Is Death Necessary? Or Inevitable?

Is Death Necessary? Or Inevitable?

Death. A foregone conclusion to this life. Maybe. What does science say?

“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me, Albert Einstein wrote in a condolence letter, upon the death of his close friend Michele Besso in 1955, “that signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Einstein was on to something, according to a contemporary scientist.

A theory… a philosophy, really, called “Biocentrism,” explores this question and many other fundamental reality-based questions. Introduced in 2010 by Robert Lanza, a scientist, doctor, and “influential thinker” who felt that consciousness is a problem for not only biologists, but physicists as well. Nothing, according to Lanza, can explain the “molecules of consciousness bouncing around in our brain.”

Biocentrism is sometimes the view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things. This is not that theory of philosophy; it is something entirely different.

The theory postulated by Lanza is that nothing exists outside of consciousness and life. Biology is the great creator. In Lanza’s view, we humans have become very good at understanding the mechanics of our universe. We look at the rotations of planets, and we know chemical properties and can explain how apples fall from trees.

What we can’t explain is why. Why does the universe work as it does? Why can we not explain yet why we have consciousness, or what we should be doing with it? Biocentrism explains the why.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” Said Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning physicist, “We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

Lanza, with biocentrism, seeks to explain the difference between what we all perceive to be an objective reality versus a life-centric reality.

“If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?”

Objective reality says, why yes, of course it does. Biocentrism reality says, not unless brainthere is an ear nearby. The science is lengthy but makes a point – without the ear to hear, the sound does not really exist. The tree falling creates puffs of air which stimulate aneardrum that translates the shift of air into a sort of sound. The sound is entirely held within our brains. The sound requires life and consciousness to comprehend it. The human must remove themselves from the equation to see the validity of the argument, and put themselves back in to understand the human place in creating the universe.

  • The First Principle of Biocentrism is that “what we perceive as reality is a process that requires our consciousness.” Or, said slightly differently, requires “any” consciousness. If I ask you, where is the universe, most might answer, “out there.” What many struggle with is that we are part of the same universe; what is out there is what is in here.                                                                                                                                                                     
  • The Second Principle of Biocentrism is that “internal and external perceptions are intertwined; they are different sides of the same coin and cannot be separated.”

In a complex explanation, Lanza says the general idea is that our brains create the reality we see. In this book, “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe,” Lanza explains all of this in an answer to the question: “Where is the Universe?”

In total, there are seven principles to Biocentrism, according to Lanza.

  • The most interesting one, in relation to death, is the Fourth Principle of Biocentrismwithout consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability.

Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state. This seems to state that we, as are in that undetermined state of probability, and that our matter never really “goes away” but is folded into and part of the ongoing reality of the universe. Our consciousness separates from matter but doesn’t cease to exist because it’s all part of the same consciousness. This reminds me of Neil Gaiman’s story, “American Gods.” Gods exist and thrive because of our consciousness of them.

Life creates the Universe. The Universe (Darwinism, the Big Bang, etc) did not create life. We’ve got it backwards.

Mind. Blown.

It seems like such a simple turn of phrase, one which everyone can identify with. Lanza brings to bear all the science and experiential anecdotes to back it up. He picks us up, biocentrism-turning-the-universe-outside-inkicking and screaming, from seeing the universe one way and to standing on our heads, viewing it another. These theories harken back to the ideals of Eastern Philosophies and Freemasonry.

Freemasons, Buddhists, and Taoists seek balance and unification, we see an understanding of nature and science, and a middle path. For the Buddhist, our consciousness allows us to connect with the One – the whole. For the Taoist, the focus is a seamless flow of life – where there are no individuals but a single existence. For the Freemason, we seek unity and harmony, and the idea that as a unit, we are also creators. None of this is incompatible with Lanza’s scientific and philosophical approach to how the universe, physics, works.

So, to the original questions: “Do we die?” and Is it inevitable?” 

