18 April 2015

What Are We To Make Of Nassim Haramein?

Barnet Bain and Freeman Michaels, friends and colleagues, recently had renegade physicist Nassim Haramein appear on their interview program, “Cutting Edge Consciousness.”
After watching their show and reflecting on Nassim’s work once again, I found that I took issue with his methodology. It seemed that his cosmology, while poetically brilliant, lacks the support of the scientific community and the rigorous testing which goes along with it. I mentioned this in a blog I wrote a few years ago and brought it up on Facebook, to which Barnet replied, “Why is that a problem?”
In  the comments that followed I was accused of being closed-minded toward these ideas, because I simply asked that the formulas and equations Nassim uses as the basis of his theories be substantiated by a qualified mathematician or physicist.

My desire for substantiation is important because only in this way can we begin to unify what we classify as science and religion into what I have often written about as “Sacred Science” – a science in awe of the mystery of Being.  The absence of this sense of sacred has reduced science to what some call “Scientism” – a religion which worships data without context.

The Reality of Scientism

My favorite writer on this subject is Jacob Needleman, and specifically his classic philosophical work, “A Sense of the Cosmos.”
Needleman draws a wonderful distinction between information (which we worship as science) and truth (for which we may look to religion or deeper inspiration for answers). He describes the hubris of a surgeon who, in describing a function of the human body, refers to it as a “mistake” – as though he knows better than nature.  This is of course the same issue that is currently arising in genetics with what is called “junk DNA,” and even with consciousness – what we don’t know (factually) we dismiss as either unknowable or irrelevant.
“Scientism” is the dismissal by science of this issue and its pretense at an objective perspective – an issue that Nassim, Barnet, and Freeman rightly raise.
Needleman describes his reaction at seeing the image that serves as the cover of “A Sense of the Cosmos” when he walked by a newsstand and saw it on the cover of National Geographic.  It is ostensibly a picture of a group of stars, but after looking more closely, Needleman describes his profound sense of awe when he realized that this image of deep space, taken by the Hubble Telescope, revealed the presence of billions and billions of galaxies.
It stopped his scientific brain cold – there were no answers possible without a more expansive context for the experience and a reverence for the mystery.

The Reality of Biocentrism

Another writer that I admire who delves into this area is Dr. Robert Lanza, whose theory of Biocentrism is essentially a theory of Biological Relativity. Simply stated, his theory notes that all knowledge is dependent upon the sensory capacity of the being doing the investigation, and that we as humans take our “objective” perspective in this regard for granted, without recognizing that everything is being seen through the lens of consciousness.
This is the basis of the Science and Nonduality Conference (SAND) as well, where neuroscientists, physicists, and philosophers discuss these important issues.
As I’ve mentioned many times, Dr. Jay Kumar (a presenter at SAND) looks at our perceptional capabilities – of the electromagnetic spectrum, with the recognition that what we can perceive (even with the best instruments) is just a tiny fraction of what may be “out there.”  This has led for a call for what some have referred to as an observer-based science taking into account the unity of of the perceiver and the perceived.
To me the mystery of accepting the reality of consciousness as a “veil” through which we perceive is at the root of what might qualify as a sacred science.
And of course it is our consciousness through which we differentiate what may appear to be “out there” as opposed to “in here.”  Here again we can begin to apply a scientific perspective to questions that conventional science has deemed either unknowable or irrelevant.  But we still perform our inquiry rigorously and subject to verification by those in neuroscience and biology.  We do not simply accept it on faith, or because it strikes us as “beautiful.”

The Reality of Nassim Haramein’s Work

Among the comments I made about Nassim’s work which bothered so many people was the suggestion that he might not be a scientist so much as a “trickster.” When I was criticized I pointed out that the Trickster (Hermes) is a legitimate archetype of Being whose function is to probe and to question; it is only a pejorative term when applied to someone who projects himself as a “scientist” or “the new Einstein.”
Why do I think this is a “problem” – as Barnet asked me?   Well for one thing, would you rather fly in an airplane that is aesthetically beautiful or one that adheres to the to the mathematical principles of aeronautics?
Without doubt the issue of consciousness is of another order entirely.
But if we are truly to heal the rift between science and religion and begin to address the questions that heretofore only religion has deigned to pose, and try to answer them “scientifically” – perhaps Biocentrically (if that’s a word), we need to be a bit rigorous.
Nassim is charming, charismatic, and convincing, and his graphics are beautiful. I also happen to believe fervently that ancient sacred geometry and mathematical constants like Pi and Phi (the Fibonacci sequence expressed in nature) are powerful pointers to real objective truth about consciousness.
BUT – when the basis of a “philosophy” is claimed to be a series of mathematical equations on the order of Einstein’s relativity, I would defer to a physicist or mathematician to test their veracity rather than taking his word on them as “proof.”
Pi, for example is not 22/9 or 22/5 or 22/7 (3.1416). The beauty and power of Pi is that in any two-dimensional space it is the exact proportion between the radius and the circumference of a circle.
Similarly, the beauty of Phi, which Nassim references frequently in his geometry, is that it is also an exact relationship – which da Vince memorialized in his works, and which is sometimes called “The Golden Mean.”
Much of this territory was also covered in the wonderful film, “What the Bleep,” which mentioned (among other things) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the primacy of consciousness, all of which lead many to conclude that “we create our own reality,” to the point where if you think about a Mercedes one is certain to appear in your driveway.
That is plainly not what Heisenberg and those physicists suggested. They were opening the door to an investigation of just who this “we” is….  (What is consciousness?)
The “we create our reality” takeaway from “What the Bleep” is an oversimplification, and for Nassim’s work to be profound enough to actually heal the rift between science and religion (which I think an investigation into sacred geometry, ancient monuments, and mathematics can accomplish) the math needs to add up.
Again this is not an attack on his work. If anything it is a cry to take his work seriously. I love the “beauty and the geometry” and I fervently agree that “Life is Intelligent” (infinitely), but I do not want the poetry to be taken as the basis for what is verifiable through experience.
Let me give you an example – when geneticist Juan Enriquez describes an apple as a computer application and his hypothesis is backed up by the genetic sequencing of supercomputers and experimentation – that is a profound opening to me of a vastly higher intelligence such as what Nassim describes. And it works – decoded DNA shows clearly that Life operates intelligently.
Does Nassim’s work measure up to the same level of scrutiny?
And as Barnet asks, if it doesn’t – is it a problem?  Let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

by Tom Bunzel

Source: Collective Evolution

No comments:

Post a Comment