Creating Science with Conscience
Creative Scientists create Creative Science
O#o van Nieuwenhuijze

This material is chapter in a book by Ananta Kumar Giri,
on personal involvement in scientific creation.

Buy the book to support what he is doing.

Abstract
Humanity as a whole is an organism. It develops, in relationship to its changing context. The large scale transformation of humanity is described as “Culture”. Human culture is a creation, a construct, based on ever changing consensus. In organisms, for example our body, every cell contributes to the optimal functioning of the whole. In humanity we can see that some people do not appreciate the complexity of our situation. They try to operate the development of society by social control. This means that the development of society becomes limited, and restricted, by the desires of a small group of people. No organism can afford to have just a few cells determining its fate in a changing context. In our body we can see that the brain does not direct, nor corrects, but integrates and reflects what happens in the body. Likewise in our body we see that there is no hierarchy, as therein every node is a bottleneck for the whole system. Instead we see that all cells function with respect to their common origin (hieros – archy). From this perspective, the health of the organism is best when all cells can enhance and support each other: as indeed we see in our living body. There we see also that organisation is not based on energy (control) but synergy (communication).

Key words:
creation, culture, communication-consensus, self-control

• The pathways of individuals mingle and merge, creating the tapestry of culture.

Introduction

Society changes as a result of many factors. The driving factor is the contribution from every individual person. Often social change is presented as if driven by politics, power, economy or ecology, but underlying all is always the individual human. Science is one of the co-creative factors of the development of culture. Science is sometimes (re)presented as if a system (or truth) in itself, but it too is the result of individual persons. How does this happen?

This book as a whole is part of a series of books that explores the factors for social and cultural change. It regards the relationship of the individual & the collective & government, in our interaction with our context. This specific book regards the input of science. And the, always personal, pathways that lead to collective understanding.

This book has its focus on learning, as seen in the evolution of science. The book shows a series of possible pathways, portrayed by a selection of disciplines of science. Each of the authors therein describes glimpses along their own personal pathways. This chapter describes the experience of a student of life (and humanity) and engineer and MD, whose interest lies in the way we experience the integration of information and matter in our own body.

This story describes how he studied the laws of nature, and found that science is unable to address the unknown. He also studied medicine, and found that western science regards humans by the classical science of dead objects. In-between he studies the way different cultures all have their own formulation for describing the same universe, from essentially the same body. In his work he came to bridge medicine and science, by realising that the main forms of medicine have the same relationship between them as is found for the main forms of science. In our body we experience how these different aspects are unified. The result is that we can come to a bridging of subjective and objective science (bridging science and religion also) in what we live as a science of life as part of a science of creation. In this we all create our own unique pathways.

There are two sides to this story; one the personal pathway, for the discovery of science. The other, is a new view on science – already known long time by many different cultures. It is a tale of the merging of science with religion, in a place where it matters. In our being. In our body we experience the merging of information and matter. This is of direct importance for our life, and healing.

The Pathway of Science

To some the confluence of the words “science” and “creative” seems to be confusing. The days of the Artist Scientist seem to be over. The reign of the Scientists Bureaucrats appears to have taken over. There are people who seem to have come to believe that what is written in science is based on established knowledge. They seem to never wonder how that knowledge ‘got there’. Fortunately science, Cosmology, now has started to study creation. Science therewith also starts to discover how other things are created. One thing, which is not a thing, that science still needs to study is the ‘how it got there’ of knowledge. How do we come up with ideas? What is an idea? It is not physical; so what good are the findings of physical science, in describing, and understanding, the emergence of knowledge?

Science has yet a long way to go, before though, and consciousness, can be described. Consciousness studies are only just emerging. The findings of other, older, cultures on the studies of consciousness are not (yet) integrated into science. Yet soon this will come too happen; because it is long overdue. Informatics already has come to observe that information determines the state in a computer. Biology since long is aware that our thoughts affect our body. Cosmology already points out that matter is a form of information. What now still needs to be established, is that objective science is always subjective, Facts always start as fictions. Truth is a truism based on consensus.

