To my memory the word "resonance"
is not used or given any special attention in Essentials
of Unification Thought (2000). But Rev. Sun
Myung Moon's basic idea from the beginning to the
present plays around the concept "resonance
(realm of resonance)" or "sympathetic
motion." So it is possible to comprehend every
topic in this book-creation, epistemology, art,
education, ethics, etc.-as the ﾔtheory of resonance.'
For instance, the Eastern metaphor for ideal education
"（口へんに卒）啄同時" (sottaku doji,
parent bird and chick pecking at the egg at the
same time), or appreciation of art (the state of
being moved) cannot be discussed without the concept
of "resonance. "
Love and 'Give-and-Receive Action'
are also instances of "resonance." Moreover,
this is a concept used both by scientists and people
of religion, and I think this is the time a view
of the world is sorely demanded in which physical
resonance and spiritual resonance are united in
In discussing this topic, I would
like to give attention to the phrase "to be
guided by sincerity and rectify one's thought"
which our new Premier Yoshihiko Noda cited in his
inaugural speech. This is a part of the famous maxim
found in Daigaku, one of old Chinese Confucian books-"格物,
致知, 誠意, 正心, 修身, 斉家, 治国, 平天下.”The
part Mr. Noda cited is "誠意, 正心" (seii,
seishin). The whole maxim (which is given in
Essentials, p.146) purports some such idea: First
investigate the principle of things and extend your
knowledge, then be guided by sincerity, then rectify
your thought, then cultivate your personality, then
regulate your own family, then govern your country
well, and finally bring peace to the world.
I don't know what Mr. Noda meant
by picking out this part. It only caught my ear
while half listening to his replayed speech. But
it caught my ear because I myself am interested
in this part of the dictum. It has been my growing
idea for several years that in our age of serious
cultural crisis this particular phrase should be
highlighted as a warning.
The point of this maxim lies in
the order of what you do if you want to bring peace
to the world. Trying to bring peace to the world
(平天下) or, to properly govern the world, is bound
to fail, unless you first cultivate your personality
(修身) and regulate your own family (斉家). Therefore,
"be guided by sincerity (誠意) and rectify
your thought (正心)" should not be reversed
"Be guided by sincerity"
refers to the working of the deeper level of your
mind, the realm of your intuition or conscience,
while "rectify your thought" occurs on
a comparatively upper level of your mind where you
are mindful of your behavior or orderly thinking.
So the former is the basis for the latter to work.
Once this deeper level of your mind is warped, your
conscious thinking is warped, your personality is
warped, then you get your family warped, your community
and country warped, and finally the world itself
So everything depends on the working
of the deeper level of your mind. Take, for instance,
love, which is most basic to mankind. The basic
personality of man, whether you are a scientist,
an artist, a statesman, a teacher, or anything,
is divided in two parts depending on how love works
in the deeper level of your mind-whether it works
in the direction of your own self or in the direction
of others, the world, and ultimately God.
Our culture, our habitat, is predominantly
an atheistic (or materialist) culture. It can also
be called an arrogant or self-centered culture.
This culture works like despotism though its constituent
members are largely unaware of it, and even though
there are some, even a great many, people who are
not self-centered and live for others, the culture
itself teaches them they are wrong. This happens
because a culture dominates and dictates the very
seat of "sincerity," or honesty, or conscience
of the people.
How is this possible? It all comes
from the unfortunate fact that, in our culture,
what is most respected and trusted is materialist
science, which works as a dictator in the absence
of God. So most people are deceived into thinking
that religion and science are at variance, while
the truth is that antagonism is really between theistic
science and atheistic science. There is a pseudo-principle
propagated by Stephen J. Gould, the Darwinian evolutionist,
called NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) which proposes
that science and religion are entirely different
disciplines which should respect each other, but
actually implying religion should be subjugated
In fact, we have had unclear notions
about it until recently, believing or half-believing
what atheist scientists tried to have us believe.
