The 'I' and the DNA
byMieke Mosmuller
15-10-2014
11 comments
Whenever one becomes aware that one is, and so can say: I am!, one can feel one's own 'I' as a kind of summary of all his qualities - positive and negative -, fortune, opinions, images, judgements, temperament, everything that one has seen and heard in life, the paths one has gone, the plans for the future... All that, in a summarized feeling, together with one's physical body and the sureness to really have a body that is one's own, could be called 'I'.
Therefore, it is good to know something about DNA. For that we have to contemplate on something that is present in the smallest part of our corporal reality. We can’t be aware in that area. When one says: I am, one refers to his body with that. But one only knows through science that this body consists of cells that are differentiated to certain organs, veins, bones, nerves etcetera, and these are not something that one feels oneself.
When one thinks about these small living entities in the body, the cells, one must consider that each cell has a core. That core has chromosomes. In the chromosomes lies the hereditary material. In the 20th and 21st century the research of molecular genetics has come so far, that one has well formulated concepts about how the hereditary material is composed and how it is transferred.
The DNA is inside the chromosomes. It is a big molecule, that is constituted by a chain of identical sugars –
Deoxyribose. These sugarmolecules are attached to each other by phosphate acid. In this way long chains origin.
Each sugar molecule, each deoxyribosemolecule has a free space for the connection with a base.
There are four different bases: adenin, guanin, thymin and cytosin.
The order of those bases determines the quality of the gene, determines which characteristics each gene has. The DNA consists of two of these strings, that are twisted like a helix, and where the bases are across each other in pairs: Adenin always lies across guanin, thymin always across cytosin.
In the course of time the genome of mankind became clear – no doubt that there are still many details unknown. As many as possible human qualities, physical as well as psychical, the structure of DNA is known and also that the DNA in its totality is absolutely unique in each person. Because of that one can use it more and more in the forensic medicine in identifying a criminal, by reasearch of traces of that criminal or victim. But also in historical research DNA plays a great role because one can retrieve DNA from long deceased persons and through that determine the origins of these people.
The question is: is this genome of mankind, given as unique structure of DNA, the program for the ‘I’? Do I observe with the I-awareness in vagueness, in a vague comprehensiveness as ‘I’, what is pre-omened with perfect precision in the DNA?
However, does not each person, who witnesses himself as ‘I’, knows for certain that there is another, more comprehensive, more creative world?
The 'I' and the DNA by Mieke Mosmuller
When one tries to relate this awareness of the 'I' to a biological, scientific theory of the human body, one could find that in fact in the depth of the physical body an algorithm - i.e. a program of this completeness, of this complicated organic, psychologic-spiritual entity that one is – can be found in the genes. More exact: in the structure of one’s DNA.
Therefore, it is good to know something about DNA. For that we have to contemplate on something that is present in the smallest part of our corporal reality. We can’t be aware in that area. When one says: I am, one refers to his body with that. But one only knows through science that this body consists of cells that are differentiated to certain organs, veins, bones, nerves etcetera, and these are not something that one feels oneself.
When one thinks about these small living entities in the body, the cells, one must consider that each cell has a core. That core has chromosomes. In the chromosomes lies the hereditary material. In the 20th and 21st century the research of molecular genetics has come so far, that one has well formulated concepts about how the hereditary material is composed and how it is transferred.
The DNA is inside the chromosomes. It is a big molecule, that is constituted by a chain of identical sugars –
Deoxyribose. These sugarmolecules are attached to each other by phosphate acid. In this way long chains origin.
Each sugar molecule, each deoxyribosemolecule has a free space for the connection with a base.
There are four different bases: adenin, guanin, thymin and cytosin.
The order of those bases determines the quality of the gene, determines which characteristics each gene has. The DNA consists of two of these strings, that are twisted like a helix, and where the bases are across each other in pairs: Adenin always lies across guanin, thymin always across cytosin.
In the course of time the genome of mankind became clear – no doubt that there are still many details unknown. As many as possible human qualities, physical as well as psychical, the structure of DNA is known and also that the DNA in its totality is absolutely unique in each person. Because of that one can use it more and more in the forensic medicine in identifying a criminal, by reasearch of traces of that criminal or victim. But also in historical research DNA plays a great role because one can retrieve DNA from long deceased persons and through that determine the origins of these people.
