Tag Archives: Andreas Bjørndal

Holonistic knowledge

There are many ways of knowing – an introduction to holonistic knowledge

Skjermbilde 2015-01-06 kl. 01.59.19

We can know something from sense perception, like things you know you see or hear or touch etc. (Read more about the different senses here).
One of the most accepted ways is through reason. It could be scientific, statistic or logic.
For you as a person you also know from your emotions; it made me angry or sad etc. I know I like this person, I know we can have a good time together etc.
Another personal and spiritual way of knowledge is faith, the person believing knows there is a God or angels etc.
Reading this you learn to know different ways of knowledge through written language. Sometimes you know things that you remember (memory). It can even be that you suddenly realize, see, understand or get a clarification through what we call intuition Even imagination can be regarded a source. To use the words of Albert Einstein;

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

When we do research we try to find two representative groups of people to compare, each group should be as similar as possible but also represent the “norm”. You need a certain amount of people to get that. Also if you want to do qualitative research you have to interview a certain amount of people before you can say you know something about how people experience a certain setting.

When we get enough individuals we start to perceive what the bigger group has in common.

From the beginning of 2008 we have performed experiments in a group of 10-20 people. Ten times a year we have gathered to focus on one new way of knowledge. And we have established the experienced certainty that we can gain knowledge this way, that we can get knowledge from extracting the common denominator of our collective experiences. This common core is an analogy to the mathematical ∩ of the group, the common tags in the qualitative approach based on grounded theory, or the theme or essence running in the group when we see the group as one person. It is a higher holon than each individual in the group. It is very similar to what happens in a homeopathic proving, seeing all the participants as one person.

The main source of solid knowledge today is called RCT or randomized controlled trials and has turned into the golden calf of the new millennium, but it will not last, because it has major weaknesses. Since this is not a critique of RCT, we will explore that later in a different post. Here we will only make an analogy to clarify a central point.

Let us go down a holon and imagine we were cells in the heart or the liver. We had a project, with the aim to find out if a certain influence, medication, or diet would benefit us. We had randomly chosen two groups of cells in our organ to be able to compare them and one of the groups got the active substance, the other just placebo.

Would we not then consider the heart or liver being one connected organ, that the effect on that one group also would influence the other, since what happens in one part of the organ would influence the other parts as well? And since both would get an effect, the difference between the groups would be very little or non. In such a case the conclusion would be this substance has no effect. The fact is the opposite.
To make it even easier to understand you can imagine to groups of fish living in a pool, you shower one of the groups and test if there is any difference in the wetness of the fishes in the two groups of the pool. The wetness of the pool is common to both groups, so the experiment is not a good set up. The problem is that the method is inadequate.

So let us come back to our ordinary perspective, but ad the option of us as individuals not being as separated as we normally presume. What if we can pic up on others peoples thoughts, feelings, intentions or general well being? What if we swim in the same pool? What if we have a field like Rupert Sheldrakes morphic field connecting us together as one organism? If that is the case, our blind belief in RCT being a good way of comparing two independent groups, is biased.

Then all the things that influence us in a way that also does good to the surroundings or close persons, all things that not only influence us in an isolated way, all those would be effects we would loose. These effects would come out with the least results in our test. Those factors alone that influenced only the single individual would turn out as effective or significant.

With that question at the back of our heads we decided to test the possibility of blinding. Can we blind at all?

When humans started to test medicines, they soon discovered that the attitude or knowledge of the prescribing doctor or the nurse could influence the patient. If they thought they gave something that worked it could work and opposite.

Let us just stop a minute here, and question ourselves; how much have we investigated that particular effect? How does it work? Does it work just from knowing, from intentions, from an energy field, from unconscious mimics or other factors? It was actually homeopaths that first started blinding in their remedy tests, what they call provings. They soon also realized they even needed to double blind. With simple blinding the patients did not know what they got, with double blinding the persons involved in the research did not know either. It soon became the criteria of all medical research of medicines and other therapeutic interventions. But if the two groups that we think are blinded are in the same morphic field as the persons designing and having the code, can they “see” or “know” the answer? And even if that should not be possible, can the two groups be so involved or rooted in the same fields by being under the same project that they are inseparable or influence each other?

