Envisioning the Archecosmos
Cogitations on the Shape & Location of Planet Earth
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve. ~ Karl Popper
There currently exists a fluorescence of people querying the very nature of planet Earth; questioning the orthodox view that we are on a globe, spinning through the universe at astronomical speeds, circling a photon-spewing nuclear furnace, insignificant random meat puppets doomed to paying our “fair share” as slaves to the humanitarian evolutionary grind.
This is an encouraging sign!
The main contenders of world views are Heliocentric (acentric), Geocentric (anthropocentric), Geocosmic (concave), and Flat (planar). This is an overview of the different theories, with evidence of support and denial, in light of looking to the greater picture, the archetype from which our base of experiential manifestation emanates.
In the Goethean approach to the Natural sciences, in botanical studies, one does not take a plant at any particular stage of its development and state that it is the whole of the plant. Rather one utilizes their cognitive capacities to observe and ingest into consciousness the evidence of the plant growing in metamorphic stages from seed through shoot, stem, leaf, flower, fruit, then back to seed, in order to allow for higher order processing and comprehension of the archetypal source of the ideated plant, from which the one under observation is both a cause and effect example of planetary faunal life.
The sign of a healthy intellect is the ability to retain a suspended judgment until sufficient facts are acquired and data is properly assessed to make at least a preliminary determination.
Skeptics scoff, believers believe. Both types, in fact all people, have the base of their world view imprinted in their paleomammallian limbic cortex, ruled by emotion and the dopaminergic and serotonergic pleasure and reward cycles. This appears to prevent logic functions in the neocortex from entering into the cognitive process during the appearance of challenging information. We believe we’re right even when we’re shown we’re not.
As neurologist Dr Robert Burton has described, our sense of certainty is a mental sensation beyond our conscious control, and not evidence of fact. We are self-deceived into thinking we have reasoned the matter out, when it is really just our conscious mind observing our character structure fulfilling its program in real time.
One’s ability to process data is thereby limited by their worldview, and thus factual objective data is often considered false and rejected. The ability to consider an idea without necessarily accepting it is essential. Once one thinks beyond orthodox bounds their critical capacity to discern the most probable reality will prevent them from wandering off into ungrounded fantasy, as many do.
In the original Liberal Arts the Trivium curriculum consists of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric, in that order, i.e. respectively: input-definition, coherence-processing, and explanation-knowledge. It is far too common that people put the “logic” of their worldview prior to grammatical assessment of objective reality, so they are never able to define said reality properly, their imprinted worldview is sustained, their output skewed. This extends to current and historical events, and qualitative and quantitative assessment of the universe and all that which is in it.
So the rule of thumb, if not doing direct research, is to rely on people who have done their research and can objectify their evidence in a logical framework independent of beliefs. If that then fits larger frameworks then one is generally on the right track.
One exploring these realms would be wise to develop the ability to entertain these diverse ideas by thinking out what stages of logic in support do exist if one were assigned to defend any of these diverse positions in a debate exercise; entertain the ideas without accepting them. In consideration of the great mysteries of the universe one must overstep their intellectual limits as a pure mental exercise. Perspective is the greatest of teachers.
However, I’ve extended my quest openly to fully understand the ongoing search for relationships between cosmologies and a verifiable cosmography. Feel free to do the same.
As for world views, naturally I grew up with the standard heliocentric model of the status quo paradigm, learned how we scientifically progressed from silly folks pre-Copernicus who were so mentally unevolved that they considered that our world is in the center of Creation.
Thank heaven for “science”!
The extant world views can be put into four general categories with which to consider the arguments for and against them, Heliocentric, Geocentric, Geocosmic (concave), and Flat. What follows is an overview of these diverse perspectives and their potential relationships.
Do the unthinkable, think!