X-Message-Number: 3238
Date: 11 Oct 94 13:30:00 GMT
From: 
Subject:  SCI.CRYONICS motivation

10/11/94

In response to the "perrennial question" concerning general
apathy towards cryonics, Robert Ettinger last thursday tried to
open up the notion of science to include any avenue, any
"universe of discourse," any effort that will reveal knowledge
about existence and get us to our destination. In this spirit,
he quoted Paul Bridgeman as saying that science is "..doing your
utmost with your mind, no holds barred." I should like to take
this a step further in suggesting what "utmost" might imply.

The effort we call thought and which, when methodized, can
become worthy of being called science involves various
processing techniques or ways of modulating our energy.
Einstein, for instance, is said to have visualized using bodily
sensation. Intuition obviously has an important role to play and
equally obvious, without the emotional component of motivation,
we wouldn't put forth any effort at all.

Much of what science conventionally includes is, at any given
moment, quite inert, mechanical and fixed. This includes
methods, laboratories, instruments and paradigms. The dynamic,
cutting edge of science is the novel hypothesis. It is my
contention that insightful hypotheses are not just products of
"no holds barred" mentation which implies a lack of inhibition
and prejudice concerning modalities. I believe that, more
cogently, they are the product of creative vision. I insist on
adding "vision" on to creativity because I find existing notions
of creativity too limiting.

Just as an aside, I find it interesting to note that the
creativity profession that has been around a little longer than
cryonics (and is much better established), like cryonics, and
despite the spectacular thrust of its mission, has found little
resonance in industry or society at large. Another similarity
with cryonics is that it consists very much of "work in
progress" and still lacks the findings necessary to convincingly
realize its potentials.

To my mind, the most common form of creative vision is the
Eureka experience. While Arthur Koestler claims this is merely
bissociation (the collision of two apparently unrelated frames
of reference), he seems to have overlooked a dimension of the
experience. He does note the release of tension and the
exhiliration of discovering a new understanding (as with
Archimedes and the problem of measuring the volume of an
irregular crown) but he seems to have ignored that, from this
burst of energy along with the validation of our effort and of
our mind there is also a new, heightened awareness for future
possibilities that momentarily lifts the mind to a more
integrated and conscious level of functioning than before.

Increased integration and increased energy are but two sides of
one coin - the coin of consciousness. The person having an
Eureka experience, in the light of his spark of inspiration,
sees more than just a solution to a given problem. With his
inner eye, he sees, directly, a new level of energy and efficacy
maintaining his thought process.

Archimedes, for instance, had good reason to be pleased at his
discovery. He could perhaps look forward to being rewarded by
the king, but more than this or even the feeling of having
gained knowledge, his inner sense of being and of "being able"
was increased at having released himself from one of matter's
prisons. For a moment, he became acutely aware (in his feeling
if not in his mind), that within himself lay the creative
capacity to overcome any obstacle and reach any achievement.
Archimedes, like anyone undergoing a powerful Eureka experience,
had a small peek at a world unencumbered by the ignorance of
matter and, by implication, a brief taste of immortality.

I believe it was this sense of freedom from restriction, this
vision of great possibilities within himself, more than anything
else, that propelled him out into the street exploding with
elation. I believe that this burst of energy and momentarily
increased integration and efficacy of mind (taken in the largest
sense) is the essence of the creative vision upon which science
and our future depend.

The question that interests me is how to extend these moments so
that we can become stable at higher levels of (mind) integration
and accelerate the creative acquisition of insight and
knowledge. It is not unreasonable to suggest that extended
Eureka could provide more penetrating and more encompassing
scientific vision in a bid to stem the tide of the anti-science
bias in certain ecological circles. One could argue that
pollution is a function of fragmented research that lacks depth
of vision required for the efficient integration of knowledge
and that this, in turn, has its roots in a general deficiency in
motivation.

I, for one, would like to see more discussion on what motivates
researchers. I suspect that conventional motivators such as
material gain, status and power are not necessarily those that
fuel the level of vision that we need if we are to beat the race
with death. How much research is consistently motivated by
curiosity, love of knowledge, search for truth, love of life?
How closely do we examine our motivation and how skilled are we
at introspection when it comes to weighing our own feelings and
sincerity?

I quote from Prof. Ettinger's last post:

"It also follows that the most important priority for anyone is
 to define your priorities, from the top down. What do you want?
 What SHOULD you want (if you use the scientific approach)? Then,
 what is your best strategy for achieving it? Hardly anyone has
 ever done this in anything approaching a systematic way."

He goes on to say:

"For the moment, I assume that the main goal of any rational
 person is to maximize personal satisfaction over future time.
 This will almost always place self preservation or life
 extension as top priority."

While I agree with the general thrust, I feel Prof. Ettinger's
"self circuit" approach lacks certain fundamental elements. I'd
like to offer these insights on another occasion, that is if
there is some interest and if I don't get flamed into oblivion.
I believe my analysis will reveal the essential aspects of the
reigning paradigm and the truly fundamental reasons why
ignorance, vulnerability and death are so readily accepted as
inevitable.

David S. Devor
Project Mind Foundation
http://www.webscope.com/project_mind.html

| Scientists have yet to discover that science is the ultimate spiritual |
| endeavor in which the whole body must become an instrument of creative |
| vision serving holistic, abundance-generating, restriction-eliminating,|
| spirit-liberating, world transformation.  - T.Kun                      |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Join our MOCHIN mind/matter list discussing world transformation!      |
| Send: subscribe mochin yourfullname, to:  |
| or write me for details:                         |

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3238