It was ID (intelligent design) movement and our
Unification Thought movement that made us aware
of this deception. It seems these innovative movements
appeared as they were destined to appear at such
a critical moment, a turning point in history. The
real distinction, distinction between theistic science
and atheistic science, is becoming clearer with
time. Just as the biblical fable (Matthew 13: 24-43)
says, good wheat and poisonous wheat are indistinguishable
while they are young, but when reaping time (transitional
time in history) comes, the difference is clearly
visible, and the poisonous wheat is cut and thrown
into fire. This is what is actually happening now.
Atheistic science actually is banishing
God, usurping the world from His hand. It asserts
the ownership of this world, and essentially considers
that the universe and the natural world are something
to fight for and subjugate. At its basis is Darwinism.
Cosmologist Leonard Susskind, for instance, says,
however Darwinian evolution is hard to believe,
"biologists are armed with a very powerful
tool-the Principle of Natural Selection"1 which
means that for him science is a fight against the
natural world. What a dreary notion! This can parallel
with the Communist China whose atheism inevitably
drives it to the overpowering of the world by force.
Yet, however shocking it is, this represents the
established scientific community today. What happens
when such an idea occupies the seat of "sincerity"?
This spirit is apparent in Stephen
Hawking's latest (co-authored) book, The Grand Design.
Since this is a book that asserts the position of
an extreme materialism hardened against "design,"
its title is puzzling-puzzling even if meant for
irony. But apart from it, the wild assertions of
this book are bewildering. It says our universe
came out of "nothing,"- "because
there is a law like gravity, the universe can and
will create itself from nothing." (p.180) Also
it asserts that "philosophy is dead. Philosophy
has not kept up with modern development in science,
particularly physics." (p.5) Also it says there
is no intrinsic distinction between the real life
and a life game on the computer, there being no
How can these crazy conclusions
come out of one of the most excellent brains in
the world? Whether with Hawking or with Susskind,
such a picture of the world must have come from
extremely clever, correct working of their brains.
Yet, apparently, because the deeper level of their
minds, the seat of "sincerity," was warped
against human nature, their God-given talent in
mathematics and logical reasoning was wasted to
draw such crazy conclusions, ultimately helping
destruction of mankind and the world. These are
exemplary cases of how poisonous wheat has come
to be conspicuous enough to be divided from good
Far from their dismal vision of
the world, it is evident that the essence of the
universe and the natural world is "resonance"
or "sympathetic motion." And since such
is the property of life, it can be said the universe
is life in essence. The world of life is not something
constructed by adding some life element on to the
Why are there so many scientists
who are unable to accommodate to ID, in spite of
the fact that the existence of "design"
is scientifically testable and demonstrable, so
that it naturally demands some intelligent agent?
The reason obviously is not to be sought in logical
reasoning or anywhere but in the location of "sincerity"
of the mind. The materialist is the kind of person
who is unable to be sincere or honest or humble
in the deepest area of his mind. Does ﾔhumbleness'
have anything to do with science? It has everything
to do with science. Indeed, it seems to me whether
one is humble or not makes all the difference in
Just have a look at the following
sentences which are cited as the "standard"
type of invective against ID:
My main gripe with the ID
proponents is that they never seem to give up. How
many times do you need to be told that something
is wrong before you'll admit it? How many times
does ID need to be refuted in the peer reviewed
media before you'll give it up as a lost cause?
The bacterial flagellum irreducible complexity story
is completely and utterly dead. It's wrong. Get
We wonder how a (respectable) scholar
could write like this. But at the same time this
is a good example to show what is happening on the
poisonous wheat side of scientists at this reaping
time of history. (Susskind, Hawking, and Richard
Dawkins, though I don't cite the last here, are
all material for study.) Something unusual is happening
to the materialist scientists, who otherwise must
have been thoughtful with a high IQ and sensibility.
From a fair position, it seems
to be difficult to refute the arguments of ID proponents
who have enough logical power ready against the
expected opponents. Take just for example Stephen
Meyer's Signature in the Cell or Michael
Behe's Darwin's Black Box. But as seen in
the above invective, the problem is not logical
argument but something more fundamental, some deep-seated
resistance, more akin to devil-possessed condition.
As before Christ evil spirits begin to be restless,
so when the materialist culture begins to be exposed
to criticism, it reveals its hidden nature as an
arrogant and self-righteous beast. No logic avails,
only threat and denouncing are used to silence the
opponents. To me who have been watching ID movement
from its earliest time, such an image is overwhelming
and revealing as well. I grew aware how we had been
living in a perverted, unsound cultural environment
without knowing it.
