproduction of the termites and the reproduction of the mounds.  Reproduction of the termites is in fact growth of the society, whereas reproduction of the societies is in fact old societies giving rise to offspring societies, this older mounds giving rise to newer mounds.

So, now that I am convinced of the Organism status of the termite mounds, each being a termite society, I have a question. The termite tower is verifiably an organism and the termites themselves are indisputable organisms. So, is it a situation of organisms within organisms?

I: It is indeed a fascinating idea. Too bad this is all it’s led to.
R: Actually, it is a universal concept, so it leads to everywhere. The researchers just haven’t thought far enough, much less thought it through.

I: I actually consider Wheeler et al very insightful in seeing a sandstone spire as a living organism, singular, to begin with, but perhaps, according to you, not insightful enough to have gone beyond it, to where I have no idea.
R: If they did go beyond it, they would have  conceived not only the Superorganism concept, but the OMNISCIENTIFIC COSMOLOGY itself. Perhaps they left this task to you.

I: What? Ha! Funny. If they couldn’t, what makes you think that I can?
R: Your brain-capacity and theirs are about the same, but you have far more information and technology at your disposal, and you have me.

I: I have you? That would seem an unfair advantage, wouldn’t it? It would be like me playing chess against these guys when I’m the only player with a queen. I would take no pleasure, nor pride, in winning such a contest.
R: Are you here to find truth, or to prove how  smart you are? I could take the queen off your board and see if you could go beyond them under your own steam. You might. Give it a go. Forget about their interpretations. Start from facts; interpret them your own way.

I: Okay. Let’s see. The facts are that a termite is an organism, and a termite mound, which is a termite SOCIETY, is also an organism.  But a termite society is composed of termites. So, there are two levels of organisms – the termite level and the termite society level. In other words…
R: Excellent! You have just mentioned three magic words.

I: What magic words?
R: “Organism” is one.

I: “Society”?
R: Two.

I: “Level”?
R: Three. LEVEL is the magic word.

I: What’s so magical about it?
R: It displaces “SUPER”, thereby leading to further insights.

I: What is it that “Level” can do that “Super” cannot?
R: Good question.

I: And?
R: The termite and the termite mound, that is two levels of organisms in the termite line. Suppose there are five levels of organisms on  planet Earth, what would you call a top level organism?

I: A “Level 5 organism”?
R: Excellent. Now, in terms of the Superorganism concept, what would you call it?

I: I guess it would be a, let me see – one two three four – a “super-super-super-super- organism”?
R: You’re sure you didn’t miss one “super”?

I: Um, I don’t think so. But, yes, I see what you mean. Cumbersome to say the least, and unsystematic to boot. Assuming that there indeed are five levels of life on Earth of course.
R: For a great planet like yours, surely, you don’t think that there are only two levels of life, do you?

I: So far that I’ve seen in biology, or used to see, there are the Unicellular Organism and the Multicellular Organism – two levels of life in the entire evolutionary tree. But now, there is a third level of organism right before my eyes, in the form of the termite mounds. So, I guess there are three levels of life on this planet, at least.
R: Here comes the universality of the level-system.

I: Yes, I think I see it.  There could be any level of organization, there is only one formula. A Level- 4 organism would be an integrated society of social Level-3 organisms, and a Level-5 organism would be an integrated society of social Level-4 organisms. In both cases, the integrated society transcends up one level as an original organism of that higher level, which will become social and integrate into their own society which  will transcend as original organisms of the level above, and so on.
R: You  have just mentioned the two central and essential  words in the Omni scientific Cosmology.

I: The two new words I’ve introduced in my last comment are “integrate” and “transcend”.  And I can see why they would be of some importance in life in the universe.
R: Now create a two-word phrase that hit’s the cosmic bull’s eye.

I: Transcendental Integration?
R: Almost, but not quite.

I: Integrative Transcendence?
R: INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE it is.

I: I like the sound of it.
R: Now, let’s look inward and see where it leads us? So, when we look into a termite mound, what do we find?

I: Termites.
R: Look inside a termite and what do you see?

I: I see organs.
R: And inside an organ?

I: Tissues.
R: And inside a tissue?

I: Cells.
R: And inside a cell?

I: Organelles.
R: And inside an organelle?

I: Molecules.
R: And inside a molecule?

I: Atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons…
R: Are these living things on their own?

I: No, they are not.
R: So, what is the simplest of the above you would consider an organism?

I: A cell, or a unicellular organism.
R: Examples?

I: Well, there are two types of unicellular organisms – Prokaryotes’, cells without nucleus, e.g. a bacterium, and Eukaryotes’, cells with nucleus, e.g. an amoeba.
R: What type of cells are the termite body-cells?

I: They are eukaryotes’. Their white blood corpuscles even look and behave like amoebae; come to think of it, so do mine. Actually there are also prokaryotes’ in the termite body and mine – associated bacteria living inside the gut of termites of wood-ingesting species, in  aid to their digestion of cellulose.
R: Any question’s?

I: I do have a question. No doubt a free living amoeba is a unicellular organism. But what about a cell in the body of a multicellular organism, like a muscle cell inside a termite? Can it be called an organism? Conventionally, the body cell of a multicellular organism, like a liver cell of my body, is referred to as just a cell, not an organism.
R: How about you?

I: What about me?
R: Do you call yourself an organism?

I: Of course I call myself an organism.
R: Do you live alone out in the wilderness or live in a city as a functional specialized part of it?

I: I love the wilderness, but live in a city as a functional specialized part of it.
R: Like a worker or soldier termite in a termite mound?

I: Pretty much.
R: How about a butterfly? Is it an organism?

I: Of course it is.
R: And a dragonfly?

I: Same..
R: How about a bee?

I: Same, as are wasps, ants and termites. They are all organisms, just some are nonsocial and others social. I know where You’re going. The main essential difference between a butterfly and a bee is that a butterfly is nonsocial and a bee is social. As I belong to a social species and am a member of a society and am still considered an organism, though narrowed downed to a social organism, the point  then is that so should a termite be considered an organism, though narrowed down to a social organism who is a member of its society.  And likewise, down on the Cellular level, so should a termite cell in a termite be considered an organism, though narrowed down to a  social cellular organism, given that the body of a termite is a society of its own cells, or rather a society of its own social cellular  organisms. They are all organisms, just on different levels of organization, and on different sides on the social divide.
R: Enough “further insight” for one day?

T: More than expected, that’s for sure.