The question is: is this genome of mankind, given as unique structure of DNA, the program for the ‘I’? Do I observe with the I-awareness in vagueness, in a vague comprehensiveness as ‘I’, what is pre-omened with perfect precision in the DNA?
However, does not each person, who witnesses himself as ‘I’, knows for certain that there is another, more comprehensive, more creative world?
The 'I' and the DNA by Mieke Mosmuller
Comments
-
From Margareta Bannmann @Vielen Dank für diesen Beitrag, liebe Mieke, jetzt habe ich diesen DNA-Aufbau endlich einmal so richtig verstanden. Das ist meiner Meinung nach heute ganz wichtig, dass man auch als interessierter Laie einen naturwissenschaftlich exakten, wenn vielleicht auch nicht bis ins letzte Detail vollständigen Blick auf den Menschen und das Mensch-Sein bekommt, mit dem sich die geisteswissenschaftlichen und spirituellen Aussagen ergänzen können. Ich werde mir das ganze ausdrucken und noch mehrmals studieren, damit ich auch darüber sprechen kann in meinem Bekanntenkreis. Denn alle haben diese Fragen. Mit Freude und Spannung erwarte ich den nächsten Blog.
-
From Mieke Mosmuller @Ja, mit der DNA sind wir noch nicht fertig....
-
From John Wervenbos @Interessante beschouwing. Het overdenken zeker waard en de slotvraag is zeker prikkelend. 'Ik-bewustzijn' en 'fysiek lichaam' dragen, bij een mens althans, een één-op-één relatie. Hoe dit zich verhoudt tot de realiteit van lichaam, ziel en geest, niet voor ieder mens een evidente notie of operationele werkhypothese, vormt weer een ander vraagstuk. Het is bekend dat Francis Crick na zich uitvoerig met DNA onderzoek te hebben beziggehouden, zich toelegde op onderzoek naar (zelf)bewustzijn en breinwetenschappen. Ook de welbekende etholoog en evolutiebioloog Richard Dawkins legt bijzondere aandacht voor het menselijk (en dierlijk) zintuig- en zenuwstelsel aan de dag. Denk hierbij tevens aan zijn thesen van (1) het zogenaamde 'zelfzuchtige gen' en (2) (imaginaire?) 'memen' als cultuur(over)dragers. Voorts mag in dit verband een invalshoek en onderzoeksgegeven van Rudolf Steiner vanuit geesteswetenschappelijk oogpunt worden vermeld, die bij een vroege beschouwing over het atomaire wereldbeeld sprak van een puntbewustzijn vanwege het onbewust uitstromen en in contact komen (door de zenuwen heen) van geestelijk menszijn met uiteinden van de zenuwen. Voor meer over het verhaal van Dawkins zie bijvoorbeeld: mijn blogbericht 'Psychologie en genetica van (vleesgeworden) arrogantie' (Cahier, 13 maart 2011). Internetadres: http://johnwervenbos.blogspot.nl/2011/03/de-psychologie-en-genetica-van.html
-
From Mieke Mosmuller @Dank voor je reacties! Ik tracht me te verplaatsen in de visie dat het DNA alles omvat, een visie die immers wijd verbreid is. Terwijl ik dat doe wordt het weer duidelijker hoe de beleving van de verhouding tussen lichaam en 'ik' leidt tot de ervaring van een 'overschot' in het 'ik', dat niet met het DNA corresponderen kan. Om dat in een blog uiteen te zetten heb ik vele uiteenlopende gedachtegangen nodig - waarvoor ik nog wel een aantal blogs zal schrijven... Jammer dat ik je vrijdag niet even kon begroeten, misschien een volgende keer.
-
From Christopher Bodame @The questions posed here are typical of the self-blindness of which Scientific Materialism always finds its-self while abrogating observation of the Self - Self Observation….and in so doing seeks to find confirmation of the "I" or "Self" in all that it materially observes, i.e. in the Matter.
There are two principles which form the foundation of all knowledge, all science; they are Observation and Thinking.
