Monthly Archives: June 2016

Dreams, Electrical Reality, Evolution, Feelings, Gestalt, Inner universe, Lessons, Metaphysics, Ontology, Physical Life, Thought, Thoughts, Uncategorized, Unknown

Proliferations of Consciousness

These imply some pretty fantastic abilities on the part of we humans — for such developments show that even though we live as small creatures within the incredible richness of an overall consciousness, or All That Is, still our actions can result in that great consciousness exploring new areas of itself. Quite awesome creative abilities on our part, and ones that unknowingly we take for granted. We do this all of the time, of course, individually and collectively.

p41

In the beginning, there was not God the Father, Allah, Zoroaster, Zeus, or Buddha.

In the beginning there was instead, a divine psychological gestalt — and by that I mean a being whose reality escapes the definition of the word “being,” since in it the source from which all beings emerges. That being exists in a psychological dimension, a spacious present, in which everything that was or is or will be (in our terms) is kept in immediate attention, poised in a divine context that is characterized by such a brilliant concentration that the grandest and the lowliest, the largest and the smallest, are equally held in a multi-loving constant focus.

p15

Our conceptions of beginnings and endings make an explanation of such a situation most difficult, for in our terms the beginning of the universe is meaningless — that is, in those terms there was no beginning.

The universe is always coming into existence, and each present moment bring its own built-in past along with it. We agree on accepting as fact only a small portion of the large available data that compose any moment individually or globally. We accept only those data that fit in with our ideas of motion in time. As a result, for example, our archeological evidence usually presents a picture quite in keeping with our ideas of history, geological eras, and so forth.

p17

The conscious mind sees with a spectacular but limited scope. It lacks all peripheral vision. I use the term “conscious mind” as we define it, for we allow it to accept as evidence only those physical data available for the five senses — while the five senses, of course, represent only a relatively flat view of reality, that deals with the most apparent surface.

The physical senses are the extensions of inner senses that are, in one way or another, a part of each physical species regardless of its degree. The inner senses provide all species with an inner method of communication. The cells, then, possess inner senses.

p66

Atoms perceive their own positions, their velocities, motions, the nature of their surroundings, the material that they compose. Our world did not just come together, mindless atoms forming here and there, elements coalescing from brainless gases — nor was the world, created by some distant objectified God who created it part by part as in some cosmic assembly line. With defects built in, mind you, and better models coming every geological season.

The universe formed out of what God is.

p44

The universe is the natural extension of divine creativity and intent, lovingly formed from the inside out — so there was consciousness before there was matter, and not the other way around.

In certain basic and vital ways, our own consciousness is a portion of that divine gestalt. In the terms of our earthly experience, it is a metaphysical, scientific, and a creative error to separate matter from consciousness, for consciousness materializes itself as matter in physical life.

p8

Our consciousness will survive our body’s death, but it will also take on another kind of form — a form that is itself composed of “units of consciousness.” We have a propensity for wanting to think in terms of hierarchies of consciousness, with humanity at the top of the list, in global terms. The Bible, for example, says that man is put in dominion over the animals, and it seems as if upgrading the consciousness of animals must somehow degrade our own. The divine gestalt, however, is expressed in such a way that its quality is undiluted. It cannot be watered down, so that in basic terms one portion of existence is somehow up or down the scale from another. It is all Grade A.

We limit the capacity of our conscious mind by refusing to allow it to use a larger scope of attention, so that we have remained closed and ignorant about the different, varied, but rich experiences of other species: They do appear beneath us. We have allowed a certain stubborn literal-mindedness to provide us with definitions that served to categorize rather than illuminate other realities beside our own.

p16

In the beginning, then, there was a subjective world that became objective. Matter was not yet permanent, in our terms, for consciousness was not yet as stable there. In the beginning, then, there was a dream world, in which consciousness formed a dream of physical reality, and gradually became awake within that world.

Mountains rose and tumbled. Oceans filled. Tidal waves thundered. Islands appeared. The seasons themselves were not stable. In our terms the magnetic fields themselves fluctuated — but all of the species were there at the beginning, though in the same fashion, for as the dream world broke through into physical reality there was all of the tumultuous excitement and confusion with which a mass creative event is achieved. There was much greater plasticity, motion, variety, give-and-take, as consciousness experimented with its forms. The species and environment together formed themselves in concert, in glorious combination, so that each fulfilled the requirements of its own existence while adding to the fulfillment of all other portions of physical reality.

p14

That kind of event simply cannot fit into our concepts of “the beginning of the world,” with consciousness arising out of matter almost as a second thought, or with an exteriorized God initiating a divine but mechanistic natural world.