 

*  *  *  *  *

Ch. 4 – 4 Levels of Life on Earth + the 5th

 

R: Leave these termite mounds on this plain for ten thousand years and what will happen?
I: Ten thousand years? All kinds of things can happen. The entire plain could be obliterated by an asteroid, or a nuclear bomb.

R: Barring such calamities?
I: Well, ten thousand years is a long time, but not long enough to show any major evolutionary change in the termites if any. I suppose the plain will look pretty much the same as it does now, and as it has for millions of years.

R: So, no changes in the termite mounds?
I: Not that I can see, even if the time span were a million years. We’re talking about biological changes based on genetic mutation  screened by natural selection. That would take even longer.

R: No problem. Now, what if the plain were a thousand times larger, and instead oF hundreds of termite mounds. There were ten sovereign walled CITY-STATES?
I: Hm. Now that would be a different matter altogether.

R: In what way?
I: Well, I expect the city-states to interact with each other, good and bad.

R: On the bad side?
I: There could be raiding, slave-taking, warfare, conquest, even mutual destruction.

R: And on the good side?
I: The city-states could wage peace among themselves, and retire their armies. There could be specialization and cooperation among  the cities (no longer city states), including trade, cultural exchange, technological sharing, even amalgamation.

R: Amalgamation? Into what?
I: A multi-cultural civilization. A multi-city NATION.

R: And how do you define “city” and “nation”?
I: A CITY is a society of its SOCIAL METAZOAN ORGANISMS (the humans), which has become a CITIAN ORGANISM, and a NATION is a society of its SOCIAL CITIAN ORGANISMS – its specialized and cooperative cities.

R: So, how many levels of life do we  have now?
I: The first level of life on Earth is the unicellular CELLULAR Level; the second level of life on Earth is the multicellular METAZOAN Level; the third level of life on Earth is the CITIAN Level (“Citi an” derived from “City”), and the fourth level of life on Earth is the NATIONAL level of organization, where the organisms are the nations, or National Organisms.

R: Any further insights?
I: The fifth level of life on Earth? If it exists.

R: What do you think?
I: I think it can potentially exist, but does not exist yet, not on this planet anyway.

R: Why do you say that?
I: Well, a fourth level organism is a nation, then a fifth level organism would be a multilevel integrated society of social nations. Now, an organism that is a society of social nations? It’s got to be huge. And I haven’t seen it yet.

R: Huge? How huge?
I: As huge as the planet itself maybe, or should I say “at least”.

R: So what would you call such a fifth level organism?
I: If it is as big as the planet itself, I would call it a PLANETARY ORGANISM.

R: Going back to the termites, what do you have to say about them now?
I: I’d say that the termite-based society – the termite mounds – cannot become specialized and cooperative among themselves the way the human-based cities can, and thus cannot form a super-society of termite-based societies, or, in the superorganism lingo, they cannot form a super organism.

R: So, that’s it for the termite line?
I: I’d say that Level 3, the Cation Level, is the TRANSCENDENCE LIMIT of the termite species.

R: And where do you think is the  transcendence limit of the human species, pray tell?
I: Let’s hope it won’t be Level 4. R: Up to you, dear Homo Sapiens.

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Ch. 5 – The O.S.E.S. Cycle

 

When I was a child of about 13, studying the Catechism late into the night for my Form-1 final exam at the famous Irish-Jesuit-run Wah Yan College in Kowloon, Hong Kong, I was sidetracked by a new book I chanced upon in a secular book store, titled [Life in the Universe]. This at once fascinated me and I read page-1 right in the bookstore, but by page-2, I had begun feeling I was biting into a forbidden fruit, which I think impelled me to buy the book, but by The End, I was left with more questions than answers. And now, decades later, I advance two words as my contribution: INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE, and in the world of acronyms, I contribute one: OSES.

OSES is short for Organismization, Speciation, Ecosystemization and Societization. As represented in the following diagram, they each occupy one quadrant of the OSES Cycle on any level of organization.

Schematically speaking:
1. At 12 o’clock, a society on Level (x-1) becomes an organism on Level (X), thus, Organismization,
2. At 3 o’clock, the original Level (x) species evolves into a broad range of species to fit the changing local environments into and out of which they migrate, thus, Speciation.
3. At 6 o’clock, given enough species, ecosystems will be formed, thus Ecosystemization, from  which, given more time, social species will rise. 4. At 9 o’clock, the social species will build societies, thus, Societization. the most  advanced of which, at 12 o’clock, will become the original organism of Level (X+1)

 

Inevitably, at some point, we’d realize that OSES is not a true cycle. When complete, it does not return to the same starting point, but will arrive at the same point, but one level higher. It is not a real cycle, but is one 360-degree segment of the universal SPIRAL of INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE, the IT Spiral for short…

 

*  *  *  *

 

Ch. 6 – MULTILEVEL EVOLUTION

 

Evolution, like the creatures it works on, is multileveled.
On Level-Zero, the MOLECULAR LEVEL, there is MOLECULAR EVOLUTION, where simple non-social molecules (e.g. CO2, H20), evolve into complex social molecules, and finally, where the specialized social molecules form their own MOLECULAR SOCIETY which eventually integrative transcend into the first (uni)CELLULAR ORGANISM. What created the cellular organism from the molecules is not evolution; it is INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE. Evolution does not cross levels, only Integrative Transcendence does.

Evolution does not cross levels, only Integrative Transcendence does. On Life Level 1, the CELLULAR LEVEL, there is CELLULAR EVOLUTION, where primitive (uni)CELLULAR ORGANISMs evolve into advanced cellular organisms, where generalized NONSOCIAL CELLULAR ORGANISMS evolve into specialized SOCIAL CELLULAR ORGANISMS, and finally, where the specialized social cellular organisms build their own CELLULAR SOCIETY, which then integrative transcend into the first multicellular METAZOAN ORGANISM. What created the metazoan organism from the cellular organism is not evolution; it is INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE. Evolution does not cross levels, only Integrative Transcendence does.

On Level 2, the METAZOAN LEVEL, there is METAZOAN EVOLUTION, where primitive (multicellular) METAZOAN ORGANISMs (e.g. worms) evolve into advanced metazoan organisms (e.g. humans), where generalized NONSOCIAL METAZOAN ORGANISMs evolve into specialized SOCIAL METAZOAN ORGANISMs, and finally, where the specialized social metazoan organisms build their own METAZOAN SOCIETY, which then integrative transcend into the first multi metazoan CITIAN ORGANISM. What created the CITIAN organism from the metazoan organism is not evolution; it is INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE.