We all live by passion or will before
we live by logic. Logic is the problem of right
or wrong, but passion or will is the problem of
sound or unsound. There are sound and unsound interpretations
of the world. There are sound and unsound attitudes
toward the world. And these two kinds of mindset
are unaccommodating to each other. But while the
sound can sympathize with the unsound, the unsound
regard the sound as unpardonable enemy of science
and their own being.
Religious people often say, "The
rich and the learned are difficult to save,"
meaning the arrogant are unable to see truths confining
themselves in a small world. There is no time more
appropriate than this time for us to cry out this
truth. Even from this point of view alone, we are
entering into an age for religion and science to
be unified. Religion and science should have a common
attitude to the world rather than share their knowledge.
The real intellectual development of mankind will
then be made possible.
What, then, will be an attitude
toward the world which is honest, humble and sound,
freed from arrogance? I would like to discuss it
by taking for teaching material a recently released
DVD, Metamorphosis: the Beauty and Design of Butterflies,
produced for promoting ID.
This is a story about the wonderful
life of a kind of butterfly called Monarch. First,
attention is paid to the very beauty of butterflies,
which, it is explained, is intended for the sake
of beauty itself, "gratuitous artistry."
It apparently exists for humans to appreciate, and
is not explainable in terms of Darwinian "survival"
or use. My impression is that "resonance"
is the keyword for every aspect of mystery about
Then we are introduced to the process
of growth of this butterfly. As everybody knows
a butterfly starts as a caterpillar, then forms
a chrysalis and emerges as a beautiful full-formed
butterfly not at all resembling the caterpillar.
So it follows that in the case of butterfly one
genome can produce two kinds of organism, doubling
the mystery. To redouble the mystery, the content
inside the chrysalis is "soup" or "butter"
utterly without form, so a butterfly can be said
to die for once and then resurrect in the middle
of its life. Still more wonderful is that the completed
butterfly appears in several days. All these will
be unexplainable without assuming a "designer"
far surpassing man, rejecting explanation by chance
and natural selection.
Still greater wonder is the migration
of Monarch butterflies. These butterflies travel,
repeating generation change in the way, therefore
without one guide among them with the memory of
the previous year, exactly between North Canada
and Mexico-the very trees their ancestors alighted
on in a very small area of the volcanic middle Mexico.
How can such navigation be possible? Even though
they have some precise built-in measuring devices
(for instance, it is said they can feel magnetic
attraction of the Mexican volcano), that cannot
explain everything. How could they acquire them
in the first place?
This can only be explained in terms
of "resonance" or sympathy between the
butterflies and their environment. That is to say,
the butterflies and the earth are not separate things
but form one organism, just as the parts composing
a butterfly form one organic unity. In that respect,
every life form (including human) is connected with
its environment and other life forms and form one
organism (even though the environments contain lifeless
matter like rock or magnetism). All organisms on
earth and the earth must be considered to form one
"realm of resonance" centering on man
(because man is special, as I explain later).
The point to make is that everything
must be created that way, not evolved that way,
and that there must be a creator, a "super
intellect" (Fred Hoyle) that created the natural
world with some purpose or intention, though not
Since materialists cannot think
of life except as an extension of physical phenomena,
they close their minds hard and show enmity toward
such a way of thinking. In this connection there
is this eye-opening episode reported:
On the occasion of the premiere
of this DVD Metamorphosis at Butterfly World, Florida,
since the audience was almost all lovers of butterfly,
the response was somewhat different from other places.
When the introducer made an opening speech, there
was a big applause at the mere mention of "intelligent
design,'" and the reporter says, "South
Floridians seem starved for ID." After the
screening there remained a passionate atmosphere,
and from the lingering audience someone was heard
saying, "Take even the most hardened scientist
to see the butterflies in Mexico, and they will
be moved to tears." The reporter adds, "Which
sounds about right."3
This clinches the story of "resonance"
starting with Monarch butterfly. That "even
the most hardened scientist" should be "moved
to tears" at the overwhelming beauty and design
of the natural world-this is certainly the ultimate
"resonance" of this world. The "resonance"
between nature and us humans is the most significant
resonance designed by God to occur. This occurs
at the deeper level of the human mind, where some
go in the perverted way of arrogance while others
let themselves "be guided by sincerity"
toward unity with nature. And it is the latter,
not the former, that can be favored with the revelation
of nature as a whole.