Nor can this concept fit into our versions of good and evil. God, or All that Is, is in the deepest sense completed, and yet uncompleted. Again, I am aware of the contradiction that seems to be presented to our minds. In a sense, however, a creative product, say, helps complete an artist, while of course the artist can never be completed. All That Is, of God, in a certain fashion, now — and this is qualified — learns as we learn, and makes adjustments according to our knowledge. We must be very careful here, for delusions of divinity come sometimes too easily, but in a basic sense we all carry within ourselves the undeniable mark of All That Is — and an inbuilt capacity — to glimpse in our own terms undeniable evidence of our own greater existence. We are as close to the beginning of our world as Adam and Eve were, or as the Romans, or as the Egyptians or Sumerians. The beginning of the world is just a step outside the moment.

p3

I have a purpose in this blog — for this discussion — and that purpose is to change our ideas of ourselves, by showing a truer picture of our history both in terms of our immortal consciousness and our physical heritage.

A basic religious awareness has always been with mankind and womankind. Here are a few historical and mythological signposts of the intuitive understanding.
God the Father. There’s no way to assign any reasonably accurate date to when God the Father created all things, as described in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. (The Biblical account of Creation makes evolution an impossibility.) Nor can the date of Creation be arrived at by counting the Bible’s lists of generations, as given in the Old Testament, since these may well be incomplete.

Mohammed (A.D. 570?-632), the Prophet of Islam, stressed the uniqueness of the god Allah, whose name was already well known in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Zoroaster (628?-551? B.C.) was a Persian religious teacher and prophet.

Zeus was the supreme god of the ancient Greeks, who worshipped him in connection with almost every facet of daily life. He was the son of Cronus and Rhea, and the husband of his sister Hera. The Romans identified Zeus with their own supreme god, Jupiter, or Jove.

Buddha. This is the title given to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism. He was a religious teacher and philosopher who lived in India, probably from 563 to 483 B.C.

p47

2. I see correlations between the “flat view of reality” given to us by our physical senses, and the “flat” view of the universe that cosmologists perceive when they look way out into space. In his general theory of relativity, Einstein postulated that space can curve, and this has been shown to happen near the sun. Yet when scientists examine our universe of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, they see space as essentially flat, instead of curving in upon itself as it should over those enormous distances. Nor can the big-bang theory of the origin of the universe account for the homogeneity of a flat universe. The inflationary model can explain both the appearance of flatness and homogeneity — but, like all theories, it poses other problems that have yet to be resolved.

 

Dreams, Electrical Reality, Emotions, Evolution, Feelings, Gestalt, Inner universe, Lessons, METAPHYSICAL EXERCISES, Metaphysics, Ontology, Physical Life, Thought, Thoughts, Uncategorized, Unknown

Desire to create out of joy, not from a sense of responsibility

Many if the ideas in my blogs will be accepted by scientists most dubiously, though some, of course, will grasp what I will be saying. It is of course very difficult for the deepest truths cannot be physically proven. Science is used to asking quite specific questions, and it usually comes up with very specific answers — even if those answers are wrong.

d11

“Wrong” answers can fit together, however, to present a perfect picture, an excellent construct of its own — and why not? For any answers that do not fit the construct are simply thrown away and never appear. So in a fashion we are dealing with what science has thrown away. The picture we will end up presenting, will certainly not fit that of established science.

However, if objective proof of that nature is considered the priority for facts, then as we know science cannot prove its version of the universe’s origin either. It only sets up an hypothesis, which collects about it all data that agree, and again ignores what does not fit. Moreover, science’s thesis meets with no answering affirmation in the human heart — and in fact arouses the deepest antipathy, for in his or her heart man or woman well knows his/her own worth, and realizes that his/her own consciousness is no accident. The psyche, then, possesses within itself an inner affirmation, an affirmation that keeps man from being completely blinded by his/her own mental edifices.

d12

There is furthermore a deep, subjective, immaculately knowledgeable standard within man’s or woman’s consciousness by which he/she ultimately judges all of the theories and the beliefs of his/her time, and even if his/her intellect is momentarily swamped by ignoble doctrines, still that point of integrity knows. That is the portion of him/her, of course, that is born and grows to maturity even while the lungs or digestive processes do not read learned treatises on the body’s “machinery,” so in my blog we will hope to arouse within the reader, of whatever persuasion, a kind of subjective evidence, a resonance between ideas and being. Many people comment, saying that they feel as if somehow they have always been acquainted with our material — and of course they have, for it represents the inner knowing within each individual. In a fashion, creative play is our human version of far greater characteristics from which our universe itself was formed. There are all kinds of definite, even specific, subjective evidence for the nature of our own reality — evidence that is readily apparent once we really begin to look for it, particularly by comparing the world of our dreams with our daily life.