On Level 3, the CITIAN LEVEL, there is CITIAN EVOLUTION, where primitive multimetazoan CITIAN ORGANISMs (e.g. wasp nests, termite mounds, Massey villages) evolve into complex cation organisms (e.g. high tech cities like Vancouver), where generalized NONSOCIAL CITIAN ORGANISMs evolve into specialized SOCIAL CITIAN ORGANISMs, and finally where the specialized social  cation organisms build their own CITIAN SOCIETY, which then integrative transcend into the first militician NATIONAL  ORGANISM. What created the national organism from the cation organism is not evolution; it is INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE.

On Level 4, the NATIONAL LEVEL, there is NATIONAL EVOLUTION, where primitive militician NATIONAL ORGANISMs (e.g. the Mesopotamian Empire) evolve into advanced technological national organisms (e.g. US, China, Canada, Russia), where generalized
NONSOCIAL NATIONAL ORGANISMs (e.g. North Korea), given time, could evolve into specialized SOCIAL NATIONAL ORGANISMs, and finally where the specialized social national organisms build their own MULTINATIONAL SOCIETY, which could then integrative transcends into the first multinational PLANETARY ORGANISM. What created the planetary organism from the national organisms is not evolution; it is INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE.

R: Go on.
I: In addition, there is something fascinating about the way of evolution on the higher levels (Level-3+) which is about as different from the way of evolution on the lower levels as, may I say, the LAMARCKIAN THEORY of evolution from the DARWINIAN THEORY.

R: Glad you noticed it. But you’ll have to explain this to your species.
I: Well, resorting back to the classical giraffe-neck analogy, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck and Charles Darwin had different explanations as to how the giraffe’s long neck came to be. Lamarck’s  explanation was that by the giraffes reaching for higher branches, they lengthen their necks incrementally, the result of which he  believed to be heritable from generation to generation. In contrast, Darwin’s explanation was that as in the siblings of a human family who have slightly different heights, the giraffe siblings have slightly different neck lengths. Statistically, those with longer necks have a higher probability of survival to propagate their longer-necked gene. In this contest, which is focused on the metazoan organisms (the giraffes), Darwin was the winner. However, things look very different on the Cation and the National levels. The Darwinian theory still  holds true for the insect societies, but not as much for the human societies. In a human society, the changes accumulated in its lifetime is heritable, and would be inherited by its offspring.

R: Give an example for the human case.
I: Well, let me go on to the national level. Take Britain as a national organism. It has evolved over the centuries – from absolute monarchy to a 2-party constitutional parliamentary monarchy.

Meanwhile, she gave rise to 4 offspring: USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. While Canada, Australia and New Zealand inherited Britain’s constitutional monarchy model of government, the USA mutated into a republic. Centuries later, if a space colony were created by the US on Mars, its inherited governmental system would be that of a republic, not of a constitutional monarchy. Thus, the Lamarckian theory prevails on the National level for human-based National organisms, as it does on the Cation level for humans-based Cation organisms (e.g. ancient Rome to modern-day Rome), whereas Darwinian evolution prevails on the Cellular level, the Metazoan level and the non-human side of the Cation level, though the Darwinian “survival of the fittest”, amongst nonsocial Cation organisms  (ancient city states), as well as the most advanced of technological national organisms (US, China), still persists

R: Good for the planet Earth, but “non-human” is too exclusive if applied to the universe at large. There could be planets with very advanced civilizations where humans do not exist.
I: I stand corrected. Let me rephrase. Instead of “the non-human side of the Cation level “, I’d say “that side of the Cation level where the Cation organisms have reached their Transcendence Limit”, as exemplified by the insect societies on planet Earth.

R: That is fine.
I: And I have one more observation on Evolution to make. Multilevel evolution can occur within a single organism simultaneously. Take me, a Metazoan organism, for example. My body cells – in our lingo my social cellular organisms – can evolve on the Cellular level. This occurs by cellular mutation, most of which harmful, some heritable, but the few that happen to be beneficial can also be inherited by my offspring, if I have any. At the same time, being a Metazoan organism, the metazoan body can also evolve in the statistical sense, e.g. length of neck for the giraffe. Finally, I am also a “cell” in the Cation organism to which I belong, and therefore participate in Cation evolution. And finally, being a citizen of a country, I participate in that country’s evolution, and perhaps also  destiny, on the National Level of Organization.

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Ch. 7 – Interlevel Parallelism

 

R: So, the Superorganism concept has no predictive value?
I: I didn’t say that. They did.

R: And what do you say?
I: I say that it’s the blind telling the blind, and even the sighted, that there is nothing to see. I see things and phenomena in parallel from level to level and in common amongst all levels, if not in specifics then in essence. So if we understand one aspect of one level, we should be able to understand a similar aspect on another level. We may even be able to predict these aspects on higher levels not yet in existence, and even some of their essential properties. I call these predictable similarities “Interlevel Parallelisms”.

R: Name some of these interlevel parallelisms.
I: Sure. Interlevel parallelism #1 has got to be the presence of NONSOCIAL and SOCIAL ORGANISMS on all mature levels. By “mature” I mean levels that have been in existence for long enough to have given rise to social species. When a new level first integrative transcends into being, its organisms are all nonsocial, but sooner or later, social species would evolve from them. Thus, on the Molecular level, there are NONSOCIAL MOLECULES (molecules not inside Cellular organisms), and SOCIAL MOLECULES (molecules inside Cellular organisms, contributing to their internal metabolism). On the Cellular level,  there are NONSOCIAL CELLULAR ORGANISMS (e.g. paramecium, bacteria) and SOCIAL CELLULAR ORGANISMS (e.g. cells inside a Metazoan organism). On the Metazoan level, there are NONSOCIAL METAZOAN ORGANISMS (e.g. butterflies, tigers, orangutans) and SOCIAL METAZOAN ORGANISMS (e.g. termites, lions, humans). On the Cation level, there are NONSOCIAL CITIAN ORGANISMS (e.g. termite towers) and SOCIAL CITIAN ORGANISMS (human-based cities. e.g. Vancouver). On the National level, there are NONSOCIAL NATIONAL ORGANISMS (e.g. North Korea) and SOCIAL NATIONAL ORGANISMS (e.g. South Korea).