If that is the case, could we triple blind or quadruple blind? Could we blind so much that we lost any possible transmission or any effect? These were some of the questions we had when we started our journey of exploration together as a group.

We decided never to take any substance as the first quantum leap of blinding. Can you get any effect at all if you do not ingest something? We just had the substance (a solid) in the room, covered so that nobody would see it. We made sure to select substances that were previously tested to have something to compare with. This primarily investigation suggested that our theory might be right.

Already the first year we went from a blinded substance, to a blinded intention. We even experimented with allocation of substance after the intention was performed, collected and assessed as to its effect. This way of getting knowledge of a substance, an intention, a concept or anything, not limited to being either material, energetic, conceptual or spiritual, we will share here under the category of holonistic knowledge. We have decided to call this way of gaining knowledge holonistic knowledge because it is coming from getting a higher holon and extracting the holonity of that group holon, we get this insight.

It is not one person, it is the group, or collective unity that makes the way to knowledge. It is the unity or coherence in the information from the whole group that emerges like a unit, a holon it is holonistic knowledge.

Read more of our experience with holonistic knowledge here.

Models and systems – vertical & horisonal – holonistic knowledge

Science is full of models and models change and get better and better as representations of reality.

Where did it start? Did it start with naming things? Then continue with abstracting to numbers of things?

Ever since the mind started to be a central part of our awareness it has tried to understand both what it perceives from the external (senses) as from internal sources as intuition, dreams or internal subconscious impressions.

In the early stages of development we probably as advanced animals expressed different sounds to interact. Perhaps even in the same way as monkeys do today. We have even discovered dialects between monkeys.

Going even further back we might have had a pre-expressed-language, based on a tribal belonging, or species coherence, a higher degree of holonity or harmonic interaction, where we acted as one being – the group or tribe. This stage might have preceded the stage of separating into individuals.

With the individual mind, we started to challenge and discuss different opinions. Analysis is born out of differentiating and tearing apart, rather than uniting in synthesis.

As we put things apart we put them in different categories, we make different models.

As a generalization we can talk about two major categories of models; vertical and horizontal.

The vertical models try to explain phenomenon that creates a hierarchy, stages of development or any process that is a function of time.

Horizontal models express the variations we find within any of the above stages.

The vertical would be like the grades in a school, the horizontal the stereotypes or archetypes of different student-types.

Lets look at plants and models or systems of classification
With traveling and trade, the need for understanding analogical words for minerals, foods, spices, cloths, plants and animals or products made from them became clear. With the development of science the need to specify became absolute and Linné developed the bi-nomimal system.

With this system it was possible to name any plant or animal with just two names, a little similar to what many persons do with personal names.

The latest development of classification of plants is called APG III (Angiosperm Phylogeny Group III system) with this model we can see how the whole plant kingdom has evolved through time and how different plants relate. We can even see how the whole kingdom has analogies to other kingdoms.

In this blog we will explore such relations and how we can see things from both the perspective of wholeness as well as the perspective of unity, in short a holonistic perspective.

Ill: This diagram shows the medieval understanding of spheres of the cosmos, from Aristotle as per the understanding of Ptolemy.

Skjermbilde 2015-01-05 kl. 18.45.07

Holonity

Fractal_Broccoli

Why holonity?  – suggesting a new concept.

holon (Greek ὅλον, holon neuter form of ὅλος, holos “whole”) is a word coined by Arthur Koesler in his book The Ghost in the Machine (1967, p. 48) and is used as a concept for something that is a whole and a part at the same time.

And organ is a part of the human organism, but a wholeness in itself. A cell is a part of an organ but a wholeness in itself. Both are wholeness and parts at the same time, a holon.

When you try to understand the uniqueness or personality of a person you take the whole person into account and are looking for qualities or features that are prominent and strong. Or qualities that repeat themselves. He is just so …….., She really is ……, It is typical for him….. . This could be like a mountain or huge lake in the personal landscape. It could represent something strange, rare or peculiar. That would be something unique or dominant.