In other words, subjective play is the basis for all creativity, of course — but far more, it is responsible for the great inner play of subjective and objective reality.

d7

With all due respect, psychologists, with the best of intentions, are barking up the wrong psychological tree. He/she are very enthusiastic about his or her value tests, and his or her enthusiasm is what is important. The nature of the subjective mind, however, will never open itself to such tests, which represent, more than anything else, a kind of mechanical psychology, as if we could break down human values to a kind of logical alphabet of psychic atoms and molecules. A good try, but representative of psychology’s best attempt to make sense of a poor hypothesis.

We may do what we wish ourselves (about taking the tests), of course, but our main purpose is to drive beyond psychology’s boundaries, and not play pussyfoot among the current psychological lilies of the field.

d4

Our body’s are responding, so let us remember that creativity is playful, and that it always surfaces when we allow our mind to drop its worries.

Whenever a blog is translated, it is almost impossible, of course, to say the same thing in the same way. My blog will always be expressed through those invisible national characteristics that are so intimately involved with language — and obviously, were that not so, no blog could be understood by someone of a foreign language. There are bound to be distortions, but the distortions themselves are meaningful.

d13

Now, a number of the world’s leading scientists in the physical disciplines have publicly stated their beliefs that basically consciousness plays the primary role in our world and/or universe. For reasons too complicated to go into here, this attitude prevails even with some mathematicians who seek to penetrate to the core of our reality as they understand it.

However, for every scientist bold enough to think this way, there are scores of others who vehemently disagree. For most scientific materialists only physical matter is real. For them consciousness is nothing more than an epiphenomenon, the passive by-product of the brain’s physiology and chemical events. They believe that physical death is the end of everything, that ultimately all if pointless. They derisively call their rebellious colleagues “animists” — those who believe that all life forms and natural phenomena have a spiritual origin independent of physical matter. (Such heretics are called “Vitalists,” a term related to animism, and one which also has a long history of scientific contempt behind it.)

d9

What can the materialistic scientists use other than mind — or consciousness, that poor epiphenomenon — to study and dissect matter? (Not to mention that innumerable experiments have proven that “physical matter” isn’t solid or objective at all, but “only” energy!) We have, then, the paradox of mind denying its own reality, let alone its importance. As far as we know, human beings are the only creatures on earth who would seriously engage in such learned futile behavior. It’s also very ironic, I think, that the materialists spend years acquiring their eclipsed education and prestige, both of which they then use to inform us of the ultimate futility of all of our endeavors (including their own, or course). But for the materialists, the mind-brain duality isn’t scientific in the orthodox sense. It isn’t falsifiable; that is, it cannot be stated under what precise conditions the mind-brain duality could be proven false. To which, understandably enough, those scientists who do accept the reality of mind reply that neither can the idea be falsified that only what is “physical” is real.

d5

I think is most risky at this stage in history for anyone — scientist or not — to dogmatically state that life has no meaning, of is a farce, or that attributes of our reality of which we can only mentally conceive at this time do not really exist. Discoveries in the “future” are quite apt to prove such limited viewpoints wrong. The history of science itself contains many examples of theories and “facts” gone awry. Moreover, why would our species want to depend upon as fragile a conception as epiphenomenalism through which to comprehend our reality? Or better yet, why does it in large part? Truly, our individual and collective ignorance of just our own probable reality is most profound at this time in our linear history (in those terms). I would be surprised is ultimately, as a result of mankind’s or womankind’s restless search for meaning, we didn’t end up returning in a new official way to our ancient concepts of spirit within everything, animate and inanimate. Such an updated animistic/vitalistic view would take into account discoveries ranging from sub-nuclear events to the largest imaginable astronomical processes in our observable universe. Human beings do know their own worth.

d15

There is no doubt that we need to believe that life has meaning. That belief may well be biological imperative. If we were as science maintains — only creatures formed by elements combining mindlessly in a universe itself created by chance, surrounded everywhere by chaos — then how could we even conceive of the idea of meaning or order?

d16

Science would say that the idea of meaning itself is simply a reflection of the state of the brain, as is the illusion of our consciousness. But a science that disregards consciousness must necessarily end up creating its own illusion. It ignores the reality of experience, the evidence of being, and in so doing it denies rather than reinforces life’s values.