R: Good for Interlevel Parallelism #1. And Interlevel Parallelism #2?
I: For #2, I would nominate MULTILEVEL EVOLUTION. As discussed earlier, evolution occurs on all levels simultaneously. On Level-0, the Molecular level, there is MOLECULAR EVOLUTION. On Level-1, the Cellular level, there is CELLULAR EVOLUTION. On Level-2, the Metazoan level, there is METAZOAN EVOLUTION. On Level-3, the Cation level, there is CITIAN EVOLUTION. And on Level 4,  the National level, there is NATIONAL EVOLUTION. And if Level 5, the Planetary level, ever integrative transcends into being on this planet, there will be PLANETARY EVOLUTION as well, not referring to any geological upheaval, but the sociobiology of Planetary  Organism Earth. And likewise I presume for the even higher levels of life in the greater universe wherever they exist.

R: And Interlevel Parallelism #3?
I: For parallelism #3 I would nominate ORGANs in organisms on all levels. There are organelles in Cellular organisms, body organs in Metazoan organisms, city organs on the Cation organisms and national organs in National organisms. And if the Planetary Organism Earth does come into being, it too will have planetary organs, in whatever form they will take.

R: And Interlevel Parallelism #4?
I: It seems to me that when organisms form societies, SPECIALIZATION-&- COOPERATION are always involved. Conversely, an organism, being a society of the organisms on the level below, harbor specialization and cooperation within itself. So I’m talking about specialization and cooperation within organisms and societies on all levels. In other words, within the very core of each and everyone of us is the built-in essence of specialization-&-cooperation, which can be externalized when we build our societies. Even on the  Molecular level, different molecules inside a Cellular organism perform specialized functions and cooperate with each other, with or  without intent, as integral parts of the functional whole. On the Cellular level, social Cellular organisms of the same Cellular society are specialized and cooperative (e.g. the lung cells and the heart cells of the same Metazoan organism). On the Metazoan level, the social  Metazoan organisms in a Metazoan society are specialized and cooperative, be they termites or humans. On the Cation level, the social  Cation organisms of the same National organism specialize in diverse ways (e.g. Detroit in automobile manufacturing and Kansas City  in food production), both contributing to the productivity, growth and economy of national organism USA. On the National level, social National organisms are specialized and cooperative in relation to each other in the global material supply and economy.

R: And Interlevel Parallelism #5?
I: We cannot forget the O.S.E.S. Cycle, with its four quadrants of Organismization, Speciation, Eco systemization and Socialization on all levels.

R: And for interlevel parallelism #6 – the most cosmic one of all?
I: INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE on all levels, the IT Spiral from beginning to end.

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Ch. 8 – GEO-EMBRYOLOGY

 

Where there is a developing egg, there is within it a developing embryo. Since in this book the Earth is said to be a developing planetary egg, it implies that it has a developing PLANETARY EMBRYO, or the GEO-EMBRYO when referring specifically to the planetary  embryo of Planet Earth.

I: So, what part of Earth is its Geo-Embryo? By appearance, a chicken egg has a shell, and Earth’s crust, the Lithosphere, appears to be a “shell”. So, where exactly on or in planet Earth does its Geo-Embryo reside? In the chicken egg analogy, Earth’s Geo-Embryo would be somewhere enclosed by the Lithosphere, which means… what? The Bar sphere? The Mantle? A place so hot the rocks are in liquid form? No. Can’t be. It’s got to be somewhere within the Biosphere. After all, the Biosphere is the sphere of life.
R: The Biosphere, yes, but not “within”.
I: The Geo-Embryo is not within the Biosphere? You mean outside of it?
R: No. I mean that the Geo-Embryo is the Biosphere.
I: In its entirety? R: And vice versa.
I: You mean that the Geo-Embryo is the Biosphere?
R: And vice versa.
I: What about the rest of the planet – its other spheres?
R: What else are in a chicken egg other than the embryo itself?
I: The “yolk” and the “white”.
R: And what are they for?
I: For providing the developing embryo with the basic ingredients of life.
R: And what do these other spheres of Earth provide for its Biosphere?
I: Oxygen from the Atmosphere, water from the Hydrosphere, minerals and fuels from the Lithosphere, geothermal energy from the Bar sphere, and magnetic energy from the Pyrophore. So these other spheres are for  providing the basic ingredients of life to the Geo-Embryo itself. And, come to think of it, the shell of the planetary egg is not the rock-hard crust of the Lithosphere, but the softer-than-water Atmosphere.

When the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago, it was nothing more sophisticated than a gravitationally sorted mass of atoms and simple inorganic molecules, one completely devoid of life, with no level of organization higher than Level-Zero, that of the Molecular Level. The following four paragraphs will be excruciatingly repetitive to read through, and you don’t have to read through them, as long as you know the point of the repetitions.

On Level-0, the molecules underwent Origination, Speciation, Eco systemization and Socialization – the O.S.E.S. Cycle – on the Molecular Level of the I.T. Spiral, where the NONSOCIAL MOLECULES gave rise to the SOCIAL MOLECULES which then created the MOLECULAR SOCIETY, which then completed itself as the first Level-1 CELLULAR ORGANISM – about 3.5 billion years ago.

On Level-1, the Cellular organisms underwent Organismization, Speciation, Eco systemization and Socialization – the O.S.E.S. Cycle – on the Cellular Level of the I.T. Spiral, where the NONSOCIAL CELLULAR ORGANISMS gave rise to the SOCIAL CELLULAR ORGANISMS which then created the CELLULAR SOCIETY, which then completed itself as the first multicellular Level-2 METAZOAN
ORGANISM – about 800 million years ago.

On Level-2, the Metazoan organisms underwent Organismization, Speciation, Eco systemization and Socialization – the O.S.E.S. Cycle – on the Metazoan Level of the I.T. Spiral, where the NONSOCIAL METAZOAN ORGANISMS gave rise to the SOCIAL  METAZOAN ORGANISMS which then created the METAZOAN SOCIETY, which then completed itself as the first multimetazoan Level-3 CITIAN ORGANISM – about 120 million years ago.

On Level-3, the Citian organisms underwent Organismization, Speciation, Eco systemization and Socialization – the O.S.E.S. Cycle – on the Citian Level of the I.T. Spiral, where the NONSOCIAL CITIAN ORGANISMS gave rise to the SOCIAL CITIAN ORGANISMS which then created the CITIAN SOCIETY, which then completed itself as the first militician Level-4 NATIONAL ORGANISM – about 10,000 years ago for human-based nations.