Science understands how information creates matter. (Matter is based on molecules of atoms, based in information: subatomic patterns of phase organisation.) Science still needs to study how information creates consensus. (Collective consensus is conditioned by communication of personal insights, based on information: processing between the living cells of our body.)
Science is not an objective discipline, of objective science. Science is the result of interactions in the social domain: the crafting/conditioning of collective consensus. It is based on an interaction between personal psychology, group dynamics, and all the social problems that any society lives with. Science is a process of social development, it is thereby alive, and thus unscientific in the classical sense. Science is not the follow-up/replacement for the churches as “purveyor of truth”. Science shows that what is true today is false tomorrow. Modern science makes explicit that reality is a realisation. We need to see how we create science.

This book helps understand that we need to change perspective, and shift from the assumption that there exists something as ‘truth” as if Truth is inert and an object, to the understanding that Truth is a truism. It is an artefact, manufactured by the collective beliefs of people. Quantum Theory formulates that involvement of the observer determines the observation. This also applies to the observation of ourselves. Our individual realisations likewise determine the way we come to a collective realisation. What we now need to resolve is that reality is indeed a realisation. And, as a result, that Creation is not a noun but a verb.

What is needed is a shift in perspective. Science needs to understand the foundation on which it is based: how do we ‘get’ our information? We create it. It is the result of an innate faculty of the human being: our capacity for learning. Within our body we have the immune system: this is part of our capacity for learning; assimilation. Our whole body relies on our ability to cope with the unknown. “Unknowing” is what we are born with. If we needed knowledge, we would be equipped with the equivalent of an in-built bible. Instead we have a capacity for learning. It is this capacity, from which we derive our knowledge, and science.
Science, however is not what is now known as Classical Science…

Classical physical science has a severe limitation: it represents creation as (if) an object. It is not so. It represented the scientist as objective. It is not so. It represents the scientist as an outsider. It is not so. It represents science as (if) established knowledge. It is not so.
Science is an aspect of life. Scientists are part of creation. Reality is a realisation, thus always subjective. And science is about the experience of creation; by participation. So let’s look at this: what is science, as creation?

Science has run into a dead end, by starting to believe that the reduced aspect of reality that it studied – matter – represented reality as a whole. It even started to believe that this model applied to the creators of science: the scientists. When applied to medicine, this understanding is deadly: it regards living beings as dead inanimate objects. Science needs to integrate the understanding of life. We need to understand the role of the scientist in creating science.

Fortunately science itself has already found the solution; even though it still seems to scare the scientists that are involved. The conclusion is that our current models are too limited to be able to formulate the way the universe functions. This is not only due to the limitations of language; but also because we are directly involved. Classical theory regarded us all as outsiders – this led to an irresponsible behaviour of science; with planetary pollution as a consequence. Relativistic science curbed the event horizon of human understanding – at the speed of light. Quantum theory led is to the place where we are bound to make a leap of fait; into the Uncertainty abyss. Field theory now has difficulty making explicit that we are always part of the equation. So we need a model in which we are at the same time creators and part of an ongoing creation.

The best model at present is that of our living body. This has studied by all forms of health care, the world over. These models can be compared and combined. In that respect the western model of health care reflects the tenets of classical science: it regards reality, us included, as inert objects. Indian Ayurveda has an approach that is much more relativistic: it understand that the processes of the body and those of our context are interrelated. Acupuncture theory takes this one step further: in the uncertainty pivot of choice we must make a decision. Spiritual forms of healing point out that in this decision we need to base ourselves on the way the universe functions. Integral health Care is a concept – that I came up with – in which all these forms of healing are logically interconnected. Details are presented on www.integralhealthcare.org.