 

Dreams, Electrical Reality, Energy, Evolution, Gestalt, Inner universe, Lessons, Metaphysics, Ontology, Physical Life, Thought, Time, Uncategorized, Unknown

Atoms are “processes” rather than things

The classical conception of the typical atom as being composed of a neat nucleus of indivisible protons and neutrons circled by electrons is largely passe, although for convenience sake we may still describe the atom that way. (In those terms, the one exception is the hydrogen atom, which evidently consist of but one proton and one electron cloud, or “smear.”) For the simple purposes of this blog, then, I’m leaving out considerations involving quantum mechanics, which concept repudiates the idea of “particles” to begin with. (And surely that notion involves more than a little of the psychic, or “irrational.” What a heretical thought from the scientific viewpoint!) But each atom of whatever element is an amazingly complicated, finely balanced assemblage of forces and particles woven together in exquisite detail — one of the more basic examples of the unending and stupendous creativity, order, and design of nature, or consciousness, or All That IS.

ee44

Through their work with particle accelerators, or “atom smashers,” physicists have discovered that protons and neutrons themselves are composed of forces and particles that in turn are almost certainly composed of forces and particles, and so on, in an ever-descending scale of smaller and smaller entities and concepts. Over 100 subatomic particles have been identified so far, and no one doubts now that many more will found. The existence of a number of still-undiscovered specific particles has been predicted.

Our scientists can count elements. That is, they will create more and discover more until they are ready to go out of their minds, because they will always create physical ‘camouflages’ of the real nonphysical thing. And while they create instruments to deal with smaller and smaller particles, they will actually see smaller and smaller particles, seemingly without end.

ee13

As their instruments reach farther into the universe they will ‘see’ farther and farther, but they will automatically transform what they apparently ‘see’ into the camouflage patterns with which they are familiar. They are and they will be the prisoners of their own tools.

Instruments calculated to measure the vibrations with which scientists are familiar will be designed and redesigned. All sorts finally of seemingly impossible phenomena will be discovered with these instruments, until the scientists realize that something is desperately wrong. The instruments will be planned to catch certain camouflages, and since they will be expertly thought out they will perform their function. I do not want to get too involved. However, by certain means the instruments themselves will transform data from terms that we cannot understand into.

ee42

Some of the “particles’ the theoretical physicists have discovered — and/or created — in their gigantic particle accelerators have unbelievably short life-spans in our terms, vanishing, it seems, almost before they’re born. I like to think of such research from the particle’s point of view, though, a consideration I haven’t seen mentioned in the few scientific journals I have read. The merest particle is basically conscious in its own way. Mesons are classes of particles produced from the collisions of protons. Did a meson, for example, choose to participate in an atom-smashing experiment in order to merely peek in on our gross physical reality for much less than the billionth of a second if exists with that identity, before it decays into electrons and photons? From its viewpoint, our reality might be an incomprehensible to it as its reality is to us — yet the two inevitably go together.

In it way the meson may have all of the “time” it needs, or wants. It may look upon our world as one frozen or motionless, upon other subatomic particles as very slow-moving indeed, or even faster than it is. (As far as “time” goes, some particles live for far less than a trillionth of a second.”) I’m quite sure, however, that the meson, or any short-lived particle, searches out its own kind of value fulfillment while here with us. Probable realities, which I haven’t even mentioned, must be deeply involved also.

ee22

And of course there are all sorts of motion, some of them very stable, if still incomprehensible to us. But whereas the meson vanishes from our view after its exceedingly brief existence, the electron has an “infinite” life-span. Think of the unending varieties of value fulfillment it explores in just our world alone! Talk about motion: The average electron orbits its atomic nucleus about a million times each billionth of a second (or nanosecond).

Electromagnetic energy units (or units of consciousness), these nonphysical entities — and many others of a like nature — are emanations of consciousness, or All That Is, and in “size” rank far below the tiniest particles ever observed in atom smasher. Each unit of consciousness contains within itself innately infinitely infinite properties of expansion, development and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. It is aware energy, not personified but awarized.

ee18

The varieties of consciousness — the inner psychological particles, the equivalent, say, of the atom or molecule, or proton, neutron or quark — those nonphysical, ‘charmed,’ ‘strange,’ forms of consciousness that make experience go up or down, and all around and around — are never of course dealt with by science.

ee52

If physical form is made up of such multitudinous, invisible particles, how much more highly organized must be the inner components of consciousness, without whose perceptions matter itself would be meaningless. The alliances of consciousness, then, are far more vast than those of particles in any form.