On Level-4, the National organisms underwent Organismization, Speciation, Eco systemization and Socialization – the O.S.E.S. Cycle – on the National Level of the I.T. Spiral, where the primitive NONSOCIAL NATIONAL ORGANISMS gave rise to the SOCIAL  NATIONAL ORGANISMS which then may create the NATIONAL SOCIETY, which then may complete itself as the multinational Level-5 PLANETARY ORGANISM – if/when it happens.

Speaking of Earth being a planetary egg, starting as a Level-0 inorganic molecular mass, undergoing five OSES Cycles on its IT Spiral, and emerging as an iteratively transcended Level-5 PLANETARY ORGANISM, we might consider Earth’s five OSES Cycles as the five stages of GEOEMBRYONIC METAMORPHOSIS of the Geo-Embryo. So far, the atoms and molecules of the planet originated at the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago; Level-1, the Cellular level, arose about 3.5 billion years ago; Level-2, the Metazoan Level, arose about 800 million years ago; Level-3, the Cation Level, arose about 120 million years ago when the social insects formed their early societies; and Level- 4, the National Level, arose just 10,000 years ago along the human line, and possibly 15 million years ago if the whales formed a global society. Seems like an exponential series to me, with a factor of about 6. The sense of acceleration is palpable. And the Geo-Embryonic Metamorphic Schedule appears relentless.

And if according to Earth’s original physical and chemical properties the final metamorphic stage is due a decade or century or millennium from now, and since the Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago, then we can safely say that the Geo-Embryonic Gestation Period of the Geo-Embryo is about 4.6 billion years.

So what if Geo-Embryo Earth fails to meet this deadline, whenever exactly it will be? The Level-4 militician NATIONAL ORGANISMS are the life forms that will decide the fate of the Earth and make or break the Geo-Embryo’s quest to become a Level-5 multinational  PLANETARY ORGANISM. If the quest is broken, the National organisms will be the first to pay the price by themselves dying first. The Geo-Embryo itself will die, and life on Earth will die back by at least two levels of organization, if not three.

If down by two levels, then the highest level of life remaining on Earth would be the Metazoan level, and at that only the hardy,  generalized and primitive life forms such as insects and worms would still prevail. If down by three levels, then remaining would be  only the Cellular organisms, maybe nothing more advanced than bacteria. Life on Earth would regress by hundreds of millions of years. And the humans? They would likely have gone extinct along with the other advanced metazoan organisms, leaving the world to the cockroaches and rodents.

The Earth could be considered lucky if rodents could remain, because then it still would have a foundational mammalian stock from which higher mammals and social mammals could re-evolve. If only cockroaches could remain, the social insects may yet reappear given a hundred million years or so, but for the higher mammals, not to mention the social mammals, to re-evolve from worms rather than rodents, it will take more time than the Earth will have. And since the transcendence limit for social insects and their societies is only the Cation level – Level 3 – there would be little hope for National organisms to reappear on Earth before the Sun burns out five billion years.

And since it is the National organisms that will make or break the Geo-Embryo’s quest to become a Planetary Organism, there would be no national organism there to break it again, much less making it to begin with. The planet Earth would just be a mindless sphere orbiting in the habitable zone of the Sun, dotted with termite mounds and bee colonies and crawling with cockroaches and their kin.

So, what is entailed in a planetary-embryo dying? No, it does not involve life on Earth being totally eradicated. The biosphere will remain, just without the National organisms. There will still be Cellular organisms on Level-1, Metazoan organisms on Level-2 and Cation organisms on Level-3, likely involving mass extinctions especially on the Metazoan level, and just no technologically advanced National organisms because they are the ones to have broken the Planetary integrative transcendence of the Earth.

Much detail will depend on how the Geo-Embryo would die if it does – the fast way or the slow way. The fast way is a full-scale GLOBAL NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST, and the slow way, relatively speaking, is RUNAWAY GLOBAL HEATING, both tragic, on which I need not elaborate. Enough of failure talk already. What about success? What does it take for the Geo-Embryo to become a Planetary Organism? A three-step process by
1. the National organisms building a society of nations, and
2. by this society organism zing into the Planetary organism, and
3. global disarmament.

#3 is With reference to the INTERLEVEL PARALLELISM stating that there are ORGANS in every organism on every level, amongst which being the absence of mutual defense mechanisms. Applying this to the Planetary Level, the PLANETARY-ORGANISM-to-be will have PLANETARY ORGANS which are specialized-&-cooperative NATIONAL ORGANISMS, amongst which, according to the said parallelism, there will be no mutual defense mechanisms. This refers to the various National level military forces which collectively cost humanity over $2 trillion a year.

This above means GLOBAL DISARMAMENT on the international level, which eliminates the specter of global nuclear holocaust once and for all, while the saved $2 trillion/year will be applied towards fighting runaway global heating, thus preventing both the fast way and the slow way of the Geo-Embryo’s potential demise in a single move.

In the global disarmament, there is no need to shut down the Military Industrial Complex, which will be repurposed for fighting climate change and for establishing a PLANETARY DEFENSE FORCE against external and internal threats such as asteroids and terrorism and, not least of all, whatever driving runaway global heating to begin with.

Likewise, there need be no mass lay offs of military personnel, who will be retrained for peaceful purposes.

And thus, the Geo-Embryo will have a chance to interactively transcend into Planetary Organism Earth, bearing in mind that the expiry date of Earth’s Geo-Embryonic Gestation Period lies some time in the future, far or near.

 

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Ch. 9 – The Planetary Organism

 

I was star gazing when I thought to Ramanathan, “So, what will happen to our Earth superorganism once it has iteratively transcended into being?”

R: I’m happy you’re now confident enough to dare look forward into the unknown, even the fate and destiny of your future greater self.
I: My future greater self? Wow, I didn’t really look at it that way.

R: How long have you been an integral part of the Geo-Embryo anyway?
I: Well, all my life, I guess, since I was born, or conceived.

R: As good a time as any to start taking stock of your future home domain.
I: My home domain? You mean the Earth-Moon System?

R: I mean the Solar System, in which the next OSES Cycle will unfold.
I: A logical yet amazing notion.

R: So, how large exactly is your home domain? Let’s start from the center. How far is the first planet from the Sun?
I: That would be Mercury. Distance from the Sun, according to my Astro podia , is 1.3 light-minutes.

R: And the planet Venus?
I: 2.3 light-minutes.

R: And the planet Earth?
I: About 5 light-minutes.

R: And the planet Mars?
I: About 13 light-minutes.

R: And Jupiter?
I: Jupiter, about 35 light-minutes; Saturn, about 1.18 light hours; Uranus, 2.52 light- hours; Neptune, 4.16 light-hours, and Pluto, 5.3 light-hours.