The benefit of combining these different perspectives on healing is that the non-western forms of healing can resolve the subjective aspects of the description. They are not hindered by the ‘objectivity’ tenets of classical science. They can understand, and apply, that the state of being of the observer affects the observation. They even offer training and insight in the way the practitioner needs to heal him/herself for/before healing others. These exercises include many techniques for shifting awareness, and altering the consciousness of the subjective observer. These techniques can be compared to a mental equivalent of the standard scientific process of instrument calibration, which is usual for all devices used by science. Without such calibration, the subjective findings may have no objective/collective value.

• Science is not based on what others can agree on, but on the capacity to perceive what escapes the perception of others.
• Science is not a skill to argue the existence of the known, but the art of detecting the unknown.

Science nowadays has been debased to a trade; a steady job with status. There is – in the West – not much difference between the status and role of the scientist, now, and the priests of the past. This starts to appear as more than a parallel: even the vestiges of dogmatism, feudalism, popularism and fear of hereticism can be detected in some of the current developments of science. This is a sign that a change is at hand; the onset of a Scientific Revolution. In such cases those who become uncertain in realising that the scientific paradigm changes, fall back on established knowledge. But is that the role of science? Religion, in the far away past, served to help people see that what they did (and knew) was part of a much more encompassing whole. Later religion became a political tool; and the encompassing whole was presented with the qualities of a slave master. This was done for the purpose of manipulating people. The same now seems to be the case for science.

Science too is nowadays more often presented as if it can determine what is, or is not, ‘real’. This is called “Scientific”.
There now even exists a term “Unscientific”. The term “Unscientific” implies the existence of “Unscience” with “Unscientists”, who will declare that what is not written in the annals of science is not real, and not realistic. It is a fundamentalist approach, akin to that of ‘bible-bashers’ or pundits: the people who believe that what is written down is true. This is not so. Unscience is a political cult operating by manipulating beliefs of people.

Science is the study of the Unknown. It knows no concept “scientific”. It has a “scientific method”. This method of science is ever changing when new insights emerge. Such insights always stem from looking at ‘reality’ ‘through new eyes’, as a new realisation.

The present fall-back in science has to do with the realisation that classical science can no longer be used: there is no outsider observer, and reality is a realisation. The change that we see is the same as that when the population realised that the decrees of the churches were arbitrary and unfounded; and served the manipulation of people. We can project the immediate future of science from the past of religion. The religious transformation was a social change, that follows social patterns that will also apply in the forthcoming transition of science. Fringe science will appear. Different forms of science will debate amongst each other. Until at last people are aware that science is simply a collective effort of individual quests for understanding.
This was the case for religion. This is the case in science. This book has the quest to study the paths that can be taken. It offers the roads explored by various cultures. It compares the life trails of assorted researchers. And offers the insight that we learn from and with each other. But only to the extent that we activate our own scope of learning.

The Personal Pathway

The story of a life time can never be written before the life is completed. Then, can it ever be written? We all live on in each other. Our life simply adds a chapter, page, line or word to the life story of our parents, and their parents. Our DNA is a scroll of the ongoing record of life on Earth. So much for writing about a life time … It is the life time of our cell that really matters. In its ongoing cycle through all generations.

This having been said: adding a word or a line that makes sense, is all that seems to matter. This tale is about my story of discovery and learning. It is about two stories, because the outer event in contact with the world are clearly a development with an ongoing pattern. Seemingly separate sections of my life time, are still integral part of the life I am living. In retrospect I see that in the past I was already doing what had meaning only later, much later. This thus is the story about the interplay of the mind and body, in interplay with soul and spirit.

This may be presented as my realisation. From where I stand now (actually, I am sitting, writing) I see that all that I experience is connected. The uni-Verse is an ongoing description. It is an ongoing dance to a song of vibrations of which the uniVerse is woven. Interwoven vibrations. Some call it god, some call it spirit. God (a word that heavily suffered political rape and abuse) has the advantage that it explicitly spells out the principle of creation: Generation, Operation, Destruction. What the word does not show – cannot show – is how these three terms are all interrelated, and in fact are all aspects of the same simple basis: Creation.

