Category Archives: Metaphysics

contrary to DARWINISTic belief, MATHEMATICALLY…

…Enormous time spans (in the millions of years, say) will not aid in the chance formation of even the chemical precursors to life–the protein or nucleic acid molecules–but will instead   make their creation even less likely. For with time, the even distribution or equilibrium of matter increases, moving it away from the ordered sequences necessary to support life. Scientifically, in the closed system of our universe, the second law of thermodynamics and entropy eventually conquer all.


Nor can solar energy be thought of as the agent that directly turned nonliving matter into its living counterpart; in those terms, life required its inter-mediate molecules, which sunlight is not able to construct. Life needs protein in order to “be”, and to sustain it through metabolism–then it can use solar energy! Darwin’s theory that life arose by chance poses a basic contradiction: What made the protein that sustains the processes of life, before that life was present to make the protein?


Many times in laboratory studies, substances called proteinoids (often misleadingly defined in dictionaries as “primitive proteins”) have been observed forming from amino acids, which are sub units of proteins. Some researchers think of proteinoids as the forerunners of the protein that life needs to ride true biological proteins and do not lead to life. I strongly object to being told that dead matter turns itself into living matter. Just how does this transformation come about?

a true Darwinist would find the statement “survival of the fittest,” to be anathema.

Psychic and religious ideas, then, despite many drawbacks, are far more important in terms of ‘evolution’ than is recognized. And I am telling you that so-called evolution and religion are closely connected. Consciousness always creates form, and not the other way around.


We are biologically connected, chemically connected with the Earth that we know. How is it that as living creatures we’re made up of ingredients–atoms of iron, molecules of water, for instance–from a supposedly dead world? In the scientific view we’re utterly dependent upon that contradictory situation. No one denies the amazing structure or design of our physical universe, from the scale of subatomic particles on “up” (regardless of what cosmological theory is used to explain the universe’s  beginning). The study of design as one of the links between “living” and “nonliving” systems would certainly be a difficult challenge–but a most rewarding one, I think–for science. I have little idea of how the work would be carried out. Evidently it would lead from biology through microbiology to physics with, ultimately, a search that at  least approached electromagnetic energy units and units of consciousness. Both classes of “particles” are in actuality nonphysical; as best words can note, they have their realities on scales so minute that we cannot hope to detect then through our present technology.


Yet here we run into irony and paradox: Any scientist who considered the existence of electromagnetic energy units and units of consciousness would be called a heretic by his more conventional colleagues, for he would be acknowledging the possibility that all matter, being made up of such conscious entities, was living. From that viewpoint, at least, there would be no link through design to be discovered.


I think it very interesting and revealing that several millennia before Darwin, man himself began playing the role of a designer within the framework of nature, through his selective breeding of animals and his hybridization of plants. These activities certainly represent evolution through conscious intent, guided by the same creature who insists that no sort of consciousness could have been responsible for the origin or development of “life,” let alone the “dead” matter of his/her planet. Not only that: We read that even now in his/her laboratories man or woman is trying hard to create some of that life itself. This is always done, of course, with the idea that the right combination of simple ingredients (water, methane, ammonia, ethanol.) in the test tube, stimulated by the right kind of energy under just the right conditions, will automatically  produce life. It’s confidently predicted that eventually at least one such experiment will succeed. I have yet to see in those accounts anything about the role consciousness will play in this truly miraculous conversion of dead matter into that of living. Perhaps those involved in the experiments fear that the idea of consciousness will impugn the scientific “purity” of their work.


Compare the second law of the inner universe with the second law of thermodynamics of our “Camouflage” physical sciences

Both deal with energy, yet to me they’re opposites. At the same time I see them as linked through our distorted perception of that inner reality, that “the so-called laws of our camouflage universe do not apply to inner universe. The three laws of thermodynamics, and how they define energy/heat relationships in our universe.