According to Lanza, we are already dead, alive, past, future, and creators right now. The limitations are in our own perceptions and ideas of reality. All of it is right now because we, and all matter, are conscious. Lanza himself addressed this question in a Psychology Today article, located here.

Perhaps if more people could look at the universe from this new paradigm, we would become the creators we already are; we create and destroy together, whether we believe it or not.


  1. For a really good read, try out Lanza’s book on Biocentrism and his follow-on book, “Beyond Biocentrism.”
  2. For an interesting Buddhist view of Biocentrism, look to “The Endless Further,” a Buddhist’s blog.

Masonic Soul Food

Masonic Soul Food

“What is a Soul? What is Spirit? What is Energy?” We begin to engage in conversations about such esoteric terms as soul, energy, and spirit without being cognizant that we are not speaking the same language. The words may be the same but meanings span the spectrum. We can debate these questions all night, all month, and for the rest of our lives and never come to understanding. Do people really know what they mean when they talk about energy, soul, or spirit? While these are common discussions amongst Freemasons, they are sometimes the most difficult subjects on which to remain impartial and fair.

Humans seem to have a lot invested in the idea of their souls, and in other people’s souls, too.

Many  people join Masonic groups so they can “have an energetic experience” or “touch something mystical.” Some talk about experiencing something that touches their soul or provides a spiritual meaning to their lives. Some Freemasons mention how they “love the energy of Lodge” or how it’s our job to “raise the vibration of our material world and send out ‘healing’ energy.” Many people start their Freemasonic career looking for something mystical, something secret that only they have learned, that no one else knows, that provides them a conduit to perhaps special insight that no one else has. Because Freemasonry deals with the questions of life and death, the neophyte may be looking for Freemasonry to unlock all those special secrets and have the answers. They use terms like soul, spirit, and energy without defining them for themselves and in their communications with others.

energy1It seems that many times, the conversations are about what people want to believe rather than reasoned conclusions. Discussion and debate are the way we educate ourselves and grow. Transformation requires thought.

To those who let go of preconceived desires and wishes, Freemasonry is transformative in many ways. It does discuss these questions of life and death. It leaves the aspirant to mull over symbols and meaning and yes, come up with personal insights on perhaps souls and spirit and energy. Freemasonry provides us the opportunity to to convert from a polarizing human nature to one of balance. We need to learn to deal with all aspects of our temperament in order to understand all the features of this life – material, emotional, mental, and spiritual.  It is this last realm, spiritual, that trips many up.

Most Freemasons accept the presence of a greater power, something undefined that connects us all to a single purpose. Most would agree with the idea of the multi-faceted nature of human existence, struggling with the balance of brain, mind, body, and this idea of “connectedness.” Many have experienced things they can’t explain, the nudges of intuition, and the sudden flashes of insight that seem “deep.” These are all valid experiences. It’s taking them from the experience to meaningful communication that humans struggle. We throw out a word like “soul” or “spirit” or “energy” and assume that the people we communicate with understand what they mean. Freemasons are philosophers,  and any good philosopher will not abide a discussion with random, undefined terms. When asked about souls, there are vague allusions to something energetic, mystical, unique, and connected to some form of god/goddess/force/Tao. A soul is what makes us individuals. A soul is something that is part of God. A soul is our energetic self.  “When our eyes met, our souls touched.”

What does any of that really mean?  For each individual who speaks on these subjects, there is a different answer. Pinning people down about souls and spirits and such can be quite agitating for people. Some people get downright angry.

Can we define any of it? Perhaps. Perhaps we can start with energy.

socratesUnless you wholeheartedly dismiss science, there can be no doubt for one second that we are energetic beings. Neurons use electrical impulses and neurotransmitters (chemicals) to enable our bodies to function in its entirety: to think, feel, heal, sense, breath – everything. Without energy, our hearts would not pump, we would cease to be able to think and process information, and we would die. Mitochondria, in a weird symbiotic relationship with us, enable us to live by helping us process the material world around us into energy. Every cell has mitochondria and every cell is able to produce energy of some sort. Life is energy.