My life is about the exploration of creation. What is it? How does it work? More specifically: how does it work in us; and how do we work it. Because – contrary to classic scientific dogma – “no man is an island”, there is no outsider observer. Humans were created as part of the ongoing process of creation. We are part of it. On the outside we call it Universe. On the inside we call it Me. It is all the same. Like a drop in the ocean: the ocean is in the drop also. We are god. But how do we live it?

It is evident that this is the life of a monk or devotee; devoted to the quest of science and the art of finding out. It is a sport and an obsession, a life’s work and a lifetime. As such it is very rewarding: it helps come in contact with reality and creation. Reality turns out to be a realisation. And creation proves to be not a noun but a verb. Most interesting of all: it is our interest (from Latin: inter-esse = being insider) and involvement (from Latin: in-volvere = turn- in (nowadays we call it “turn on”)) matter.

For what I now see it is more intriguing: in out body we see the direct merging of information and matter. Information matters. Matter is a form of information in formation. In our body we are in direct interaction with this: all we think changes our internal climate. Hormones are released and neurones are fired: we create the change in interplay of our organs due to which new proteins are secreted. The experience of life teaches us how to turn experience (information) into matter. “Involvement” too is not a noun but a verb.

Our body shows us that it re-sets it boundaries according to the way we experience our context. We create inflammatory hormones when we experience stress: we dissolve our contact with our context ‘by inflammation’. We also produce anti-inflammatory hormones: the inflammation is stopped and a new interface is affirmed. We not only move around our environment as do amoebae, we also change the way we open ourselves to our context; or seal ourselves off. We create our own heaven, or hell. We have a choice.

Ahh! Is it that simple? After years of study and research the conclusion is simple: life is about living. There is no other purpose to life, than to be conscious of living. Creation. We are living creation. We are not creatures but creators. Aha, so that is what the old texts tried to convey, in describing humans as representations of g.o.d.. We too operate the principle of generation-operation-destruction. We are it. And all we do matters.

That took some time to find out. Now when I look back I see that my life trail is like a river: it plunged down from the sky as rain on a landscape, lingered a while drops formed into puddles, and my awareness of the context built up into ideas and language. Then there was a phase like water cutting through rock: when my parents and teachers tried to guide my outflow. This was followed by the meandering river of tours as detours by following education. Until at last the landscape no longer matter: it is the result of the flow of the river: the estuaries where the river is in contact with the oceans. And it is clear that the only aim of the lifetime is for the drop to rejoin the ocean.

Ha, I was not as versed in the metaphoric language of mystics where I grew up. I was born in the Netherlands (a sand deposit from a river) in a city – centre for radio communication. I grew up and was sent to school: the culture were I grew up heavily believes in consensus. (The role of the church of the past is now played by the state.) I now simply say that this was “the price of the ticket”. If you wish to see a film, you have to pay for admission. If you want a lifetime you have to adopt a reality to believe…

I now see this different. I realise that reality is but a Realisation. How we think determines how we navigate through our context. Our actions are not based on crisp clear choices. All of our actions are interactions. We interact with the Universe. We interact with all life forms. We interact with each other. And we interact with our body. That last is fascinating, because our body is alive, composed of living cells. But it is also the memory of all our life times. It is the shrine which so many cultures set aside for remembering the ancestors. Every of your ancestors co-creates to the scroll of the record of their life times. The DNA that you hold in your body. The DNA that I hold in my body holds the ongoing record of life and survival on Earth. Every ancestor added their line or chapter.