Until recently we have been unable
to get used to the concept "teleology."
And that is because we were trained thoroughly in
materialist science. But as the fact of cosmic "fine
tuning" has come to be recognized as scientific
fact settling in our mind, (and probably, as the
"multiverse" hypothesis to escape it by
Darwinian explanation has come to be distrusted),
the concept of teleology or final causation seems
to be escaping the one-time taboo. Our universe
is physically unbelievably fine-tuned to produce
humans (not merely life) and our habitat, the earth.
Viewed differently, our universe as a whole is a
vast "resonant" body with us in the center,
designed as one vast organism.
Life is different from matter in
that its elements are spatio-temporally harmonized,
or "resonant." Life and purpose are inseparable
concepts. Butterflies know their environment and
the environment knows butterflies. In the beginning
of the butterfly (plan, purpose, design, DNA) resides
the completed butterfly, and in the completed butterfly
resides the beginning.
What we call the beginning is often
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
The end is where we start from.
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first
----T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets, "Little Gidding"4
As Monarch butterflies and the earth
form a "realm of resonance," life's beginning
and life's end form a "realm of resonance."
What is created presupposes a creator. In what is
created is contained the motive or intention of
its creation. "We shall not cease from (scientific
or philosophical) exploration." The mystery
of Monarch butterfly is an object of our eternal
investigation, and it will be solved little by little.
But the end of our investigation is to know the
origin of the butterfly, and the origin of the "resonance"
between the butterfly and ourselves who are endlessly
attracted by it. We keep traveling and finally "arrive
where we started and know the place for the first
Referring to the history of scientific
exploration, Rev. Moon recently explained5 there
are three stages of human concern: first, "matter-centered
(物情)," then "human-centered (人情),"
and finally "heaven-centered (天情)."
The first is the stage of materialism where man
is exclusively concerned about the objects themselves,
whether animate or inanimate. The second is the
stage where man is interested in his own self, what
is man who is so related with the outer world, the
age of psychology, cerebral physiology, psychoanalysis,
etc. And now finally, man is beginning to be interested
in the place where all these originated, how was
the mind of God who designed the world in this particular
way. This is the stage of "heaven-centered
concern," most probably represented by ID and
Rev. Moon also proposes the word
"進化" (evolution) be abolished and replaced
by "進和" (develop to harmony).6 He says
those who use the term ﾔevolution' are "out
of their senses." When the whole universe is
apparently advancing toward greater harmony, those
who try to explain it on the principle of rejection
or struggle are certainly "out of their senses."
Why did South Floridians "seem starved for
ID" and give a big applause at the mere mention
of it? Because they have been given a viper when
they craved for bread.
Essentials explains the essence
of creation in such terms as "円和性"
or "円満性" (rotative harmony?). Unless
you envisage the universe as interpenetrating in
time or anticipating the future, it is hard to imagine
how it was possible, as in the Cambrian explosion,
to create every variety of full-formed animals abruptly,
"out of nowhere" as it is said. Creation
must be "進和" (develop to harmony) where
give-and-receive action or "resonance"
occurs between mind (Sungsang) and material (Hyungsag)
to produce a new product.
Give-and-receive action between
Sungsang and Hyungsang is possible
because each side partakes something of the other,
not entirely different as is envisaged in the Western
(Aristotelian) tradition. I think God's creation
can be likened to give-and-receive of radio waves
in broadcasting where your act of tuning can suddenly
(not gradually) produce full-formed sounds or images.
By the way, the latter four lines
of the above quotation from T. S. Eliot are used
and recited in the opening part of the ID-related
DVD, The Privileged Planet. The original
is the book with the same title co-authored by Guillermo
Gonzalez and Jay Richards. As the subtitle "How
Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery"
shows, this book explores how our earth is fine-tuned
not only for us to live in but, strangely, to investigate
the universe, being most probably the only place
in the universe fit for astronomers as well as other
scientists to work. (Note: Gonzalez was expelled
from his university for supporting ID!)