There are no closed systems, energy is constantly exchanged between then, regardless of whether such transfers can be detected. The second law of thermodynamics, on the other hand, tell us that our universe is a closed system–and that it’s fated to eventually run down because the amount of energy available for useful work is always decreasing, even though the supply of that energy is constant. A measure of this unavailable energy is called entropy.


“Energy transformation” I can best express it intuitively: In physics, that well-known second law of thermodynamics may usually be so reliable for us, distorted as it is, just because of our limited physical interpretation as mediated by the central nervous system.


At the same time, it’s worth noting that the second law of thermodynamics is still questioned by some theoreticians–the idea being that it’s impossible to prove a scientific “truth” in each of an unlimited number of instances.

man appeared in several different ages–not from an animal ancestor in the way generally supposed

Their were men/women-animals, but they were not our stock. They did not “lead” to anything. They were species in their own right.

There were animal-men/women. The terms are for our convenience. In some species the animal-like tendencies predominated, in others the manlike and womanlike tendencies did so: Some were more like men and women, some more like animals. The Russian steppes had a particular giant-sized species. Some also i believe in Spain–that area.


There is considerable confusion, for that matter, as to geological ages as they are understood. Such species existed in many of these ages. Man and woman, as we think of him or her, shared the earth with the other creatures just mentioned. In those terms so-called modern man and woman, with our skull structure and so forth, existed alongside of the creatures now supposed to be his/her ancestors.

There was some rivalry among these groups as well as some cooperation. Several species, say, of modern man and woman died out. There was some mating among these groups–that is, among the groups in existence at any given time.


The brain capacities of our particular species have always been the same. Many of the man/woman-animal groups had their own communities. To us they may seem to have been limited, yet they combined animal and human characteristics beautifully, and they used tools quite well. In a manner of speaking they had the earth to themselves for many centuries, in that modern man and woman did not compete with them.

Both the man/women-animals and the animal-men/women were born with stronger instincts. They did not need long periods of protection as infants, but in animal fashion were physically more agile at younger ages than, say, human infants.


The earth has gone through entire cycles unsuspected by our scientists. Modern man and woman, then, existed with other manlike and womanlike species, and appeared in many different places on the earth, and at different ages.

There were then also animal-men/women and man/women-animal civilizations of their kinds, and there were complete civilizations of modern man and woman, existing [long] before the ages now given for, say, the birth of writing(in 3100 b.c.)

“Theory of Evolution”, has caused unfortunate beliefs.

For how can you look at ourselves with self-respect, with dignity or with joy, if we believe that we are the end product of forces in which the fittest survive? Being the fittest implies those given most to what would appear to be murderous intent–for we must survive at the expense of our fellows, be you leaf, frog, plant or animal.

We do not survive through  cooperation, according to that theory, and nature is not given a kind or creative intent, but a murderous one. And if we see ourselves as the end result of such a species, then how can we expect goodness or merit or creativity for oneself, or from others? How can we believe that we live in a safe universe when each species exists because it survives through claw, if it must hunt and kill out of murderous intent, as implied in the theories of evolution and of reality itself?


So when we think of our beliefs and who we are, we must also think of our species, and how we are told our species came to be. For your private beliefs are also based upon those theories, and the beliefs, culturally, of our times.


It is seldom that we really question our biological origins, what they mean, and how we interpret them. Are we physically composed of murderous cells, then each spontaneously out to get the others? If so, our physical being is more miraculous a product. If our cells did not cooperate so well, we would not be reading these words.As you read this, the cooperative, creative adventure within our bodies continues, and in terms of continuity reaches back prehistorically and into future. Because consciousness creates form with joy, there is no murder that you have not projected out of misunderstanding and ignorance of the nature of the consciousness.


Roots do not struggle to exist. One species does not fight against the others to live. Instead creativity emerges, and cooperatively the environments of the world is known and planned by all the species. What appears to be struggle and death to us at those levels is not, now, for the experience of consciousness itself is different there, as is the experience or our own cellular composition.


Our bodies knows how to walk. The knowledge is built in and acted upon. The body knows how to heal itself, how to use its nourishment, how to replace its tissues–yet in our terms the body itself has no access to the kind of information the mind possesses. Being so ignorant, how does it perform so well?