The Scientist of Today only really Observes…and extrapolates on their observations through Thinking about them….
They DO NOT take their Observations for granted But they DO take their Thinking about their observations for granted. And because of this FAILURE to Observe their Thinking they postulate the most fascinating and mind-boggling theories….in which they are mesmerised and even moreso are the great majority of mankind who put their trust in science and “so-called scientist” to solve all the problems and great questions confronting mankind.
IT IS ALREADY UNLIKELY THAT THE ONE WHO POSED THESE QUESTIONS will have the Thinking stamina to examine what is here said with any earnest interest…for their interest is in only extrapolating upon what they already "Think they know" through Observation…which leads them deeper and deeper into Material investigation….
The Questioner posits their postulation: …
"Whenever one becomes aware that one is, and so can say: I am!, one can feel one's own 'I' as a kind of summary of all his qualities - positive and negative -, fortune, opinions, images, judgements, temperament, everything that one has seen and heard in life, the paths one has gone, the plans for the future... All that, in a summarized feeling, together with one's physical body and the sureness to really have a body that is one's own, could be called 'I'."
---------
The general summary of the above is…that all we take to be our "I" is a consequence of our physical body.
But even a cursory Observation of the facts indicate otherwise….e.g. If we lose parts of our physical body - our arms and legs - we find that our capacity in consciousness to say "I" or "I am" is in no way diminished.
This of course is not a compelling counter argument but simply a pointer to deeper Thinking….and according to the postulate above these scientists WILL NOT seek to THINK more deeply…but will seek to Observe more deeply into the material foundation for the causes of this consciousness.
And therefore they will continue as follows….
"When one tries to relate this awareness of the 'I' to a biological, scientific theory of the human body, one could find that in fact in the depth of the physical body an algorithm - i.e. a program of this completeness, of this complicated organic, psychologic-spiritual entity that one is – can be found in the genes. More exact: in the structure of one’s DNA."
----------------
And so we come to all forms of postulates….genes, dna, chromosomes and hereditary, etc, etc…and all this is very important for the understanding of the material sciences based on Observation alone. At least or most, it is a honing of their powers of observation which will come to serve them when they come to extend their horizons of knowledge.
However, it is only a one-sided picture of reality. WHY ? - Because these scientists have yet to apply the same discipline to Thinking as they do to Observation. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN ?
It means they fail to observe their Thinking in equal manner to the way in which their thinking observes matter…thereby they keep finding themselves up ever more blind alleys of their own making (similar to my profile pic)….
The eventual outcome of this one-sided Observation ?
I can only surmise that in-the-end of this unending maze of amazement of scientific miracles - miraculous breakthroughs etc…they will in the unwittingness of unconscious consciousness create such devastation and suffering which will force them to question the very "Thinking" that led them blindly into such world devastation, despite the so-called great discoveries in the service of mankind.
Even another cursory glance at modern science and its achievements must recognise the devastation which as been caused to the world along with its benefits.
Now of course…someone like myself can come along and make contrary postulates based on a study of anthroposophy and spiritual science - both of the terms of which are not often understood even by those who profess themselves as anthroposophists or spiritual scientists..and least of all by modern scientists.
And so an anthroposophist (hopefully more erudite in science than myself ) may come along as say: Well, Yes of course, all that you seek to substantiate through matter, i.e. the foundation on which "I consciousness" arises…of course all this can be found in physicality because it is the spirit which forms and sustains physicality…and yes, each DNA make-up of each physicalised human being is unique simply because each "Spirit Individuality of 'I' is unique.
However…all these are postulates also…no different than those posed by the Material Scientist…
( An interesting aside comparison could be made on the exhortations of modern science which seeks to create an everlasting utopian life on earth and those evangelicals who exhort a utopian everlasting life in the after-life.)
But as scientists we are only interested in postulates to the extent to which they may provide a path to the Truth, to the facts, to the observable facts.
And so… here of course we come to a pivotal scientific statement by Rudolf Steiner…and yet even this very simple but self-substantiating statement appears even now…too difficult for modern scientists to fathom…and so it becomes understandable that human-scientific thinking has yet to develop the discipline to become truly scientific.