But it could also be a characteristic feature running through the whole landscape. Like comparing the Norwegian woods with Pina and Spruce to the Amazones or Tundra. In a person that would be a feature running through different aspects or a concepts that can embrace and include other concepts, or qualities that can be recognized in different expressions. What we would call a pattern, an essence or a read tread.

Holonity is the degree of unity in the wholeness. The degree of connection between the parts of a holon in a unified understanding, or conceptualization. The oneness in the wholeness. The unifying red tread. The qualitative feature running through a given quantity. What in a human can be called an essence, a read tread or sometimes her constitution, his personality, her individuality or type.

In the therapeutic field, the ability to connect all the parts, symptoms, manifestations of phenomena in a human and her life into a meaningful theme, or pattern can be very useful. The holonity is the degree of unity that is achieved.

This blogg is about holonity in different fields of knowledge.

In the picture above nature comes very close to a mathematical formula, a fractal that repeats the same pattern into every part of the whole, e.g a high degree of holonity.

Knowledge and truth – different ways to knowledge and the new way in the making

We live in an age where the new truth has become equivalent to scientific knowledge!

Skjermbilde 2015-10-05 kl. 20.25.38

But what has been regarded as truth has changd through the ages. There was a time when people saw truth in myths and spirits of nature. Much closer to over time religious truth was the main paradigm. Even today conflicts between the truth of different religious groups or religious and non-religious are a main factor behind killing and unethical conduct between humans. Some people today only believe in profit and the only truth they are concerned about is; “What is in it for me?”

Today many people adjust these ways of truth. They might believe in myths, but as a symbolic analogy, they might believe in religion pragmatically from an ethical or humanistic perspective and they might believe that things have to be based on a healthy economy as a foundation. Most of all more and more people turn their belief in truth to come from science.

What is certain is that it will not stop here. So what will be the next step? Is this the end of the pursuit for truth? No, also science has its limitations.

Science has some ideals. Experiments have to give the same results if you repeat them or reproduce them. This is called replication. It has to be independent of any particular persons, so if somebody else wants to do it in the same way, they should also get similar results. It has to be independent of personal influence so we are blinding it, single and double and some even investigate if it should be blinded triple or more.

We can say science strives for objectivity. It wants results that are independent of any personal desires, manipulations or influences. In this ideal for independency and replication the subjective realm becomes something of little value, even a risk of bias, a risk of contamination or dependence.

But we forget that there are many steps even in any kind of “objective” research that is full of subjectivity. Like, what do we want to investigate, how do we want our research question to be, what kind of method do we choose, how will we measure the data, how will we assess the results, what do we regard as unimportant and neglect etc. etc.

All this subjectively influenced decisions are important for the result and our gain of knowledge.

In our daily life, we use knowledge in many ways and many kinds of knowledge. It is very little of our daily life and the way we conduct it that is based on us reading a scientific paper. We could say that science has given us tools and information, but most of what we do, and particularly in the inter-human realm is based on other kinds of knowledge.

We know how to bike, swim, cook and talk, without any scientific investigations.
We know what we did yesterday or how we dressed or where we went for vacation.
We know when our conscience tells us something is good or bad.
We know what the authorities (Teacher, parents, police etc.) in our society expect or regard as right or wrong.
We know that 2+2 = 4, or if we solve a riddle, we know it is right when we find the solution.
We know how a person reacts to what we say or do, even if we can be wrong.
We know how to fall in an optimal way, or react by instinct in other situations where we use our body.
With social intelligence we know how to interact with people.
Additionally we might have practiced internal work like mindfulness and know how it changes our state of being.

All this is knowledge that adds up to the truth of our daily life and our decisions and actions, we do not need science for those.

Let us take coffee as an example one day we read it protects us from cancer, next day it can cause cancer, one day it is good for antioxidants, next day it disturbs your sleep etc. etc.
All this are fragments of “coffee-knowledge” under constant change an amendment. It is almost impossible to have a scientific unified perspective on coffee and many other things as well.

In practice we end up making the choice from what we feel, what we like, and what we believe.

Let ut not forget the limitations of scientific knowledge, while we appreciate it. Yes, it is great, it is unique, it has given us understanding we did not have before, and most of all it has given us corrections and confirmations, but to most of the real important questions in life, how we conduct the mastery of daily life it has little value.