If it were scientifically inclined, the body would know that such spontaneous performance was impossible, for science cannot explain the reality of life itself in its present form, much less its origins. Consciousness within the body knows that its existence is within the body’s context, and apart from it at the same time.

Dolphins and whales are geniuses, possessing the ability of abstract thought to a high degree.

Dolphins deal with an entirely different dimension of reality. There is as yet no method of communication that can allow us to perceive their concepts of selfhood, or their [collective] vision of existence. They are sensitive, self-aware individuals. They are altruistic. They understand the nature of relativity, and they are not higher or lower than our own species. They simply represent a different kind of selfhood.


There is some relationship, at least in terms of our discussion, between the reality of the dolphins and the reality of the fetus. In our terms the fetus lives in primeval conditions, reminiscent of periods in the species’ past. It relates in its own way to its environment. Now for some consciousnesses this is sufficient. In our terms, for each of us, it was sufficient.

Dolphins and Whales are not only similar to certain species that lived on our own planet in the past, but representing bleed-throughs from probable realities in which water-dwelling mammals predominate.

The soul is not a unit that is definable.


It is instead an undefinable quality. It cannot be broken down or built up, destroyed or expanded, yet it can change affiliation and organization, and its characteristics, while ever remaining itself.


The soul within the fetus cannot be destroyed by any kind of abortion, for instance. It’s progress cannot be charted, for it will always escape such calculations. It’s history is in future, which always creates the past.