The following is one of such strange
astronomical facts mentioned in this book:
In fact, stars are very much
like their representation in a computer. Like the
virtual tag each virtual star carries with it, a
real star contains and transmits information about
its age, mass, position, and velocity. To put it
in a topsy-turvy sort of way, the Milky Way galaxy
is so weirdly accommodating to our efforts to measure
its gravitational properties that it's like a gigantic
What is this "weirdly accommodating
to our efforts"? Astronomers' objects are not
animate but inanimate matter. And yet they have
the impression that it is collaborating with them,
answering their will to know it. This seems to be
parallel with the "resonant" relation
between Monarch butterfly and the earth. It seems
to be an instance of organic connection of man and
inorganic object as representing the universal "resonance."
Such a strange impression seems to be common among
astronomers or astrophysicists. This is an instance
of cosmic "fine tuning," but this is a
fine tuning that cannot be expressed in numerical
Let's see another such remark cited
in this book:
We can...be thankful that
the Solar System in which we live has been unreasonably
kind throughout the long history of human efforts
to understand its dynamics and to extend that knowledge
to the rest of the universe. At each step along
the way, it has served as a perspicacious teacher,
posing questions just difficult enough to prompt
new observations and calculations that have led
to fresh insights, but not so difficult that any
further study become mired in a morass of confusing
detail. (my italics)8
We all know that the sun provides
all energy we need and comfortable environments
for living, but that is not all. Here it is pointed
out that the Solar System has been an "unreasonably
kind" teacher who has responded to our questions
according to our growth, but neither too kind nor
too unkind, as excellent teachers are. The universe
and humans are designed to "resonate"
so that we may be led to higher levels of knowledge.
Whose will is it? There is no better way to describe
it than "universe-scaleそっ啄同時" (parent
bird and chick pecking at the egg at the same time).
Note that it is pointed out in A Meaningful World
(co-authored by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt,
and translated into Japanese by our group) that
a very similar thing happened in the laborious process
of perfecting the Periodic Table in chemistry.
In other words, we (scientists)
and the natural world are so designed as to be able
to have a dialog, though with difficulty and perseverance
on our part. What we call the development of science
is raising the level of this dialog, i.e. "resonance."
Materialists cannot think of it as anything but
the result of their cleverness (especially in mathematics)
and chance (serendipity). And it naturally leads
to the perverted idea that the universe is something
to be subjugated by man.
This arrogance is due to the fact
that our intellectual level remains at the stages
"matter-centered" and "human-centered."
When we outgrow those stages and begin to wonder
what it is at all that makes our scientific inquiry
possible, we enter the "heaven-centered"
stage. We feel ashamed of our one-time arrogance
and become aware of the immeasurable value of humility.
This is the time when science and religion truly
become unified. The very concepts of science and
religion have to change. Education in science grows
equal to education in religion. This is what Rev.
Moon calls the "post-religious" era. He
says, "Religion exists for us to outgrow it."
In The Privileged Planet
Most scientists presuppose
the measurability of the physical realm: it's measurable
because scientists have found ways to measure it.
Read any book on the history of scientific discovery
and you'll find magnificent tales of human ingenuity,
persistence, and dumb luck. What you probably won't
see is any discussion of the conditions necessary
for such feats, conditions so improbably fine-tuned
to allow scientific discoveries that they beg for
a better explanation than mere chance.
Even more mysterious than the fact that our location
is so congenial to diverse measurement and discovery
is that these same conditions appear to correlate
with habitability. This is strange, because there's
no obvious reason to assume that the very same rare
properties that allow for our existence would also
provide the best overall setting to make discoveries
about the world around us. We don't think this is
merely coincidental. It cries out for another explanation,
an explanation that suggests there's more to the
cosmos than we have been willing to entertain or
That most scientists today present
a ﾔblank face' to these facts can be likened to
the following fiction:
There was a young man who was
unwilling to work after finishing his college and
living idle. But there was more than enough money
paid into his bank account every month, and whenever
he comes back to his rooms from idling outdoors,
he found everything cleaned and washing done. But
this fellow is indifferent to all these and thinks
such is the way things are done in this world. One
day his friend said to him, "But there must
be someone doing it all for you." But he looks
blank not seeing the meaning. One day, however,
it was known all these were done by his parents.
