YES - Earth is a Living Organism.

O#o van Nieuwenhuijze (850714) (c)

Below you find my 2nd formal paper; a presentation to the National Audubon Society conference entitled
“Is the Earth a Living Organism?”.
Lovelock’s book “Gaia” had recently been published, initiating the debate ‘what is life’, in a larger perspective.

My answer was simple: “Yes”.
Two lines of definitions suffice to prove the point.

The rest of the paper raises - and answers - the question:
“why is the questions raised?”.

Because of its historic curiosity value, the complete original paper is presented, as it was sent in to the conference
- complete with introduction to the author and graphic pages.

M  E  T  A  T  H  E  M  A  T  I  C  S              R  E  S  E  A  R  C  H           T  R  U  S  T
P. 0. B O X  3111,
DELFT,  HOLLAND

(Earth: living/organism.)

So the question is: "Is the Earth a living organism?"

Well, it's simple; it is all a matter of definition.
In order to be able to find the answer, we must first understand the meaning of the words of the question:

"Earth" indicates the planet Terra on which we live. Is that correct?

But what is the meaning of the words "living" and "organism" ?
For that, let's go take a look at the definitions:

Well, looking at that I can assure you that, by definition, Earth is a living organism.
That answers the question. The answer is  :  "Yes".

What else is there to say?
Now what?
Did I miss out on anything?
Did you miss out on anything? Those definitions were quite some mouthfuls;
Let us try to formulate them more briefly:

Do you see that! But that's interesting! That talks about coherence, about co-ordination. It's fascinating; here, look at it:

How beautiful! How simple! How elegant!

The same principle shows up in two completely different forms, just because we use different outlooks in regarding it.

Even the words differ. Looking for form, we see "organism".
Looking for functioning, we perceive "aliveness".
It depends on our outlook what we see.
We'll get around to that in greater detail later, because this is quite important.

(The Earth body.)

But first let's take a closer look at the Earth being a living organism. We've already seen definite proof that the Earth is a living organism. But that's not the reason why you went through all the trouble of coming here; the time! the money!

What's it to you if the earth lives anyhow?
Just to know that she can take care of herself?
Or, ! , to know that she can take care of you?
Whatever reason you might have, you could have found the answer by solving the word-game with the help of your dictionary, in the leisure of your own home.

Or you could have gone out to look at Earth, the world around you, and see for yourself that she's alive.
Just look at the planet as a whole: see the jungles, the oceans, deserts, polar ice caps, clouds, rivers, fields, ...

Those are some of the different forms of the things you can see.
All those forms can be seen to be associated with different functions as well; in the definition of 'organism' such different functions were called "organs".

• Jungles. Production of oxygen. We could even go so far as to compare it to the lungs in our body.
• Deserts and ice caps: involved with heating and, cooling, and both are associated with cleansing.
  Does it compare to our liver and kidney?
• Ocean, clouds, rain, rivers, fields. A system of circulation, transport, storage, driven by the day-and-night pumping action of the sun.

By comparing the various functions of the separate parts it can be seen how all of them together form one whole.
One organism. One body.
A different body than we have but that comes as no surprise. Just look around yourself, at all the varieties of shapes of creatures around us.

Consider all the organisms we know, ranging from cells and microbes up to whales and elephants, and up to the colonies of bees and termites which, with their workers, breeders, guards and so on are to be considered, as a whole, as an organism also.

We humans, we are an organism, yet look within yourself and see the millions upon millions of bacteria which digest our food for us in our colon. We ourselves are a kind of colony. Yet, are you aware of them, these microbes? Your cells? Are they aware of you? And, how aware are you that your peer-group, your society, and humanity as a whole are organisms also? Of which you form only a part.

So, it should come as no surprise at all that Earth is a living organism, a body. It might be worthwhile to consider where the centre of consciousness might be, what it is that might correspond to the mental function. We will get around to that at the end of the talk, but before we can do that we have to consider our own mental functioning.