Walking down the street, we expect the trees to stay in their places, and not transform themselves into buildings. All of these assumptions are taken for granted in our physical journeys. We may find different customs and languages, yet even these will be accepted in the vast, overall, basic assumptions within whose boundaries physical life occurs. We are most certainly traveling through the private and mass psyche when we so much as walk down the street. The physical world seems objective and outside of oneself, however. The idea of such outsideness is one of the assumptions upon which we build that existence. Interior traveling is no more subjective, than a journey from New York to San Francisco. We are used to projecting all destinations outside of oneself. The idea of varied inward destinations, involving motion through time and space, therefore appears strange.
    Generally speaking, we have explored the physical planet enough so that we have a good idea of what to expect as we travel from country to country.
    Before a trip, we can produce travel folders that outline the attractions and characteristics of a certain locale. We are not traveling blind folded,therefore, and while any given journey may be new to us, we are not really a pioneer: The land has been mapped and there are few basic surprises.
    The inner lands have not been as well explored. To say the least, they lie in virgin territory as far as our conscious mind is concerned. Others have journeyed to some of these interior locales, but since they were indeed explorers they had to learn as they went along. Some, returning, provided guidebooks or travel folders, telling us what could be expected. We make our own reality. If we were from a foreign land and asked one person to give us a description for reality. The person might say “New York City is a frightful place in which crime is rampant, gangs roam the streets, murders and rapes are the norm, and people are not only impolite but ready to attack us at a moment’s notice. There are no trees. The air is polluted, and we can expect only violence. ” If we asked someone else, this individual might say instead: “New York City has the finest of museums, open-air concerts in some of the parks, fine sculpture, theater, and probably the greatest collection of books outside the Vatican. It has a good overall climate, a great mixture of cultures. In it, millions of people go their way daily in freedom. ” Both people would be speaking of their private beliefs, and would be colored by the individual focus from which each of them viewed that City.
    One person might be able to give us the city’s precise location in terms of latitude and longitude. The other might have no such knowledge, and say instead: “I take a plane at such-an-such a place, at such-and-such a time, giving New York City as my destination, and if I take the proper plane I always arrive there.
    Explorers traveling into inner reality, do not have the same kind of landmarks to begin with. Many have been so excited with their discoveries that they wrote guidebooks long before they even began to explore the inner landscape They did not understand that they found what they wanted to find, or that the seemingly objective phenomena originated in the reflections of the psyche.
   We may, for example, have read books numbering the “inner realms,” and telling us what we can expect to encounter in each. Many of these speak of lords or gods of the realm, or of demons. In a strange way these books do provide a service, for at certain levels we will find our own ideas materialized: and if we believe in demons then in those terms we will encounter them. The authors, however, suppose that the devils have a reality outside of our belief in them, and such is not the case. The demons simply represent a state of our own mind that is seemingly out there, objectified. Therefore, whatever methods the authors used to triumph over these demons is often given as proof not only of the demons’ reality but of each method’s effectiveness.
    Now if we read such books we may often program our activity along those lines, in the same way that a visitor to New York City might program experience of the city in terms of what he of she had been told existed there.
    That kind of structuring also does a disservice, however, for it prevents us from coming in contact with our own original concepts. there is no reason, for example, to encounter any demons or devils in any trance or out-of-body condition. In such cases our own hallucinations blind us to the environment within which they are projected. All of its dimensions are faithfully and instantly produced as experience when we learn to take our “normally alert” conscious mind with us; and when we are free of such limiting ideas, then at those levels we can glimpse the inner powers of our own psyche, and watch the interplay of beliefs and symbols as they are manifested before our eyes. Until we learn to do this we will most certainly have difficulty, for we will not be able to tell the difference between our projections and what is happening in the inner environment.
    Any exploration of inner reality must necessarily involve a journey through the psyche, and these effects can be thought of as atmospheric conditions, natural, at a certain stage, through which we pass as we continue.
    Our world, is the result of a certain focus of consciousness, without which that world cannot be perceived. The range of consciousness involved is obviously physically oriented, yet within it there are great varieties of consciousness, each experiencing that seemingly objective world from a private perspective. The physical environment is real in different terms to an animal, a fish, a man, or a rock, for example, and different portions of those forms. This is highly important.
    If an inhabitant from another reality outside of our own physical system entirely were to visit it, and if “his” or “her” intelligence was roughly of the same degree as our own, he or she would still have to learn to focus his or her consciousness into the same way that we do, more or less, in order to perceive our world. He or she would have to alter his or her native focus and turn it in a direction that was foreign to him or her. In this way he or she could “pick up our station.” There would be distortions, because even though he or she managed such manipulations he or she might not have the same kind of native physical structure as our own, or course, through which to receive and interpret those data his altered consciousness perceived.
    Our visitor would then be forced to translate that information as best he or she could through his or her own native structure, if it were to make any sense to his or her consciousness in its usual orientation. All realities are the result of certain unique focuses taken by consciousness. In those terms, there is no outside. The effect of objectivity are caused as the psyche projects its experience into inner dimensions that it has itself created
    Within, those frameworks are ever expanding, so that in our terms at least it seems that greater and greater distances are involved. Travel to any other land of physical reality must then involve alterations of consciousness.
   While all of our thoughts and feelings are “somewhat” materialized, only some of them become physical in our terms. They are then accepted as physical reality. They provide the basis for the physical events, objects, and phenomena upon which we all agree. Therefore our world has a stability that works well enough for daily concerns. At that point we are tuned in precisely on our “home station.” We ignore the ghost symbols or voices, the probable actions that also occur, but that are muffled in the clear tones of our accepted reality. When we begin to travel away from that home station, we become more aware of the other frequencies that are buried within it. We move through other frequencies, but to do this we must alter our own consciousness. The probable realities connected with our own system are like the suburbs, say, surrounding a main city. If for simplicity’s sake we think of other realities as different cities, then after we leave our own we would pass through the suburbs, then into he country, then after a time into other suburbs until we reached another metro-city. Each metropolis would represent a conglomeration of consciousnesses operating within an overall general frequency of clearest focus, a high point of psychic communication and exquisite focus in the given kind of reality unless we are tunes in to those particular frequencies, however, we could not pick up that reality. We might instead perceive the equivalent of jumbled sound or meaningless static, or jigsaw images. We might simply realize that some kind of activity was there, nut without being able to pinpoint it.