Connectivity - C.G.Jung and the WSM

[Steve Anthony]

Hello everyone!

I find a fascinating 'link' between the works of C.G.Jung and the WSM, although I'm no 'expert' on either! My interest is in the Unity which can be gained by the understanding of each.

Recently, while pondering my understanding, I wrote this...



BIG TRUTH, little truth...
Where 'little truth' would be our individual 'beliefs' and 'opinions', and 'BIG Truth' would be our connection to the Infinite, which is necessarily the possibility of all options and beliefs (one, at least of which, must be 'True', in a Universal sense. THE Truth.).


In Jungian terms, we can relate the 'little truth' to our waking consciousness, and the 'BIG truth' to our Unconscious, and its connection to Infinite Space. (Jung's term 'collective unconscious'' is what he understood to be the accumulated collection of Human/Evolutionary thoughts and customs, passed down, which is differentiated from 'Unconscious' by using his own postulate of 'Synchronicity'.) There is more than one 'level' of 'Unconsciousness'.
If we were to say that we exist somewhere between these 'truths', this would go some way to explaining how we feel the need to 'reconcile' (or 'transcend') the 'opposites'. (I see this as an accepting, or 'balanced opinion', based upon both 'realities', - which can also be interpreted as 'an acceptance of all possibilities'.)

In everyday life, we feel we have to constantly make a 'choice' between these two 'truths', but when we do that, we always neglect one in favour of the 'other'. In modern, 'societal' terms, this equates to the fact that we nearly always choose the 'conscious' over the 'unconscious', because we need to be 'conscious' in order to operate, at all, in the 'everyday'.
This does not, however, mean that the 'Unconscious' is inoperative. Being (as I believe it to be) a link to our Infinite aspect, it must have the properties of being 'open to activity' at any time, for how else are we to explain 'daydreaming'?

The Unconscious is associated with 'dreams'. However, the connections between our 'dream world' and our 'waking world', are made in the same place, by almost identical processes, in what we have called 'The Brain'; this receiver, interpreter, and re-transmitter of 'consciousness'. (Dare we attempt to perceive a 'connection' between the WSM, and the way in which our brain operates - Receiver/in wave - Transmitter/out wave - Interpretation/ 'illusion of particle'? - Indeed, must it not necessarily be this way, in a three-dimensional (finite) Universe?)
ALL of our conscious processes operate at the same time, and the Unconscious is no exception. We just choose to operate within the spectrum of our 'little truths', for reasons of efficiency of focus (on the 'everyday'). The Unconscious is 'operating' all the time, also, but it is not deemed so necessary to us, when we choose to only operate within the 'conscious world'.

All this, means that we are 'capable' of different ways of operating, in the 'everyday', and this is self evident in the lives of Artists, Poets, Musicians, and Writers, Philosophers, 'Mystics' and 'Thinkers' throughout history, who must necessarily maintain their 'connection' to the Unconscious in order to do the things they do. These people are just extreme versions of the people that we ALL are, who have learned to re-direct their thoughts into their Unconscious aspect (that we all posses a connection to) simply by placing more importance upon it. This is why these people (with extended Unconscious connection), usually have a closer 'grasp' of the Infinite, as they are able to seemingly freely operate within the two 'truths'. This gives them a more 'accepting' , or 'balanced' nature/outlook to what we call 'life'. (There is also a connection with 'empathy' here, and a further possible link to other emotions, but I do not want to digress too far, at this point!)

In Jungian terms, this relates to his 'Individuation process', which concentrates on reconciling the individual with their 'Unconscious Self'. 'Dream therapy', is the Jungian choice of Analytic psychology used, as this is also as close as one can get to anothers' Unconscious state. Art therapy, and 'Mandala' painting, are other methods, practised by Jung himself, as he developed the idea of 'Individuation'. This 'reconciliation' takes place within the individual, as a personal process of self development, and is actually Jung's 'western version' of transcendentalism, as he sought to Unify people, not only with themselves, but each other as well. (He recognised the link, between us, as individuals, and us, as a species. Our 'little truth' and our 'BIG truth', as I see it.)

I am of the understanding (sorry, my 'little opinion'!) that his (Jung's) own findings, can be Unified and reconciled with the WSM in a logical, and practical way, that may go some distance toward understanding some of the 'missing links', or 'schizms' that exist between peoples of ALL perspectives. It is, after all, our thoughts that lead to our actions, and our actions that determine the (Human) world in which we live.