(The root question.)

After all; how is it possible that a conference theme like this brings in any people at all?
The answer to the theme-question is obvious, and self evident.
There must be something amiss with our mentation, with our perception, as a result of which not many can see that answer.

It is for that reason that I now want to talk about perception.
And about what has gone wrong with our perception of reality, of the world around us.
Because that is the fundamental theme of this conference:

Why is it that people can't see what is?

Well, the answer is simple: they can, but they've been trained not to.
Our mechanism of perception is in perfect order, but we're using it incorrectly.
(By "we" I mean the 'western world', the society of the 'white race' .)

So, there is a flaw in our education, but there is no reason to blame our tutors and teachers.
That flaw has been a dis-ease which has been hereditary in our education since more than 2000 years.

(The original sin; Sin: "to be off the mark"; term of archery.)

Let us go back to that time and find out what the origin might be of the problems we have nowadays. Let's see how our problems in communication, in perception of the real world, came to be.

Let's go back to ancient Greece!

The scene:  Mystical Greece!  Teeming with gods! Gods are everywhere, doing all sorts of things ! In the rivers there are bathing gods, gods clamber the mountains, gods gavot in the fields, goddesses roam the forests. They even hold office in their marketplace in their temples! Mystical Greece, where mystery schools flourish!

The camera zooms in ...
from the background ...(accesses, fields, gods, rivers,)...
to the foreground ... and comes to focus ... on  a lone philosopher.
Sitting on a barren rock.
He ponders.                            "why me?"

He ponders.    "What" so he thinks "am I doing here, with all these goddesses and gods running the show and destiny?"
It is clear; he doesn't do anything at that moment: he thinks.

He thinks about his relationship to all that happens around him, in the background.
It is clear that that relationship, from his point of view, is ambivalent.

It is understood that he is part of the whole scheme of things, a cog in a big machine. But what is his part in the scheme-of-things?
What part of it all is he?

(Traditional Logic: distinction & separateness)

Distinction is necessary. Him versus the scheme-of-things; the rest of the world, his environment. Which is which?
Clear-cut boundaries are required.
I-dentity is what he seeks.
Him versus the rest.

Yes or No.
Clear-cut boundaries he made.

And to make things clearer, so as not to have them confused with the other things in his head where the gods spoke, he wrote it down. Outside of his head. Black on white, written down, there it was: "Yes" or "No".

The first footnote of science.

His first distinction took roots and started to grow: the stem of reason, the branches of science, the flowers of education, and even the fruits of knowledge, which science says we should certainly eat: "it is good for you". The fruits of good and evil, that is what his first distinction had grown out to, by the time his first grain of thought had grown out to become our tree of knowledge.

Throughout the ages, his first distinction had grown from distinction to Identity to uniqueness, and kept on growing to become separation, opposition. Irreconcilable differences. Good opposing Evil. God fighting Devil. Things had grown big, and to bridge the gap ... it is now considered to be impossible. "Never the twain shall meet ..."

But all of it, the whole lot of it, is an illusion; based on a falsehood! "Good", it is but an illusion. "Evil", it is but an illusion. It is all but an illusion, based on a distortion in our outlook. There is a warp in reason; there is a flaw in that crystal of truth: logic.

But that is where we are now. Science is the religion of the day; teeming with footnotes as ancient Greece was riddled with gods.
And you know how science depends on footnotes ...

Can you imagine what it would mean if that first footnote was wrong?

(Curing the birth-defect.)

Roll in the camera again:
Zooming in ... one philosopher in the foreground ...

But in the background, out of view, the gods and goddesses roam!

Everything always has it's proper perspective!
Everything always has its own proper background, backing it up, supporting it. Always!

Even if it is not described. It is under-stood.
It forms the basis for anything taking place.

It is the natural environment, it is the familiar environment; it is that which supports that what takes place in it!

