Welcome to the story of the making of this book.
“How would readers like to read this book?”
I do not know; there are so many people, so many opinions.
I know how i like to write stories; in a simple logical build-up.
Title, abstract, outline, fill-in text, conclusion, intro and references.
What would interest me however is why someone came to write that story.
What, in life, inspired to follow that specific line of investigation?
What made it possible to come up with such fantastic findings?
But also, how does each author relate to the findings of another?
So, what if ... every author writes a page on what fascinates them.
All others read what the others have been writings.
Then, in half a page of text, and the other half of picture: what was the most important finding?
Then each having read the work of the others, they all fire a round of questions: "how, what, when, where, why"?
Then, in say 6 pages, the core of the story.
1) where it started,
2) the steps taken,
3) the findings,
4) what it means for others, and then
Add 4 pages of art-work (images, figures, graphs, tables, poetry; including a half-page of relevant publications for others to read further.
That would be the standard gist of a standard book as it is standardly read and standardly written.
But what, if we could take that all a good step further.
And see how all those stories, together, build a larger picture.
Each author has a piece of the puzzle ... how to lay the puzzle?
It is evident, it is not one you can lay out on the kitchen table.
Science has tried it all, but the pieces don’t fit.
Has the puzzle the shape of a ball? The facets of a diamond?
Science has sought to study life for a century, by comparing it to matter.
Could it be time to regard science ass a product of mind?
So, why do all these authors come up with different findings?
Or are they but the same findings, perceived in a different manner?
Could it be that they are all different aspects of the same essence?
Is it possible to look beyond the form(s) and see that unseen essence?
For that reason the second part of the book turns the story around.
How can all other authors summarise the rest of their book, in their words?
How can they incorporate the visions of the others, in their own terms?
Does that make it possible to build bridges and fill in the gaps in understanding?
That however may be the purpose of the whole book.
Not to show the models by which scientists describe life.
Quite to opposite: how they live it, and try to express it.
Isn't that what we all try to find out in our lives?
Aren't we all trying to find out what life is; how to make choices?
We all discover that we have to live with the consequences of our actions.
Now we find a book full of stories of people who want to discover.
But perhaps the essence is not what they found, but went to discover?
What is they all are right; let's presume that they are.
Then each of them was able to express what to them mattered most.
Each has also found a way to express that in the jargon of science.
That is how science is created: by people creating more meaningful words.
Yet, however, though ... science is created by living people.
Science of life, to be true, must reflect how we create it.
Science in that sense, in essence, is but a mirror.
And that is what these authors understand: 'we see our seeing'.
And that is where all authors are finally asked to reflect on the outcome.
They are asked what the whole books means to them, in toto.
However, they are asked not to describe that in words, but in art.
The pages of art are used as separators between the different chapter.
And so, we end up with a book in four parts.
The vision which led them, the steps they have taken: personal details.
Then the third part: their actual findings, each in their own terms.
With finally a section of reflection in their words of the works of the others.
To round the work off, it will be presented. Not as a book, but an art-work,
Over a year and a half the book will have been written.
Then, in a conference they discuss what they wrote and read of each other.
This is done in a conference, with artists present.
But then, the weekend after, a large congress is presented.
Therein, the artists tell their story, of what they witnessed in the process.
How they interviewed the authors, and studied the web site.
And finally discussed them and with them at the science conference week.
Then, in the large congress, the artists present the Science of Life to the large public.
The artists present what they learned, and how they learned it.
The artists ask the authors for what the artists found that really matters.
And to top it all off, the book Science of Life is presented to the public.
Science of Life; that's quite a change after 300 years of Science of Death.
The science of death matter has led to what Indians call Kali Yuga.
It is the era of death, where wars and dead matters stood central.
With the birth of the science of life the science of death can die and be buried.
With the Science of Life, it is clear that what we think matters.
Science of life shows that subjective scientists make objective observations.
Objective reality was only an object in language, a mental creation.
However, reality is a realisation; what matters is Freedom of Choice in Creation.
Science of life explains the blind spots of science: life, love, consciousness and health.
It shows that our involvement matters, always; we are not outsiders, but creators.
That means we need to understand Freedom of Choice, and live with the consequences of our creations.
The mess that we find on the planet, pollution, poverty, war: it was all our own creation.
The mess was created by using a 'wrong' model; which said that ‘we do not matter’.
The classical model put the scientist outside of creation.
Playing god, the scientists believed themselves to be response-unable outsiders.
That made scientists, and science as a whole, an irresponsible mess for the planet.
With science of life all that alters.
What you think matters.
Your have freedom of choice.
And we live with the consequences of our choices.
You chose to read this book; thank you.
Now you know we can think differently about science.
Now you understand that what you think, feel, want and do, really matters.
You are not a creature, but a creator; and science can show it.
But that no longer matters.
Science is not a religion.
Science is not a map-maker of truth.
Science explores the unknown, so that we can come to make better choices.
Life is about playing with the unknown.
The known is known already; that no longer matters.
It is the scaffolding for a new bridge or the trellis for the plant.
It helps understand better how we can learn to live with/in creation.
You are welcome to explore.
This book helps explain how this happens in our own body.
The book helps understand how we can express that in the language of science.
But the book cannot convey how you can learn to make your own choices and decisions.
Live is about freedom of choice.
It is about participation in creation.
That is an experience, and not a description.
Life is an art, experience by living.