As mentioned earlier: Observation and the discipline and postulates thereof are only part of Reality…one might even say…simply a reflection of Reality.
So where can we substantiate the Reality of our “self” and the "World"?
The statement by Rudolf Steiner reads: …
“You cannot be a scientist if you merely interpret nature;
you have to investigate the very tool which you use for that interpretation - this tool is thinking.”
--------
What does this mean ?
It means we must develop our observation whereby we can observe the source and foundations of our thinking and as a consequence of following this…apprehend the very reality of the “I" which thinks….
The scientific self-substantiating thinking foundations for this are to be found in Rudolf Steiner’s pivotal epistemological treatise “The Philosophy of Freedom”, also known as the “Philosophy of Spiritual Activity.”
I doubt it however, or extremely rare at most - that any professing scientist of scrupulous scientific endeavour and discipline will have enough scrupulous scientific endeavour and mental discipline to activate the other side of the Reality Equation….i.e. to observe their Thinking…
It becomes understandable why Rudolf Steiner remarked that of all his work “The Philosophy of Freedom" would remain to occupy human consciousness after a thousand years…. -
From John Wervenbos @There is a difference between self and self-consciousness. That also must be considerd. And in my opinion of course DNA and Self are not (total) identical with each other.
There is a certain correlation between these phenomenona appearing on other levels of excistance. Like many other phenomenona mutually at the same or at different levels. See also Steiners writings about human temperaments and genetic material are most relevant on that subject. For instance Steiners lecture 'The Four Temperaments' (1909): http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/FourTemps/ForTem_index.html -
From John Wervenbos @There is also the reality of present and future excistance, certain also on spiritual level, and DNA on physical level is mostly connected with heredity. Although (1) genetic enginering by humans these day brings new presence and future on this field and (2) the 'memes' of Dawkins (he was not the first with this idea, this concept) can interfere also when they are real. But that is a research question also.
-
From Mieke Mosmuller @One of the tasks of the anthroposopher is to identify himself with the several 'Weltanschauungen' (twelve). One of them is materialism. In this blog I try to come to the points you bring in regard to Rudolf Steiners 'Philosophy of Freedom', but I try to do it by thinking along several paths. What I have written in the parts you quote is knowledge I gained during my medical studies and the courses afterwards. Probably I failed to make it clear that these are not my ideas. So I can answer you that I fully agree with what you point out, except if you diagnose me as a materialist - I was just trying to explain the materialistic point of view as objective as I can. In the next blogtexts I will try to come to the reality of the 'I'.
-
From Christopher Bodame @Yes, Mieke...I gradually became aware that you were posing something more deeper than I received on a first reading....
I am presently having a similar conversation with a close friend...so I am grateful that this science has been brought to the fore...
Nesta Carsen posted your Question in the Anthroposophia (FB discussion group) - You will find your Post there...
It would be good if you could also address your following comments and post re this subject under your Post there....
The Link is https://www.facebook.com/groups/Anthroposophia/ -
From John Wervenbos @Wat ik me in dit verband momenteel afvraag hoe ziet het DNA eruit van mensen die langdurig alcohol gebruiken/gebruikten en het DNA van hun kinderen en kleinkinderen? Direct vergelijkingsmateriaal wat dit aangaat valt te lezen een tekstcitaat van Rudolf Steiner hierover: 'En zo verwoest men voor lange tijdperioden de mensen door de alcohol' (De Grote Rudolf Steiner Citatensite, 17-10-2014); internetadres: http://ridzerdvandijk.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/en-zo-verwoest-men-voor-lange-tijdperioden-de-mensen-door-de-alcohol-2/#comment-8981
-
From Walter Hebing @Ik kan me voorstellen dat het DNA nu van ieder persoon verschillend is, echter heel diep terug in de tijd zal het DNA van Adam en Eva toch hetzelfde zijn geweest, alvorens ze uit de tuin van Eden werden verjaagd, daarna ontwikkelde het DNA naar mijn mening, persoonlijke inhouden, inmiddels ver verwijderd van ons oorspronkelijk zijn en precies daarna verlangen we weer na! We willen ons weer geborgen voelen in de natuur! Die geborgenheid kan geen enkele cultuur ons bieden!