And, as it is so natural, so familiar; what is it to write home about? Why should you write down what everybody knows, what supports everybody, what is under-stood by everybody anyhow.
That, which is the common basis of under-standing of all of us?

And so, the philosopher did not write about what everybody knew and he did not write about that what was familiar and he did not write about the role of gods and goddesses in his life.

And the times they are a-changing!

And that is how it came to be. The times changed. The habits changed. The understanding of things changed. The patterns of thoughts changed. The view on reality changed. The gods faded away. The outlook on the world changed...

But the written word did not.
The first footnote persisted as if it were chiselled in rock.

The words looked the same. They sounded the same. The grammar was the same.
But the meaning was not the same.
The original under-standing was lacking.
The background against which the words were interpreted was not the same.
Which did not, at all, give them the same perspective.
As if a clipping from one film, babbling philosophers, was suddenly put in a background scene of a present-day film, about a factory or so.

And that is the basis of our present-day problems.
A world of oppositions, irreconcilable differences.
East versus West. Art versus Science. Religion versus reason.
Good versus Evil.

Yes versus no.

But all are mere different aspects of the same thing.
The oppositions are mere illusions, based on an inability to perceive the shared essence which lies beyond their contrasting appearances, their forms.
Illusions based on an inability to see the things in their proper perspective.
An inability to see the relationship between foreground and background.
Also called the relationship between form and essence.

(Rebirth: Dynamic Logic.)

Well, if that is the problem, let's set it right!

We've seen what went wrong.
The error lies in the Logic, in the relationship between things; in the relationship between the Element and the Environment.

The Explicit relationship was written down, the Implicit one was not. (And the explicit one was written down implicitly only, as Yes versus No.)

To set it right is not difficult.
Half of the equation is there already.
The philosopher and the (out of view) background:
that-which-is-not-the-philosopher.

"Yes" and "No".
The basis of Traditional logic.

What we still need to formulate is their relationship,
the bridge that separates them.

As we have seen, that relationship has two aspects, two faces:
an explicit one,
and an implicit one.

1. The relationship which the philosopher contemplates.
2. And its complement, the 'natural under-standing'. The relationship as seen from the point of view of the environment, so to say.

We will call the visible side of the relationship: "Yes-&-No".
We will call its 'invisible' complement: "Not-Yes-&-Not-No".

And that's all there is to it!

Everything is accounted for. Everything is written down. We have cured Logic of its flaw, we have healed its incompleteness.

We have replaced traditional logic by Dynamic Logic.
 

Traditional Logic was: Either - "Yes" - or - "No"

It served to identify, to define, to specify and analyse.
Separation and opposition, irreconcilable differences were its products.

Now we have changed all that. Now logic is:

It can do all the other model could do, and an astounding lot more.
I suggest you take this gem home and shine your light on it to see what reflections you get.

The power of this Dynamic Logic is enormous.
It also sets right all that went wrong due to the one-sided view of traditional logic.
It puts things back in their proper perspective by regarding all identities with respect to their proper background; always relating the specific form of things to their essence.

Before we consider how this dynamic logic works in practice; a few general remarks:

1)
It gives a whole new basis for everything based on logic:
reason, science, education, our use of mind, our perception of reality.
It gives a new reality.
2)
It gives perspective on a whole new set of natural laws which heretofore were inaccessible to science
(due to 'the fact that they lie in the "blind-spot" of traditional logic).
One of these 'new' natural laws is the Law of Resonance which forms the basis of most so-called "occult" phenomena and also of telepathy.
(Yes, everybody is telepathic, by order of natural law. You can communicate with individuals, groups of people, group-consciousnesses, and so on.)
3)
It enables the integration between the realms of science, art, religion, mysticism, occult, linguistics, music, dance, ... and whatever distinct manifestation of human activity you can conceive of; by showing the essences which underlie those various forms of being/acting, and the natural laws involved.
4)
It is, in essence, not new at all. Only the form, Dynamic Logic, is new.
Natural laws exist independent of "any human ability to describe them.
The principle formulated as Dynamic Logic has been known for who-knows-how-long, as I discovered later.
Just as I had formulated it in a form which suited my requirements here-and-now, it has been described throughout the ages in symbols which were meaningful there-and-then.
It is just the same as is done with the same soap-powder which is packaged in boxes of differing shape, colour and lettering to suit the country where it has to flood the local market.
Let me give you sore of the symbols which have been in use at one time/place or other:

(( See separate sheet: Symbolic representations of Dynamic Logic ))

As you can see, the forms of all these 'creatures' are quite different. Yet all of them pertain to the relationship between "the foreground" and "the background", between the local/specific and the universal/general.

It describes the relationship between Heaven/the General and Earth/the Local; it is the logic of Paradise.
It describes the rejoining of Man-the-specific with Creation (god)-the-universal. It is a logic of unification, re-joining ("religion"=re-ligare=re-join), of union (=yoga).

It is a logic which shows that religion and science, they are not different, related, ways of looking at the same thing.
It is a logic which shows that mind and body, they are but different manifestations of the same principle.

A logic of unification. Well, that sounds nice.
Let's see what practical consequences it has.

(applications.)

As our conference focuses on our relationship with Earth, and our communi(cati)on with it, it is in that vein that I'll choose the examples: focused on communication.

You will see one notion prevail: "there is more than meets the eyes".
Form is seen as but a specific manifestation of function.
Foreground is always seen in respect to the background from which it was culled.

(The Judgement of Good and Evil.)

First let us resolve that greatest opposition of all: God versus Devil, good versus evil.

Good is that which is appropriate within the context of the environment. What fits in.
Evil is something which is not suited for the environment it is in. Something which is not in its natural environment. Something which is 'misplaced'.

Normally this means that Evil (as we call it) is a transient phenomenon; on its way to establish itself in its natural environment.
Thus, 'evil' is but unrecognised good.
Once it has reached its natural environment it can express itself fully; it is 'good'.

Sometimes 'evil' gets stuck on the way. (Human dabbling is one of the main causes). Then 'evil' gets shut off (in old. English: "helled off") from its proper place, from its proper environment. As a. result of that it will be disharmonious, destructive with respect to the environment where it is. (Obeying the condition of Alive-ness, it will attempt to adapt its environment to its survival needs.)

All that needs to be done to turn Evil into Good is to bring it in contact with its proper environment, where it can freely express itself.

It will be clear that these concept, Good- and. Evil, are more a reflection of the appropriateness of our point of view, of our own ability to perceive things in their proper perspective, than of anything else. .

In this sense we can replace the word "evil" by the word "problem".

(Solution of 'problems'.)

A 'problem' is but an inappropriate way of looking at something.

A "problem" is: a clash between experience and expectation.

This is how you solve problems:
First realise that all problems find their basis in our expectations.
We have been conditioned to imagine happenings, to make a projection of the appearance of things yet to come; in circumstances yet to come.
Sometimes we make a wrong projection. It turns out that the actual circumstances which occur differ from what we imagined them to be.
As a result of which, of course, the form of our expectation is not matched by the form of our experience.

In order to solve the problem, first dissolve the expectation on which it is founded.

Recompute your pro-jected fore-cast of what was going to happen. It didn't happen, so: recompute.
Go from the form of your expectation back to the essence underlying it.
Take the actually existing circumstances in account. Once you recognise which the actually prevailing circumstances are, most often you can at once suit the essence of your aspirations in a form which does match up with it.

(Transition state: release of form.)

Simple as this trans-form-ation is, it has yet always proven to be a stumbling block within the framework of Traditional Logic.
All that happens in the transformation is:
Form; release of form (back to the essence). Crossbreed it with the prevailing circumstances: to get the suited new form.

Within Traditional Logic there is nothing between one form and anything else. As soon as form, "Yes"," is lost, all is lost. "No" !
The bridge, Yes-&-No which gives the over-view, and the footing, Not-Yes-Not-No which gives the under-standing; neither exist in Traditional Logic.