Okay, we’ve established we’re energetic beings, and by the nature of the material world, energetic beings are everywhere. We communicate with our senses and receive communication with our senses. Abraham Hicks said, “We talk with words but communicate with energy.” Cyndi Dale, author of “The Subtle Body: An Encyclopedia of your Energetic Body,” states that “energy is information that vibrates.” This latter definition is a little more trustworthy, it seems, than the former. We can test it. We can retest it. We can play with it and work to define examples. However, this is also where it gets tricky, right? Let’s take a page, well, a short paragraph from Wikipedia: “In physics, energy is the property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on or heat the object. It can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.”

BB_timelineWell, okay then, simple question: where did the energy that makes up us come from? Ouch, right? In a recent conversation, I posited this question to a fellow Freemason. He answered, “the stars.” I said okay, get me from B to A. He said “Stars created the elements that trapped the energy that went into making us.” I replied that I agreed, but then, what makes up the stars? He said it must be “the Big Bang.” Humans are the trapped energy of the material created during the Big Bang. To him, we all derive from the single moment that created time, matter, and energy. Physicist or philosopher, the topic of energy is where we converge. We can conclude from this that elements that make up the material world are trapped energy. Is this trapped “energy” spirit? Is that our “soul?”

If we are trapped energy of stars, as is everything around us, then we have far more in common with other matter than we think we do. If we are all made of the same matter, we should be able to recognize one another by way of transferring energy. Or, so one would think. What is interesting to note is that many psychologists and philosophers considered love to be a transference of energy. Freud dwelt on the physical aspects of love while Plato talks about spiritual or unselfish love; but one in the same, what we call love is, to them, a transference of energy. When we love something, we do put energy into it, and it into us. Perhaps this is the idea of spirit. Spirit, Plato said, that that way we communicate emotionally with other humans. Is this not love? So, love is spirit. We can also say love is energy.

So if love, life, and elements are all energy, can we draw any conclusions about the soul?

Many philosophers have tried to explain ‘soul.’ Just one example, Plotinus, the first Neo-Platonist, did his best to help us along in understanding that the soul doesn’t necessarily need a body; yet, without a body, it can’t exist in the “intelligible realms and express itself in the visible realms.” This concept tells us how he thought the soul expressed itself, but not what it is. In a very basic sense, Neoplatonists call the soul “consciousness” or “psyche.” Still, it’s unclear even in modern terms what consciousness is. If we thought defining “soul” in religion is difficult, try the philosophical bent…Truly angst-ridden. It seems that Plotinus and Plato are already agreed that there is a soul, even if they can’t agree on its definition. Maybe it’s something that we all have to debate on until we get to learn for sure. Maybe we’ll never learn for sure, at least not in this world. galaxy-wallpaper-preview-4

One solid conclusion is that the meaning of a soul does not seem to be the meaning of a soul for everyone, and spirit is not something we can agree upon, either. If nothing else, the myriad world religions would illustrate that. The phrase “our souls speak to each other” doesn’t mean much if you can’t really explain to someone else what it means. “We communicated ‘energetically’ is really worthless unless you can really understand clearly what you intend. It doesn’t even matter if you can explain it to someone else; do we even understand ourselves?  A wise Freemason once said that if you can explain something to a five-year-old, and the five-year-old gets it, then you really understand the concept of it. Simple terms, clearly defined, done. We definitely need more five-year-olds around us to keep us honest and clear.

Freemason, scientist, philosopher, or physicist: regardless of what you believe about soul, spirit, energy, or anything else esoteric, definitions are important and personal understanding moreso. The exploration of life’s meaning is, whether we agree on terms or not, something we all share.

Why are we here? Because we’re here. Roll the bones.” – Neal Peart

diceroll