Jung, for me, appears to be one of those people who could not resist taking pieces of ideas from many 'areas', and finding 'connections' there. He was a philosopher, and scientist, as much as a psychologist, a very able writer, and metaphysician with his 'fingers in many pies' of Human understanding. I believe this 'overview' gives anyone who can dedicate enough time to the process, the chance to 'see', or experience, the 'many', and thus connect them to the 'one'.(A prime, and relevant example of this is the 'new' energy created by Geoff Haselhurst and Milo Wolff upon their joint 'realisations' about the WSM). Evolution, it would seem, necessarily 'works' in this way.

It is as if Humans are caught somewhere between their 'singular', or 'instinctual' thoughts, and their greater connection to an Infinite source. We seem to 'know' that there is this whole other aspect to the way we think, but it remains vague, and shrouded in mystery, because we are afraid to venture very far into it. This leaves us with the 'dualistic' (half real/instinctual, half mysterious/unconscious) view of life, that has currently shaped our societal thinking.
This way of thinking is damaging to us, and our environment, as it neglects areas we could understand better. Jung recognised that this action, in the individual, is what caused a majority of 'mental problems' in his patients (not all), but also made the greater connection to Humanity as a whole (which actually questions the sanity of Human beings 'en masse', and is therefore 'looked down upon' by the 'establishment', in the same way that the WSM gets many 'negative' reactions from people who have 'other agendas' to consider).


Jung's 'Individuation process' is, for me, all about understanding our own personal connection to our Infinite state, and I see our future being dependent on this way of thinking. We have been attempting to see 'life' in this way for a good 2000-3000 years, at least, but we have continually neglected our own Unconscious pleas to be fully understood. Now and then, certain people are born/emerge/give themselves the space to think about 'things', in a 'bigger' way. These are our philosophers, our poets, our artists, our 'prophets', and more recently, our scientists, but usually it is just one or two who 'stick out' and get revered by Humanity for millennia to come. These are the 'ones' who make such a solid connection with their 'Infinite state' (BIG truth), that they also connect with all of Humanity in the Biggest way possible, Infinitely! They push the boundaries of our psychological evolution.
Through the last few hundred years, we have given ourselves more and more 'freedom' to explore this 'psychology of us' (starting around Renaissance times?) and can no longer deny certain 'facts', 'species-wide' (Evolution, Structure of Space, etc). The Individuation process gives us the chance to reconcile ourselves with our Infinite Understanding (connection to our Infinite Selves/Space) by putting us back in touch with our Unconscious thoughts, just as the understanding of the WSM can do for science, with anyone open-minded enough to accept even its possibility.

If we can see ourselves existing between these two 'truths', little and BIG, and learn to accept them both, as the reality of who and what we are, we can also 'see' the connection to all other things. We can even envisage this 'connection' as a manifestation of 'in and out waves', which must be the originating structure of ALL things, if we accept that this is the reality of the 'one thing that truely exists'. Here, we might even afford OURSELVES the position of 'the Illusion of the Particle', in which case...
'We currently exist as a three dimensional holographic illusion, between our conscious and unconscious states'.
(To my understanding, this means that 'the illusion of the particle' and what we know as '3 dimensions', may also be the 'same thing', or that 'illusion of particle' is what causes what we call '3D'. There is a metaphysical aspect to this 'illusion', whichever way it is looked at, but there is a whole other subject of discussion to discover here. Indeed, it may well be that this 'illusion' (of particle) and what we call 'metaphysics', are necessarily the same thing!)
In this way, the 'particle' manifests as the spontaniety of thought (interpretation), that we use to live, and operate within, our everyday lives. It becomes the 'bridge' between our conscious and Unconscious perception.
Thus, we can see in this way, that the more Unconscious thoughts are 'assimilated' into our 'everyday conscious', the more a 'balance' (between the two) is tipped towards a change in our thinking (the 'vigour' of a 'new energy'), which is what ultimately drives us to evolve. This is what makes me think that all creatures (and indeed, ALL THINGS) evolve, as this 'wave action between its (little truth)consciousness and its (BIG truth)unconscious, (with connection to its infinite properties of Space)'.
'Evolution', thus becomes, 'whatever it thinks it is (its consciousness), plus what it REALLY is, in the shape of its connection to everything else (Space)' This is also an alternative way of explaining how things like 'rocks' evolve (change) so slowly, without resorting to the 'illusion' of 'Time'. 'Rocks' just think/consciously react THAT SLOWLY!