There, every loss of de-finition led "to a loss of overview, a loss of under-standing, thus to a loss of control. Every change was revolution.

(Fear; signal for requirement of adaptation.)

In fact, every change made them, scared.

They even feared "Fear" !

Fear is a natural signal, essential for the well-being of our organism, of our aliveness. As you have seen from the definition, either of these require that we are adapted to the existing circumstances.

As soon as our state of being does not correspond to what the environment has to offer, then, automatically, we are notified, and. we are given a message:
"You better adapt to this un-expected environment"
(Those expectations, once again !)

The name of that signal which tells us to change our state of being, our pattern of activities, our state of consciousness ... is "fear".

Fear says: "you better reconsider your involvement in things, the relationship between what you think is Fore-ground and the Back-ground. Things have changed around, here ..."

So, you better adapt. Which might be done by a completely external process or by a completely internal process; by a change of thought, or by a change of actions.

In fact, of course, external and internal is but different aspects of the sane thing. You can call it whatever you wish; extrovert, introvert; mind, body; outside, inside; Yang or Yinn. In Dynamic Logic it does not matter.

But in Traditional Logic it makes a world of difference.
Everything which is different, "No", is inaccessible, un-understandable.
It is for that reason that they have always shunned changes of state of consciousness .
And made forbidden-zones of all those events which lead to altered states of being: Death, sex, birth, nakedness, ... all are Taboo, shrouded in the cloud of fear. Because fear, the signal which told them that they had to change state of being, was of course the most scary.

(The hidden: Occult.)

As a result of which they were, by their own logic, by their own reason and. education, locked in, helled-off, separated from all those other states of being.
Their Traditional Logic withheld their ability to change, to adapt; their aliveness.

And, logically, they also did not know what to do with the Occult,
as can still be seen from the common-speech meaning of the word 'occult'.

But "occult" means: that what is hidden; that what lies beyond form, beyond the sur-face.
In order to be able to see the underlying process which makes it work, you have to look beyond the surface, beyond the appearance of the beasty.
Which requires that you look at it in a different way, at the relationships within, which form the basis of that specific manifestation within that specific context.

In-itiation is required, a going-within, penetrating beyond the appearance so that you can perceive the essence.

Rituals are a means of accomplishing this.
A "ritual" is a set of external forms, a set of actions of mind, and body.
If a person "puts on" a ritual, all these external actions will induce an internal change. It is like letting someone learn to dance, to feel that feeling within,by having a set op dance-steps executed. It is like walking in someone else's shoes.

(Communi(cati)on.)

This is based on the most primordial principle.

You remember how we talked about aliveness, and defined it as an ability of adaptation?
Definitely, that concerns an adaptation within an environment, as well as an adaptation of an environment.

Imagine any odd organism moving about. It exists; it adapts.

By adapting the environment it will, so to say, leave its trail.
From that trail, that feed-back, it can know that it exists in an environment.
And that it exists: that it is successful in adapting the environment.
It has abilities to sur-vive.

That trail also serves as means of communication, a writing on the wall, for others to see.

First, that communication "via the blackboard" will be unconscious.
Another organism walks into the established rut, and "feels" that thins are different. Things go smoother. There is less work to be done to keep that-thar-environment under control.

There is a corresponding change in inner-being, within that organism.
Inside, that change will be, so to say, the "shadow image" of that what that other organism did.
Where the first one had to do the work internal to accomplish the changes external, the next one can relax inside and fit in into the work of the "creator".

That shadow-image relates to the original one as the pot fits the mould or the hand fits the glove.

It is in that way that an art-lover can experience the creation of the artist, that you can experience the world around you; that the initiate can experience the essence of the ritual; that the apprentice career learns the essence of dance.
And that the creature, internally, experience the presence of another creature.

(This, by the way, is also the operative principle of telepathy, if we describe things loosely.)