But still he was neither surprised nor thankful
at all, and says to his astounded friend, "It
is quite natural that parents do such things for
their children. It is nothing but a natural phenomenon.
What reason do I have to be thankful to a natural
phenomenon?" To crown it, he began to sneer
at his friend for being a poor scientist.
I think this parable is a fairly
faithful picture of the scientific community today.
Probably the greater part of scientists takes the
position of this idle fellow. Why? The reason is
that materialist-atheist culture distorts the seat
of "sincerity," paralyzes it, and leads
them to suppose that such a thing as thankfulness
or love is an obstacle to the scientist, and that
science should be something cold. This is completely
mistaken, because it is in scientific demonstration
that we should be cold and free from emotion, not
in scientific motivation.
How are we to interpret this strange
fact that, viewed cosmologically, we are inordinately
favored not only for our existence but also favored
and guided in scientific discovery? How are we to
understand this mysterious collaborative relationship
between us and the natural world? Is it a problem
that can be solved by our "matter-centered"
or "human-centered" sciences? It no doubt
needs what Rev. Moon calls "heaven-centered"
It takes us further into the more
fundamental problem. Why are we (at least, part
of us) so much blessed with mathematic ability?
Physicist Eugene Wigner once called our attention
to it by his essay on the "unreasonable
effectiveness of mathematics in natural science."
(my italics) Albert Einstein in the same vein said,
"The most incomprehensible thing about the
universe is that it is comprehensible." The
answer is that the universe and our minds (minds
of a selected few) are designed to "resonate."
We should not think we can do science
so well because we are clever. That is like thinking
Monarch butterflies can travel so well because they
are clever. That is an absurdity. As Monarch butterflies
and the earth form one "resonant" whole,
so the structure of our thought and the structure
of the universe form one "resonant" whole,
designed by God to be legible to man, the center
of the universe.
This is not something we hear in
the classroom. It is a revelation to inspire us
with awe. It is a revelation to strike our arrogance
We cannot but conceive the universe
as a vast "realm of resonance" with man
at the center. Why is there such a mysterious relationship
between man and the universe? The only system of
thought that can answer this question seems to be
Unification Thought. Unification Thought envisages
man as the goal of creation. So in the beginning
there was the image of man in the Creator's mind
and the history of the universe is the process of
realizing that purpose. The reason for the miraculous
cosmic fine tuning, the privileged place of man
in the universe (it is almost concluded there is
no such another place in it), and man's particular
endowments in science and reasoning cannot be explained
except from the point of view given in UT.
The UT epistemology is called the
ﾔtheory of collation.' This comes from the view
of man as the microcosm to the macrocosm (universe),
the view that the structure of the universe is embedded
in man, so that the two may form a "resonant"
whole. Cognition is possible by tuning on both sides,
as it were. So UT epistemology may also be called
the "theory of resonance." Even a high
level of cognition like scientific discovery can
be explained by this epistemology. It is not that
there is the basis on this side (our inner self)-Kantian
epistemology-nor that there is the basis on the
other side (outer world)-Marxian reflection theory.
Cognition is possible by "resonance."
This view is a revolution brought into the history
Materialists will sneer at such
a notion as ﾔcommunicative power of prayer.' But
viewed from UT epistemology this will become less
ﾔridiculous.' Won't it, you materialist? You can
move the world by your prayer-only if you are no
longer arrogant! No longer stupid, in another word.
"Resonance" is a term
used in physics, too. The most significant discovery
of resonance in the natural world seems to me Fred
Hoyle's. As far as I understand, he predicted that,
in order for carbon to be made by nuclear fusion
in stars, there must be a strictly fine-tuned nuclear
energy resonance, which later was confirmed by experiment.
If this discovery was not made, it would have been
impossible to explain how we were made, for carbon
is the central element in building organisms.