R: And how do these compare with the 1.03 light-second giant leap to the Moon for mankind?
I: Our first baby step. As I said, we have a long way to go. And now, a huge planetary system to explore, with a diameter of 10 light hours, on which scale the distance of the Earth to the Moon is only 1.03 light seconds.

R: The Solar System is where the National organisms of Earth will iteratively transcend into the new Planetary Organism Earth. The Solar System is where the newly organ smized Planetary Organism Earth will be born. It is where the O.S.E.S. Cycle on the Planetary level of organization will unfold. So, the Solar System is the realm of immediate relevance for the Planetary Organism Earth.
I: If the Solar System is the realm in which the next OSES Cycle of the IT Spiral will unfold, then it will end with the multiplanetary Stellar  organism Sol? An organism on the Stellar Level of Organization?

R: Yes. Like the planet Earth being a PLANETARY EGG, the Solar System is itself a STELLAR EGG, with the new PLANETARY ORGANISM Earth now being the nucleus of a new STELLAR EMBRYO, the SOL-EMBRYO, you might call it, one level higher than the GEO-EMBRYO or planetary egg Earth. The entire future endeavor of the new Planetary Organism Earth will be to bring about the integrative transcendence of the Solar System into the Solar-System-wide STELLAR ORGANISM Sol.

I: Sounds glorious on paper, but psychologically, it promises to be a lonesome quest. Consider this: On the National level, there are almost 200 national organisms occupying the planet’s surface with literally not a single square-inch unclaimed. The field, to put it mildly, is saturated, out of which however you would have a few allies. But here, at the opening of the Planetary level of awareness, from the point of first-person view of the new born Planetary Organism Earth, which refers to itself as “I” for the first time ever, I am the only planetary organism alive in the entire solar system, or perhaps even in multiple planetary systems within a radius of a hundred or a thousand light years in any direction. If not fear, it would at least be apprehension, and a very tangible and profound sense of loneliness.

R: I can understand the feeling. Just know that there may be developing planetary embryos by the millions in this galaxy alone, though not every one of them will succeed. Therefore, every single one that successfully transcends into a planetary organism is a cause for rejoicing at what you might call the galactic nursery.
I: The Galactic Nursery? Well, real or imaginary, the term does exude benevolence. It’s a comforting thought and a sweet sentiment. But the new infant planetary organism Earth asks, “So, now that I have become me – the new Planetary Organism Earth, What in  physical terms is going to happen to me? Since I am a brand new infant, who or what is going to keep me from harm, take me by the hand and guide me on my path wherever it may lead?”
R: It is what the Omni scientific Cosmology is for.”

*  *  *  *  *

 

Ch. 10 – IT in the Solar System

 

I: Sounds fascinating, but can it work? How does it work?
R: Why don’t you give it a try?
I: Okay. In the first quadrant – Organismization – which begins at “zero hour” when the Geo Embryo on the National level will  iteratively transcend into Planetary Organism Earth on the Planetary level. Once organismized, planetary organism Earth will  develop and evolve in terms of structure, complexity, sophistication, efficiency, power, science, technology, dynamics, aesthetics,  philosophy, internal harmony and harmony with the external universe, etc., etc. After some eons, it will reach maturity. Then what? Ah, yes, it will REPRODUCE, since reproduction is one of the Seven Vital Functions of any organism regardless of level of organization. And then what?

R: You’re on track. Yes, it will reproduce. By what means do you think?
I: I think that it would be the planting of Earth seeds on to other planets and their satellites, or in free space.

R: What would these Earth seeds be like?
I: I think they would be like the classical “space colonies”, wherever they may land, or, for those destined to live in free space, not land.

R: Translate the above in terms of the Omni scientific Cosmology.
I: I would consider the space colonies and spaceships as self-contained Cation organisms.

R: And what happens when they become established on other planets or satellites or in free space?
I: I think they will develop according to an algorithm written in its constitution specific to the physical parameters of its environment.

R: Develop – into what?
I: Into full-sized Cation organisms.

R: What will happen to these full-sized Cation organisms?
I: They themselves will reproduce, and evolve, and give rise to a range of offspring Cation organisms.

R: And what will happen to these offspring Cation organisms?
I: They will specialize and cooperate and iteratively transcend into National organisms themselves, unless that habitat is not big  enough for one, in which case I would think that these Cation organisms will join national organisms originated from else where.

R: And what will happen to these National organisms?
I: Like the previous National organisms on Earth, they will iteratively transcend into new Planetary-level organisms themselves.

R: And what will happen to these new Planetary organisms?
I: They will do what Planetary Organism Earth once did, and could still be doing – to spread their own seeds far and wide.

R: These “grandchildren” of Earth – would they be replicas of Earth?
I: Unlikely, almost definitely not.

R: Why not?
I: Because Earth’s children, planted on to other planets and satellites of the Solar System, or in interplanetary space, would evolve to fit their new un-Earth-like environment, and their “genome” would change from what they originally inherited from Earth. And when they give rise to their own offspring, it would be their own new “genome”, not Earth’s original one, that would be passed on to these  Earth’s grand children.

R: Is this mode of evolution Darwinian or LaMarckian?
I: LaMarckian. As I’ve pointed out before, evolution on the human side of the Cation level, and on the National level upward, including the Planetary level, would be Lamarckian. Unless there is fierce competition among Earth’s children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, etc., in which case it could also be Darwinian.

R: The evolutionary mode you’ve described appears to be asexual.
I: I’ve thought about this. Sexual reproduction, together with random mutation, is for producing a broad spectrum of genetic combinations for natural selection to act upon, leading to evolutionary changes, not within an organism’s own lifetime but between  generations. That is Darwinian evolution. On the other hand, given the organisms on the higher levels being able to change themselves intentionally to suit the environment within their own lifetimes, or even to change the environment to suit their own constitution, and that these changes are heritable and are inherited by their offspring, then it is Lamarckian evolution.

R: And what is the result of this Lamarckian evolution on the Planetary level?
I: I think that given enough changes in a planetary organism’s lineage, new PLANETARY SPECIES will emerge. This could be very fast, perhaps as fast as from one generation to the next, where a daughter could be of a different species than that of the mother.

R: And where in the OSES Cycle on the Planetary level are we now at?
I: Indeed, we’ve now entered the SPECIATION QUADRANT of the OSES Cycle on the Planetary level, almost inadvertently.