Once this has been experienced, the organism can adapt to the same kind of 'ritual' much more quickly next time round. A reflex has been established.

It has learned to read the writing-en-the-wall.

The wall, that environment, can thus be used to communicate between different organisms. It is that specific shared sameness, that joining medium, ("religion"), which forms the common basis for communication.

Once these organisms become aware of this, they can also notice something else: some organisms affect that common environment in a similar way.

( Clan-forming.)

As soon as these organisms themselves become aware, become con-scious of that common influencing of their shared environment, group-forming can occur:

It is no longer required that each organism, every group-member, engages in all survival tasks!

Instead, specialisation is possible. It is possible for members of the group to engaged in specialised functions, co-operating within the group to support the cannon goal, the common adaptation with respect to the environment!

In a group of same organisms, that means that every organism gets a task, becomes engaged in a specialised function. And perhaps even develop the proper tools for that specific functioning, as can be seen in termite colonies and beehives.

In a group of differing organisms, it is possible to make full use of the specific individual characteristic of each member and to find the proper environment in which their unique traits can be fully expressed in relationship to those various specific specialised functions which are now done in the group as a whole.

So you see that that common environment is the basis of communion (such as in the experiencing of the Ritual of Initiation and various forms of telepathy), it is the basis of communication, and even of clan-forming, a specific form of communication.

Also you might recall that definition we saw for "organism", which talked about specialised functions co-ordinated into one integral pattern.

(Group consciousness.)

A clan, company, trite or society is, itself, an organism!

The individual member within the tribe can or can not be aware of the fact of being a clan-member.
It depends, so to say, on how well they can read the 'writing on the wall'.

Are the bacteria in your colon aware of being part of you?
Are you aware of what you are part of?

How aware are termites of being part of an organism? From, the way we see a termite colony, the termite colony as a whole is the organism. Every member is but completely subservient to it.
In a flock of chickens things seem to be different. There is a 'pecking-order'; there thus is a sense of individuality together with a tribal awareness.
In a tribe of lions there is great importance of personal role. And there is a tribe awareness.

You can look at humans in this manner also.

Just to keeps things simple, lets look at the major human tribes.

• The White Tribe appears to be educated by that Greek philosopher: Individuation stands central. The individual relates to its-self, its own environment
• The Yellow tribe (again roughly generalising) relates the individual to the family, and its environment.
• The Red Tribe relates the clan, and its environment.
• And, so it is said, the Black Tribe relates to the universe as a whole.

These are generalisations, okay. All we do is play with ideas.

Yet it is clear that the level of co-ordination varies.

(Synergy: the Law of appropriate co-ordination.)

From what we have seen of the principles of Dynamic Logic, the relationship between the local and specific (that which is in the Foreground) and the universal and general (that what we also called Background), is one of its pivots.

Thus the following requirement concerning the co-ordination of the organism comes as no surprise. It is the principle of appropriateness of co-ordination.

It is the Law of Synergy:

The level of co-ordination of an organism/entity/being has to correspond to its level of activity.

This is a very important law.

If it is not fulfilled, things go wrong.

For example: if the level of co-ordination is to high, an attempt is made to co-ordinate parts which do not belong to the organism. That doesn't work. It is like trying to lift the shopping bag by lifting that what lies topmost.

On the other hand, if the level of co-ordination is too low, overall group-consciousness is lost.
Parts of the organism think they have become an organism as a whole. They do not know which other parts are part of the same organism and which form. part of the environment.
This is of great dis-ease for the organism, when one-part of it start competing with another part of it to accomplish similar results.

It is something which we know well though, this form of loss of coherence.
If it happens within an organ of a body, we call it a "virus", affecting cells.
If it happens in the body as a whole and. the organs are affected, we call it "cancer".
If it happens within a mind, affecting the processes called "thinking", we call it "schizophrenia".
You can even see it happen between countries. Iron Curtains, Nato Curtains and Bamboo Curtains being the outer forms of the same type of dis-ease.