The following is his often cited
A commonsense interpretation
of the facts suggests that a super intellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and
biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature.10
Though Fred Hoyle recognized a "super
intellect" as responsible for fine tuning,
most scientists do not, though they recognize fine
tuning. But as long as some "super intellect"
or designing agent is not assumed in or beyond (we
don't know which, nor does it matter) our universe,
physics cannot be incorporated in the whole body
of human knowledge and therefore cannot hope for
That Hoyle discovered the phenomenon
of "resonance" in carbon, the most important
element of life, is of special significance, because
the universe itself is a vast phenomenon of life,
and life itself is a vast phenomenon of "resonance"
both in space and time. Life itself existed from
the very beginning, though invisibly. If the microcosm,
man, is a being designed to be an organic whole,
it follows the macrocosm is designed to be an organic
whole, too. There must be such a thing as backward
causation. Does anyone believe a human fetus grows
to be a man by mechanical causation alone? Also,
has anyone ever heard of a pain in the foot unknown
to the brain?
If such is true of man and the universe,
we ought naturally to be able to feel pain and pleasure
of remote unseen people. Thus ethics should be one
area of "natural" science based on the
universal principle of "resonance." Materialism,
in contrast, is a principle of repulsion or rejection.
If our culture is (unconsciously) dominated by such
a principle, it is more than obvious that discord
will prevail and bring us to destruction.
To prevent such a doom, there must first be awareness
that we are created beings, and that we were created
not incidentally but as the very objective of creation,
so that we are entrusted by the Creator to govern
everything in this world. We have been trained since
Copernicus till today to think just the opposite,
to think we are insignificant beings in the universe,
incidental products produced by natural causes.
This has long worked to breed in us fake humility.
I would call this illusion of our worthlessness
Satan's strategy. What we need is real humility.
It was this fake humility that nurtured its
friend: arrogance. This cannot be overstressed.
The Privileged Planet reminds
us of this overlooked fact using the term ﾔCopernican
We not only occupy an exceptional
location within the universe, we also occupy a special
moment in cosmic history. While we and our environs
are not literally the physical center of the universe,
we are special in other, much more significant ways.
In a sense we are nestled snugly in the "center"
of the universe not in a trivial spatial sense but
with respect to habitability and measurability.
This fact stands in a stark contrast to expectations
nurtured by the Copernican Principle.
We are placed essentially
at the center of the universe, so we have to assume
we are given a privilege and responsibility at the
same time. Noblesse oblige! I think before
long this will be recognized as a scientific fact,
not merely a speculation. Is this not a fact before
which we should be struck with awe? What does it
mean to try to distract people's attention from
this fact, as some scientists do? It means to poison
the seat of "sincerity" of our minds and
lead people and the world to destruction.
That our universe was created with
us in mind, that we are the microcosm conceived
prior to the macrocosm, means that we are the center
of the cosmic "resonance." On this principle,
as the old Confucian dictum says, we should be guided
by sincerity, rectify our thought, cultivate our
personality, regulate our own family, govern the
country well, and bring peace to the world.
Materialism is a principle of self-destruction.
All human activities based on that principle are
doomed to fail. We must outgrow our materialist
culture as soon as possible, which has now revealed
itself as "poisonous wheat" though we
have long been deluded as to its real nature.
1. Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String
Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design
(New York: Little, Brown & Company, 2006), p.6.
2. See www.evolutionnews.org March 15, 2011, "Michael
Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum."
3. See www.evolutionnews.org October 12, 2011, "Metamorphosis
Debus at Butterfly World, Florida."
4. The Complete Poems and Plays of T. S. Eliot
(London: Faber & Faber, 1969), p.197.
5. Rev. Moon's speech at the Oct. 26, 2011 Hoon
Dok Hwe (at the Cheon Jeong Gung, Cheong Pyeong)
6. Rev. Moon's speech at the Oct. 13, 2011 Hoon
Dok Hwe (at the Cheon Jeong Gung, Cheong Pyeong)
7. Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Richard, The
Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Universe
Is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC.:
Regnery Publishing, 2004), p.126.
8. Ibid., p.103.
9. Ibid., pp.xiii-xv.
10. Cited in Denyse O'Leary, By Design or by
11. The Privileged Planet, p.271.