I wondered how that happened but the answer is simple: life is the interplay of information with matter. Void became Cosmic Gas, then Stars, then Planets. Minerals became Plants, then Animals and self aware beings. At the core is the transition from lightning to amino acids, proteins and RNA/DNA strands. And the trick to the matter is how mineral fibres can become virus which – in a capsule – become microbes, which form the basis of our human Eukaryote cell. In that cell, there are sensor proteins by which we share information with our context. There are portal-proteins by which we share currents/materials with our context. And there are linking proteins by which we can connect the effects of both. These three proteins are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (sensor, portal, linking protein) of the cell membrane. But together they reflect on another protein – a group of proteins: the coating proteins that cover the DNA strand. Like drone termites they care for the sculpting and re-sculpting of our ‘queen bee”; the DNA archive of the experience of our life times. Which also serves as back-up memory in case we lost contact with our context. The DNA is the result; the memory scroll of what happened. Not a program for what will happen, because then we would not and could not develop.

And so here I live in a culture which ties the horse behind the wagon. It is astounding. How can people believe, choose to believe, want to believe that the matter that is secreted by the living cells of our body, is the material that determines the creation of our body? Are these people mad. Individually they seem okay, and one-by-one they seen to have their wits together. But – as in a football stadium – the larger the group the less they seem to be thinking. And en mass they seem to believe in nonsense. Devoutly, religiously so. There are masses of people who repeat the sayings of others. For example the crowd that wishes to believe that DNA determines life. While to me it seems clear that DNA is the result of cells, in the same way that the snail produces its snail house.

It was a long way to puzzle the pieces together. First I went to school, and wondered how much life time could be wasted. Schools – where I grew up – were like boxes for cattle. Every kid tied to a desk and force-fed – like geese – with inoculations of dead knowledge. When I look back I reflect: “no wonder this culture is so sick and crippled: people do not learn to think by/for themselves”. But can you trust what I am thinking? I too was force fed with that dead knowledge. That is why I called it the price for buying the ticket. It you want to experience life here, you first have to accept the belief that you are given. To me it is like a costume ball party. People are beautiful born naked. And then the culture clads them with habits, reflexes, beliefs; non-thinking.

Yet, inside of those beliefs of habits, there is a living soul still. I found that in doing healing. As with the body: we see the dying/dead cells that coat the surface. But within beyond our view there is the living being. Likewise people are conditioned and schooled to adopt a persona (the word originally means a theatrical mask). Some even acquire a skin of reflexes that is full of callous (an Ego). But underlying, within, there is a soul, still, always. For the enjoyment of life it is necessary to be an occultist: it is necessary to see that what you see is not the essence; it is only the wrapper of the candy. (In that same way churches are the trapper wrappers of religions. Toss away the wrapper to get at the candy. And all that the candy does is remember you of your own sweetness.)

Yep, I was born, and went to school. Lots of it. As with toilets, “the job ain’t finished till the paperwork is done”. I collected lots of papers. Others thought that I was good at swimming, walking, skating, playing ping pong, driving cars and going to one school and the other. I have papers to prove it. They all show other people’s opinions. They do not show what I know. They simply summarise that I sat out my time doing times in schools and elsewhere. And behaved like so many others. For what I see you never get a diploma for uniqueness. You only get ‘rewards’ for sameness. I am now the same as other primary and secondary school students, civil engineers and medical doctors. But if you look for a spare exchange part; don’t come to me for a replacement… I went to all these schools for a different purpose. One of my friends calls e a Cosmic Anthropologist. Perhaps he is right; it feels good. To be on the world but not of it. To watch and observe, experience and know. Bit not be – really – affected. (Can that be prevented? All you do is written to our DNA record…)