R: And how does human evolution work on the Planetary level?
I: As discussed before, evolution progressed on all levels simultaneously – Molecular, Cellular, Metazoan, Cation, National and Planetary. So, human evolution on the Metazoan level will still occur. But it would not be Lamarckian and would be much slower than the evolution of, say, the design of a self-contained spaceship, which would be a Cation organism, or the evolution of a National organism like China or the U.S.. Some would say that if the humans live on a high gravity planet, they would tend to be short and stout, whereas those living on a low gravity planet would tend to be tall and slender, but there would be no natural selection at work, and the tiniest change would take a long time to become manifest.

R: What level of technology do you think the planetary organisms would possess in terms of interplanetary communication, travel and transportation? For example, what would be the mode of propulsion of spacecraft, their speed and range?
I: You mean whether they would have superluminal speed via “warp drive”, ”worm hole” and the like? No, I doubt that. A Planetary organism may have experienced a quantum leap in power from the National level, but not by that much. On the National level today, the best we can do is very short range rocketry, counting on momentum to glide to distant destinations INSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM. After the quantum leap, the Planetary organism would still be on rocket propulsion, albeit much more advanced in terms of power, speed and range. In terms of speed, it could be very fast, perhaps even over 300,000 kilometers per hour, or over Mach-300, when Mach 2 is fast for a modern- day fighter jet, but light speed is 300,000 km PER SECOND. Communication-wise, I think that it will also still abide by the light speed limit. We’re talking about INTERPLANETARY travel and communication, i.e. within the Solar System, not INTERSTELLAR travel and communication, i.e. between planetary systems when superluminal speed would really be required.

R: Given enough time, how many Planetary organisms and Planetary species do you think there will be in the Solar System?
I: I don’t know. We know how many planets and their satellites there are in the Solar System, but I have no idea how many Planetary organisms and species would be established in interplanetary space. Maybe hundreds, maybe thousands. Considering the vastness of the Solar System, I’d say thousands.

R: Where in the O.S.E.S. Cycle on the Planetary level are you at now?
I: I’ve moved into the ECOSYSTEMIZATION quadrant, where life on the Planetary level has become a vast Solar-System-wide ecosystem of Planetary, National, Cation, Metazoan and Cellular organisms.

R: In what activities do the planetary organisms in the Solar System engage with each other?
I: Communication and transportation, mostly in terms of trade I suspect.

R: What does trade signify?
I: Specialization and cooperation. I can see those living in free space near the asteroid belt being major exporters of metals and minerals, for example. And some “agricultural colonies” in the inner orbits, where there us plenty of sunlight, may specialize in food production.

R: And what do specialization and cooperation lead to?
I: They would lead us into the fourth quadrant – SOCIETALIZATION – the formation of a Solar- System-wide MULTIPLANETARY SOCIETY. And the multi-planetary society shall perfect itself until, at 12 o’clock, when it will enter the first quadrant – ORGANISMIZATION – of the OSES Cycle of the level above the Planetary level.

R: And what would you call the level above the Planetary?
I: I would call it the STEL

R: And what would you call the iteratively transcended planetary system, such as your Solar System?
I: I would call it a STELLAR ORGANISM in general. In the specific case of the Solar System, I would call it the Stellar Organism sol.

 

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

 

Ch. 11 – I.T. in the Milky Way Galaxy

 

On Stellar Organisms (Life Level-6), Galactic Organisms (Level-9) and beyond:
When the Planetary Organism Earth (Level 5) iteratively transcends into being, it is born in the Solar System. When the Stellar Organism Sol iteratively transcends into being, it is born in one segment of a galactic arm in one sector of the Milky Way Galaxy.

These two intermediate levels we can call the SEGMENTAL Level (Level 7), with each SEGMENTAL ORGANISM occupying one small part of one small SEGMENT of a galactic arm, and the SECTORAL Level (Level 8), which each SECTORAL ORGANISM occupying one
small SECTOR of the galaxy containing thousands of Segmental organisms. On each level, as in all levels, are organisms, species, ecosystems and societies, where the societies on one level will iteratively transcend into a new organism on the level above.

The Milky Way Galaxy has up to 400 billion stars and their planetary systems. A Planetary Organism (Level 5) cannot jump straight up to become a Galactic organism (Level 9), just as a Cellular organism like an amoeba (Level 1) cannot jump straight up to become a Planetary organism (Level 5). There are four O.S.E.S. Cycles from the Cellular level (Level 1) to the Planetary level (Level 5). Likewise, a Planetary organism will have to go through four OSES Cycles to become a Galactic Organism (Level 9) in conjunction with all other organisms on all levels of the galaxy.

On the Stellar level (Level 6), the new Stellar Organism Sol (Level 6) will encounter a different situation than what the then new Planetary Organism Earth (Level 5) encountered eons before. For Earth, the Solar System is virgin territory. There are no extant planetary organisms in the Solar System to contend with. Not so for Stellar Organism Sol, who will be born in a segment of an arm in a sector of the galaxy which is already populated by older Stellar organisms (Level 6) and not-yet-organism zed STELLAR EMBRYOS. IN other words, a MULTI-STELLAR ECOSYSTEM may already be in existence, if not yet a MULTI- STELLAR SOCIETY, into either of which the new Stellar organism would be born.

It is entirely possible that such a multi-Stellar Society (Level 7) within the Segment in which Stellar Organism Sol is born has already organism zed into a SEGMENTAL ORGANISM (Level 7). When a Segmental Organism is born, it would be born in the galactic Sector in which the Segment, along with thousands of other galactic-arm Segments in the galactic Sector, is contained. Again, as for Stellar Organism Sol on the Segmental level, the new Segmental Organism may find itself born into an already established SEGMENTAL-level ECOSYSTEM, if not yet an organized SEGMENTAL-level SOCIETY. If the Segmental Society is advanced enough to have already organism zed, then it would have iteratively transcended into a SECTORAL ORGANISM(Level 8) – one of possibly hundreds of  thousands in the galaxy. Essentially the same for a Sectoral Organism.

The next higher level is the GALACTIC LEVEL of organization, Level 9. Question is: What quadrant of the OSES Cycle is the Sectorial level of the Milky Way Galaxy at? If there is already an established SECTORAL-level ECOSYSTEM, then the new Sectoral Organism will have to co- evolve with other extant Sectoral organisms. If there is already a multi-SECTORAL SOCIETY (Level 8), the Sectoral organisms/species will be its citizens. If the Sectoral Society (Level 8) has integrated enough to have transcended, then, there lives the GALACTIC ORGANISM Milky Way (Level 9).