(The organism Humanity.)

As you look at Humanity as a whole, do you recognise the symptoms?
It is, as a whole, definitely one organism.
Yet, part is fighting part for, essentially, at the core, the same results:
Better life for humans, the common basis of the organism humanity.

Yet it is clear: Humanity as a whole can be diagnosed as schizophrenic.

(The cure.)

Well, if that is the problem; what is the cure?

The cure is simple:

Adapt the level of co-ordination to correspond with the level of operation!

The level of operation of the human species is no longer that of tribe or nation.
World wide telecommunications has brought it at the level of humanity.

But there is as yet not a 'brain-function', a co-ordinating function which is con-scious at that level.
(Con-scious: together-knowing.)

And, from the traditional point of view; such a change of co-ordination is not feasible. Change of consciousness is Taboo. It involves change of state, and change of state of being involves Fear. Loss of overview, loss of understanding, loss of coordination? loss of control.

It requires Dynamic Logic to get the job done.
Lucky you: you know Dynamic Logic !
That change of consciousness is possible.

As soon as humanity is co-ordinated at the level of humanity, synergetic functioning of the various functionings of humanity will be an automatic consequence.

That, of course, will influence every person: the individual unique characteristics of any person can then be expressed fully where that specialisation of functioning is essential to the nature of being Human, wherever in Humanity that may be.

Co-ordination of humanity will turn humanity as a whole into an integrated, sane, organism.

It will also affect the planet, Earth.

It is clear that Humanity is a living organism. A Mind to itself.

We had already seen that Earth is a living organism, a body in itself.

In its present schizophrenic state, humanity affects the Planet Earth as if it were a virus. Destroying the lungs by chopping down jungles. Poisoning the kidneys by polluting the lakes...

All of which, as we saw, is but a side-effect of the lack of co-ordination at the appropriate level.

Change the level of con-sciousness, adapt the level of co-ordination, and the planet will be healed also, in the same way as a change of mind can cure the body of cancer.

(For those who doubt the existence of a relationship of this type between Humanity and Earth, I would suggest you look around you.
My friend Peter Fay in England did just that, and saw that there are patterns of interactions between humans and earth which involve levels of overview which are quite uncanny. Churches of the same denomination lying on straight lines spanning hundreds of miles, with a straightness which was not measurable with the tools of that time. Other patterns exist as well, so that might be a matter you might wish to consider in relationship to the relationship between the people and the planet.)

(The treatment.)

Well! What is the point we reached: with the train of thought we embarked on?

• Earth is a. living organism. Yes. And infected by a virus!
• Humanity is a living organism. Yes, but not all that, eh, ... together.
• Earth and humanity are close buddies; body and mind as it were.
• Conclusion: a change of mind is needed to resolve the problem.

That, we know, is not to be feared and can be done.
We even know what to do: to raise the level of con-sciousness.

One question remains:

How can we set the problem right?

The answer, simple as always.
Apply the concept Synergy!

You are the only one who co-ordinates all that happens with you, end only you are response-able for what happens to you!

In your context, that means: Here!

Here is the only part of our human common ground, common basis, common understanding which is accessible to you and which you can deal with.

In your terms, that means:  Now!

"Yesterday's gone and Tomorrow never comes". It is always today.
Now is the only time you have got!

(conclusion.)

Putting fore-ground and back-ground in proper perspective:

If you ask the question:

How can we improve the state of being of the world?

the answer is:

• You are the only one who can change your world.
• In order to change things you need both overview and understanding:
• you must know the proper relationship of all things with respect to
• their proper environment.
• Now is the only time you have. '
• Only you can do it, here and now!

Of course I'm willing to answer questions. Just write to me at:

ir. D. 0. van Nieuwenhuijze,
MetaThematics Research Trust,
P.O. Box 3111, 2601 DC Delft,
Holland.
address no longer exists.

and be sure to enclose some money in a self addressed envelope so that I can send you a reply from there.