Somehow I got out of the rat rut. I was an acceptant baby. (A doctor at some point needed to inform my mother that I was starving to death due to not crying. I seemed to simply accept that no-food was part of the package.) I was an acceptant school student. (I accepted what they told me for fact; accepting that they would not tell me that is it was not so – too much work on their part.) I was an acceptant secondary school student. (Although is started to stop accepting the way teachers treat students; and do not want to be treated so themselves.) I was an acceptant university student. (Until I realised that there were no real answers to real questions. I stated to sense that teachers were parroting others, without speaking from the core of their being.) And I stopped being acceptant in a conversation with Karen. She blindly cut through one of my blind convictions. She said “no” in the middle of some truth i was explaining

As a result I spend half a year laughing. I realised that all I had been told was upside down or inside out. Unconnected. That was when I started to understand that this society describes what they see around them, not what they experience – are – within them. All they call reality is a realisation. Matter is a result of – not a cause for – creation. Matter is immaterial. But this culture has no understanding of understanding. And so I came to explore what became the basis of my four life tracks; two of which now are completed (though the paperwork still has to be done). These are my four life tracks:

• Bringing science to life. (Curing the Blind Spots of science.)
• Healing Health Care (Integral health Care)
• Realising reality (Planting Paradise)
• Conscious Consciousness (Holoversity)

Each time the theme of the life track is followed by its applied form (in brackets).

This is what I did and found, in synopsis:

Bringing Science to Life. While in engineering school I realised that science has no ways to explore the unknown. Like religion, science is a social schema for Angst reduction; but (like religion) it does not do what it is supposed to. Rather than exploring the unknown and finding out how we can come to know it, it looks back at its track record. As with the churches, it confuses findings with facts. It gives what was found more meaning than that what has not been found yet. Science ‘lives in the past’; and ties the horse behind the wagon. I summarised this as The Blind Spots of Science: science cannot describe life, love, consciousness and health. This life track I concluded in a simple paper: The Scientist’s Mind. It shows that all objective reality is based on subjective realisation.

• Yes, I completed that school. I fled the main curriculum which I found to be dead end science, and escaped into mathematics (how do we formulate ideas), physics (how doe materials respond to information) and systems theory (As this came closest ‘in their language’ to what I had found giving into nothing”; how the universe is based on inversion. In retrospect I think that it was very well that I did yoga head stands and that I kept a daily diary in that period of my lifetime.

Healing Health Care. While in medical school I realised that medicine is sick. It makes use of models of dead matter in looking at living beings. It assumes that matter determines the processing of information. I came to regard them as obsolete and antique: clamouring for status and income based on models of science that have long been discarded in science. I suddenly came to perceive how many people do something for money. I also came to know socials archaeology as it was staring me in the face: here the guild system was still thriving; and robber barons were still living in their hilltop castles. Again: individually they all seem okay, but as a group they operate a different mind set. This life track I concluded in a seemingly simple paper: the Equation of Health. It shows that the basis of healing lies in the connection of our first cell (the Zygote) with/in its context. And that we still need to develop the language to be able to de scribe the details that we experience already in living.

• Yes, I completed this school. I had the advantage that I had chosen a school that did not believe in ex cathedra preaching, but allowed students to learn and develop their skills for learning. I was able to integrate my insights in the four forms of science, and recognise them in the four aspects of our body. I came to the explicit formulation for Integral Health Care. (This is the logical synthesis of all the world forms of healing. This also offers the basis for the integration of all of the world cultures.)

• Two life tracks now still need to be completed: they are open ended.

Holoversity is simply a means. It offers all people a platform for sharing idea(l)s. It is what one ideally wishes a university could offer, but free from the political, financial, bureaucratic and ego needs. Simply a place for meeting; as an internet platform. A small sum as contribution for a life time. Any person, village, community can join. It is the ideal environment for autodidact learning. By teaching. The Holoversity is a generalisation of the general finding of my life – and the theme of this book: science is about learning, it is about discovery, it has to do with getting to know the unknown. Science is an art, of discovery. Not the administration and repetition of what is known already. What is needed is a free flow of information; not a stagnant pool of old knowledge. Science is the art of learning; which requires open and flexible minds. Unlike the process of repetition, which does not require understanding. The skill of Learning is alive and thereby robust. The trick of repetition is inert and thereby fragile. Knowledge can be found online (and in books). Learning is a portable skill. When made contagious, it leads to much more learning, thus knowledge. Knowledge is the result of learning; not the other way around. Therefore the focus of the Holoversity is on learning.