And what would this Galactic Organism (Level 9) be like? It would have undergone not one, not two, not three, but four quantum leaps in power and awareness (e.g. in speed of communication and mode of travel, and superluminal technology involving worm holes and space-time compression, etc.) from when the Planetary Organism Earth integrative transcended from the warring National  organisms (Level 4) of the ancient 21st Century Earth (Level 5), if it will.

 

 

*   *   *   *   *

 

Ch. 12 – COSMIC ORGANISM Almighty

 

While I was still in the Solar System’s frame of reference, Ramanathan asked me, “The planet Mercury. How many levels of  organization does it have?”
I: Just one – Level 0 – the Molecular level.

R: And Venus and Mars?
I: Same.

R: And Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, and their satellites, if any?
I: The same – just one level of organization, the Molecular – as far as we know.

R: Did I miss any planet or satellite?
I: Yes. The planet Earth?

R: And your answer is?
I: Depends.

R: On?
I: The time in its history.

R: How about 4 billion years ago?
I: The Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The Cellular level did not arise until about 3.5 billion years ago. So, at 4 billion years ago, there would still be only the Molecular level, perhaps in its Eco systemization quadrant.

R: 3 billion years ago?
I: Two levels – the Molecular and the Cellular. And for the Moon, same as the rest – just one level, the Molecular.

R: 500 million years ago.
I: Since the Metazoan level arose at 800 million years ago PR there abuts, there would be 3 levels for Earth – the Molecular (Level 0), the Cellular Level (Level 1) and the Metazoan level (Level 2); for the Moon, just one level, the Molecular (Level 0)

R: 100 million years ago?
I: 4 levels for Earth by then – the Molecular (Level 0), the Cellular (Level 1), the Metazoan (Level 2)and the Cation (Level 3, pertaining to insect societies); for the Moon, just the same one level, the Molecular.

R: Today?
I: 5 levels for Earth – the Molecular (Level 0), the Cellular (Level 1), the Metazoan (Level 2), the Cation (Level 3) and the National (Level 4); for the Moon, just the same one level, the Molecular (Level 0).

R: And what if the Milky Way Galaxy has become iteratively transcended into a galactic organism (Level 9)?
I: If planet Earth were an integral functional part of this galactic organism, I would classify it as a Level 9 planet. But right now, as is, it is only a Level 4 National level planet. Almost Level 5, but not quite, with the understanding that “almost” won’t cut it when it comes to us running out of time in this our one and only try. May God not have set our TRANSCENDENCE LIMIT at Level 4.

R: God set your transcendence limit?
I: Figure of speech. I might say it about the termites, but not about humans.

R: Who set your limit then?
I: We do.

R: The Archive of Failed Planetary Eggs is filled with passed planets as beautiful as yours once-upon-a-time. Some call this archive the Hall of God’s Sorrow, where God is blamed time and again for setting the transcendence limit too low. I: Speaking of which, such an important subject to humanity, and we haven’t even mentioned it until now.

R: “It”?
I: God.

R: I thought we just did. In any case, We’re almost there. Um, where were we?
I: We were discussing the organismization of a GALACTIC ORGANISM (Level9) as I recall.

R: What then after that?
I: We haven’t got that far, but I’m thinking that since there are about as many galaxies in the universe as there are stars in a galaxy, the IT Spiral will go through three more OSES cycles above the Galactic level, all the way up to…

R: To what?
I: The universal COSMIC LEVEL of ORGANIZATION, Level 12 by my reckoning.

R: And the ultimate result will be?
I: Something of which the human mind has never ever before yet conceived.

R: And that is?
I: The universal COSMIC ORGANISM.

R: And there you have it.
I: My turn to ask. “It”?

R: Tell me. Where is this universal Cosmic Organism?
I: What do you mean “where”? It is everywhere. No matter where I am in the universe, I am inside of it. I’m inside of the Cosmos now. And, by your teaching, I am an integral part of it. So, for everyone and everything in the universe, the Cosmic Organism is right there.

R: This Cosmic Organism, is it conscious?
I: After 12 quantum leaps of consciousness, it’d better be. It must be. And it is.

R: How do you know that it is conscious?
I: I am an integral part of it, and I am conscious, therefore, it is conscious. And I am not the only one.

R: How much does it know?
I: Know? By definition it includes the knowledge contained in every library or database on every planet in every galaxy that have them, regarding everything there is to know. I would call this Cosmic Organism all-knowing.

R: And how powerful is it?
I: Well, referring back to the Quantum Leap in Power, considering that I am only one level (Level 2) higher than an amoeba (Level 1), while my power is almost infinitely greater than that of the amoeba, this Cosmic Organism (Level 12), being ten levels above me, can be
said to be all-powerful.

R: In Latin, what do you call all-present, all-knowing and all-powerful?
I: I would call it OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT and OMNIPOTENT. Oh my God!

R: Almost, but not quite. There are two differences between the universal Cosmic Organism and God. What are they?
I: I get it. The first difference between our Cosmic Organism and God is that whereas God is said to be our creator, our Cosmic organism did not create us; on the contrary, we are in process of co-creating it with all other life forms in the universe.

R: And two?
I: Two, there is nothing supernatural about this Cosmic Organism. It is all natural. The sun was an hour from rising. I was lying on the warm earth next to my still smoldering campfire gazing upward, no, outward at the stars. What I was experiencing was nothing short of an irreversible intellectual trauma. So, the universe, comprising 100 billion potential GALACTIC ORGANISMS, is itself itegratively  transcending into a single COSMIC ORGANISM as powerful as God is said to be. Should this power include the capability of generating  a new big bang somewhere outside of itself, thus creating a new universe in the Multiverse (Level 13) beyond? Our universe
becoming mature and reproducing, as it were. But the question remains regarding who or what generated the Big Bang that became this present universe of ours. Was it an older parental universe (by a few hundred billion years perhaps), a pre-existing cosmic organism elsewhere in the Multiverse? And what about the IT Spiral? Will it continue to ascend in the Multiverse realm? Is there a Level 13 OSES Cycle beyond our universe? Where does this all end? Oh, and since God has been invoked, how does the soul fit into this all but boundless cosmic framework? And finally, what is the purpose of it all? And Ramanathan said, “May the galactic nursery of the  Milky Way rejoice when this planetary egg of yours hatches on time, and out emerges the beautiful, strong and wise Planetary Organism Earth.”

 

 

*   *    *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

 

The Spiral of
INTEGRATIVE TRANSCENDENCE