Buzzword Books - unusual, intriguing, intelligent, perceptive

Here, you'll find musings from our authors and staff. We don't promise daily updates. Just posts worth your time.

Sunday, 3 August 2014


Gina Stoner, author of Talks With Al and the soon to come Glimpsing the Real - Insights from the World of Being, peers behind what we take as reality in this dispatch from the noumenal featuring insights from James Lovelock, Stephen Harding, Trismegistus, Kant and Gurdjieff.

I can promise you now - there will never be peace in the Middle East.


For the same reason that your heart cannot become your liver.

Political events have been analyzed from almost all perspectives - historical, geographical, agricultural, religious, nationalistic, the availability of resources and so on. But the anatomical view of world events remains virtually unknown.

To examine this perspective requires three broad assumptions.

One. That the planet is a living being.

You may be aware of James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis. This describes the planet as a self-regulating entity. It asserts that living and non-living parts of the earth form a single self-regulating system that adjusts surface temperature, atmosphere, ocean salinity and so on to preserve optimal conditions for life. Steven Harding in Animate Earth broadens this view. He says that the whole earth system does the regulating. This provides the perspective of earth as a living being.

Two. That we cannot see reality objectively.

Kant said that we are unable to directly experience reality or the so-called noumenon - and can only experience the phenomenal - or what is conveyed by our senses.

And our senses, compared to insects and other life forms, are limited. Many creatures experience light and sound spectra, scents, approaching seasonal variations and other phenomena in a way we never can.  To summarize Kant - we cannot know what we cannot observe.

For instance, our planet appears to us like a sphere - although its real appearance could be unknown to us as our perception is limited to three dimensions and there may be several more. (Perhaps why we still cannot see or detect 90% of the universe's matter and energy.)

Three. That the universe is an organism.

Imagine, for a moment, that everything affects everything else. Not illogical.

Now imagine that the galaxy affects the sun, that the sun affects the earth, that the earth affects the moon. Taken broadly, most people could agree with that. So let's examine this hierarchy in more detail.

Let's assume that the sun is a self-cognizant being. Some early civilizations were sun-worshippers and the Egyptians asserted that, compared to the earth, the sun was divine. Now let's assume that the moon is the child of the earth, perhaps an embryo waiting to be born. And that the galaxy is another being - infinitely vaster than the sun.

In this scenario, the galaxy can never know our sun because it is infinitesimal - a mere cell in its body. But, perhaps our sun, moon and planets are aware of each other as the difference in scale between them is small enough to permit some interaction.

And this brings us to biology.

If you can accept such outlandish ideas, let's take it further.

Consider the great statement of Trismegistus: As above, so below. This postulates that the macrocosm is reflected in the microcosm. If we can tentatively admit such a correspondence, it gives us a remarkable tool for examining all that exists. If a person is a miniature universe, then, despite Kant and his reservations, we have a means of examining a greater being by examining ourselves.  A pity that the admirable Kant did not append this insight. As Gurdjieff once remarked, all he lacked was a sense of scale.

Can we assume, then, that parts of the planet perform particular functions - as do our liver, heart, intestines, and lungs?

Where then, is the liver of the planet? And where are the lungs?

World disruption. Or growth, digestion and elimination?

If you stay with this argument, things become intriguing. We know instinctively, despite our nods to political correctness, that nations have national characteristics.

The intrinsic essence of a person, or nation, varies. Let's call it 'being'. The being of a German is slightly different to that of an Englishman. The being of an Indian is slightly different to the being of a Spaniard. The being of an Arab is different to the being of an Eskimo. You may say very different. The point is, they differ. Just as the Amazon differs from the Namib Desert or the Bering Sea.

Now why do these differences appear on particular parts of the earth? And why do certain parts of the earth remain empty of people, or teeming with people, or peaceful, or conflicted? And why are certain areas cold, warm, tropical, arid and why do they stay that way over thousands of years?

Interplanetary influences

Perhaps the moon, sun and other planets require certain emanations or exchanges from the earth. We know we require heat from the sun and the stabilizing gravity of the moon. We see the effect the moon has on tides and perhaps on the growth of plants. But these may be just the most obvious indications.

Perhaps great nature or the sun - not just this planet - requires that the Middle East remains in turmoil, that Germany remains an industrial giant, that India, Bangladesh, China and Indonesia remain burdened with most of the world's population. That eruptions and earthquakes take place at specific areas at certain times. If this view is right, then Middle East disruption is inevitable - and as necessary as acid in your stomach.

The human automaton.

If you can accept this view, then we are the symptom, not the cause. We are blind functions of this vast process and instigate nothing at all. Nature prompts our unconscious reactions and group psychology does the rest.  Despite our preposterous hubris, we are as significant as ants.

There is much more to be said about the interaction between planets and suns. For instance the astrological view, labelled superstition by science, that alignments between stars far away affect what goes on here. But that is a further exploration that exceeds the scope of this survey.

My aim is simply to indicate that wars appear and cease when the planet or the solar system needs them. And that the same is true for famine, genocide, pandemics, the rise and fall of civilizations and 'dark ages'.

So will the world ever be an Eden? How could it be?  My liver does not aspire to be my pancreas. And, as both perfectly fulfill their functions despite me, why should I object?

As for anatomical map of the world - it remains unexplored.

You can view Gina's current book Talks With Al, by clicking the link.