Let us not underestimate or under-evaluate the tools of concern, assessment, discrimination or choice that nature has given us, let us refine them, let us take back the right to feel what feels right, to choose from an inner perspective and not from a material scientific, let us take back the right to hold the steering wheel in our own life and appreciate the inner compass we are born with.
When you hear “you react like that because of this or that hormone”, say no! That hormone is there because I feel like that! That feeling creates it!
That is the new way to truth beyond myth, religion, profit and science, the truth of the realization of our inner potential. This is a truth coming from an increased holonity from within. The source to a higher knowledge will in the next step of our evolution be from within. This is what we call holonistic knowledge in this blog.
Read more here: https://wordpress.com/post/77855007/66/

Holonity and evolution

“Increasing complexity is regarded as one of the major aspects of evolution.

It is reflected in old creation myths too. From the oriental Tao dividing into yin and yang, becoming the many things (1 , 2 many) to the Bible with Heaven and Earth and later all the lifeforms on Earth.

Science tells us that as the Big Bang expanded and cooled down, galaxies and later stars and solar systems appeared. The primordial nucleosynthesis is the name of the process that happened from the firsts seconds to some 20 minutes after the Big Bang. This created the first few elements, very much later when the universe had cooled down to form galaxies and then stars the heavier elements were created in the stars.

Following Big Bang pure energy slowly turned into matter.
Here on Earth the basic building blocks are molecules a product from simple nuclear sub-atomic particles that created atoms and the atoms come together to create molecules. Everything around us on this planet is build up by molecules.

Atoms quickly form molecules here on earth, they do not exist for long as atoms. Molecules creates virus and cells and all lifeforms are build up of cells.

We do not know how life came about, there are theories of soups of complex molecules and electric charges “by accident” creating life, there are theories of “inseminations” through viral material from outer space. But then we can still ask where did that viral material come from?

If we leave the question open, we can still see and increasing complexity from virus, to the first cells (procaryotic) and later to cells that became so complex as to have their own “head quarters” or nucleus (eucaryotic). These complex cells are the building blocks of all multicellular life; plants, fungi and animals.

Without the plants the earth would not have had an atmosphere of oxygen, laying the foundation for animals. As animals developed we humans turned up.  All in an increasing complexity.

Today there are lots of activities, economically, politically, culturally or scientific that is based on the co-operation of hundreds or thousands of people. Behaving like complex organisms (organisations) with intentions, goals, relations and actions.

Humans used to look at the earth as the foundation of the universe. This geocentric world view regarded the universe as a lid, and life was organized as a ladder from chaos through the elements, life forms and angels and higher beings all the way up to God.

Then we open up to the solar system and moved out in to the solar system, the sun became the central nucleus and we a part of a mechanical machinery. All revolving around the sun.

In the last century we have moved out to clusters of suns in galaxies, and clusters of galaxies that today has turned into a network of galaxies looking much like living human tissues.

Perhaps the question of life or not should be turned upside down?
If we look at the universe at not far away small dust particles, but as a coherent organic and aware being.

From that perspective the whole question of where life came from has no sense. It was always there.

The perspective of a living universe, opens us up to a more sophisticated complex and coherent perspective. A conscious universe even more challenging to the contemporary materialistic mind.

But this perspective changes even the perspective of evolution.

A living universe might have planets that has done our cycles of evolution millions of years before us. And what seems to be evolution here, is simply following a pattern or sequence analog to all other similar planets.

A universe that is aware beyond our awareness, gives it not only reflection, intention and care, but wisdom and love.

So did we evolve by trial, failure, coincidence, a survival of the fittest?
Or according to a long long time universal wide plan, with connected intention of love and coherent wisdom of unity? A universal holonity?

The picture is a computer model that shows the evolution of galaxies and stars after Big Bang

Skjermbilde 2015-01-12 kl. 23.36.23

Under you see the nevrons in the brain.

Skjermbilde 2015-01-12 kl. 23.33.52

“That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing

Tabula Smaragdina

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them” Gen 1:27