• Holoversity:
  This has a practical side. It means that the Holoversity can be set up not only as a centre of learning, but also a place for learning. The Holoversity itself is part of the whole project. How it is set up, how it functions, what it can offer, and how its integrity is assured: all of this is what is needed by its users. The users of the Holoversity themselves create this context; and thereby assure the quality of the foundation for their own learning. One of the projects thus is: how can we, all, assure the best quality of/for our own learning. The learning of learning thus includes the learning about the optimal conditions for learning. In a traditional setting these are not normally studied. As said: the Holoversity is means as the ideal centre for autodidactic learning.
• Planting Paradise:
  Planting Paradise is the essence. It offers all people the choice, which is in fact a realisation, that in all that we do we create or re-create. In creation we are involved with the unknown, rely on our capacity for learning, and discover. It calls for an open mind and vitality in interaction with context. As a result we can create a life and a context, a society and a life time in which the principles of the universe are expressed by our actions. We are not doing, but being. It is what religions call being a priest or a pope: functioning in a universal manner, there where you stand. Now, Here. The alternative is to retreat from the present, thus to live in the past. It is a switch from the frontal cortex to the cerebellum. From freedom of choice to reflexes, from active to passive, from creator to creature. In the retreat to the past we are no longer connected to the context. We live outside time. The technical term is: Hell. (Hell is from old English; helling off is Isolating; just as the French word Enfer comes from Enfermer: a closed system. Life is this the interplay between the Closed and Open system; matter and information. The only thing that seems to matter is that we learn to do this. Therefore project Planting Paradise pivots on the simply invitation: choose what you do in your life: plant Paradise or create hell? It is the choice that matters.
• Free Society:
  In a practical form the Planting paradise project will be connected to an a-political political party: a free political platform. This is a web site in which people are free to express their opinions, to compare difference in perspective, come to new shared insights, and formulate a public consensus; for which people need to sign up to make them valid (for themselves). It is thus a method for direct and unmediated personal people representation. No person can decide for another. It is free from political, financial, corporate and personal interests. It is a place where people learn to experience themselves as member of a – developing - collective; in which their individual uniqueness – as it develops – matters.

- - -

Conclusion

The core of the story of science is that if you take the paths that others have taken, you will find yourselves where others are stuck also. If you take a different path you may find yourself without scientific career. The art of science is to go by paths that others have not taken. And come up with something others can relate to, come to recognise and also value.

The uniVerse is an ongoing process of Creation. We are not creatures but creators. Humanity is but one of the life forms of this planet. The body of humanity is composed of individual beings. Our own creativity – and experience of creation, determines what life we live ourselves, with each other, as humanity and in relationship to the planet.

The Author

O#o van Nieuwenhuijze, MSc, MD, is fascinated by the way our body integrates information with matter. It shows us that our subjective involvement determines our collective realisation. The foundation of his work lies in a 4D Dynamic logic which he developed to resolve the shortcoming of science that it cannot describe creation. Later he researched how different cultures all complement each other in the way they express their experience of the same universe, in their human body. By his study of medicine he resolved that we indeed all share the same principles in our body: by the synergy of living cells.

He presents his findings as consultant (www.provisions.nl), as educator (ww.holoversity.eu), researcher (www.integralhealthcare.info) and cultural catalyst (www.plantingparadise.org). He is lectures on Complementary Health Care, founder of the Foundation for Integral Health Care (SIG), and final editor for the Dutch Journal for Integral health Care.

O#o
200708

This material is chapter in a book by Ananta Kumar Giri,
on personal involvement in scientific creation