Jung's 'piece de resistance', in this field, was the postulation of what is now widely accepted as 'Synchronicity' (The acausal connecting principle). If I put this side by side with the WSM, I see the possibility of a 'new' energy, a new connection, which has the potential 'vigour' to produce a drastic change in the way we think, as a species, and is greatly overdue, in my opinion.
Once we accept that 'Infinity' is a reality, we also have to accept that everything is necessarily connected in some way. Our 'task' then, becomes a quest to find these 'connections', and search out this 'way'. Here, we might be tempted to separate the two into 'science' of Synchronicity, which becomes the 'way', while the WSM provides the 'connection', but the very natures of the two are such that it makes me (speculatively) draw the conclusion that they might actually be one and the same thing (Jung's 'Synchronicity' becomes his unconscious realisation of the 'one thing', and the WSM is Milo/Geoffs', brought into consciousness/awareness of reality). What I believe, is that 'Synchronicity' may be the 'missing metaphysical link' between the science of WSM, and the collective philosophy of Human thought (Unconscious 'knowing', through infinite connection).

I fully understand that there is much 'science' to equate, and many things 'yet to prove', and so of course, this is remains a 'theory', but I do find it extremely interesting how the two principles bring each other 'closer' together, as they would both comply with 'occam's razor' principles and further Unify many, currently speculative, 'ideas', that have been quietly fermenting in the Human collective unconscious for the last 2000-3000 years... (Namely, the age-old 'problem' of the 'One and the many'.)

In short, 'Synchronicity' could very easily be the Conscious/Unconscious connecting principle of Infinite Space, which it has evolved to become 'conscious' of itself (us).

(Our current era could also be, and, I believe, has been, Unconsciously interpreted as the Great Wheel of the Kali Yuga, the cycle of which, becomes complete when our 3D finite Universe becomes self aware, and also ties in rather too synchronicitously with the 'Mayan Calendar', and many other unconscious 'attempts' to bring the understanding of Infinite Space into consciousness. - Sorry, but these are all 'little things' that 'niggle' at the back of my mind, and are best left where they are, until any 'proof' is found. - It's great to use our 'little truths' to speculate on fantastic things, but even Greater to use 'BIG Truth' to prove to ourselves just how fantastic things really are!!)

One of the things I can't resist asking is, why would the process of Evolution create such a highly complex organ as the Brain, and then waste huge amounts of energy on it, producing things of no importance, or whimsical, meaningless imaginings, at all, when everything else that the process evolves is based on economical energy consumption? The process of Evolution produces the best 'tool' for the job. Wings on birds; fins on fish; and the more 'evolved' the species, the more economical these 'tools' become.
The opposing side to this evolutionary arguement, is that we are merely 'manipulative monkeys' (and indeed, this thought crosses my mind, everytime I am urged to vote!).

I believe the Unconscious is just as relevant to our being as any other aspect. Perhaps, it is only now, just starting to evolve a more tangible connection to its Infinite, and original 'state', and what we currently perceive to be our 'Unconscious state', will one day be recognised as our link to what we really are, which is Representatives of Infinite Space, evolved in order to observe itself in/as a Three Dimensional existence. I think, therefore I am; We think, therefore we are; It thinks, therefore it is.

Everything of Human conception evolves from our Unconscious. We interpret these 'ideas' into our perceived everyday waking thoughts, and there, decide how, or if, we should act upon them. We then turn that decision into physical action, or further contemplation. And so, we see that the Unconscious is the origin of thought, in much the same way as we can see Infinite Space being the origin of our 3D (finite) Universe. This is how I believe 'things' to be necessarily connected, as everything must work according to the principles of its origin, being a consequence of that 'One true thing'.

For me, Carl Gustav Jung was one of the greatest 'whole worldly' explorers of the Human Unconscious, even though he was necessarily 'of his time', also (he was constrained by the politics and religious aspects of his day). He combined science with metaphysics, and devoted his life to it.
His findings should definitely be taken into account, if we are to try and explain some of the mysteries that remain, and the connections that are becoming more apparent by the day...



Thank you for reading this far. I would be happy to hear as many comments as possible...

Cheers,
Steve.


SOME JUNG QUOTES

"When you look inside yourself, you see the universe and all its stars in infinity. The result is an infinite mystery within yourself as great as the one without." Jung

.....there is no cure and no improving of the world that does not begin with the individual him/herself.... Jung

The tendencies of the conscious and the unconscious are the two factors that together make up the transcendent function. It is called "transcendent" because it makes the transition from one attitude to another organically possible. Jung

If the mediatory product remains intact, it forms the raw material for a process not of dissolution but of construction, in which thesis and antithesis both play their part. In this way it becomes a new content that governs the whole attitude, putting an end to the division and forcing the energy of the opposites into a common channel. The standstill is overcome and life can flow on with renewed power towards new goals. Jung

When there is full parity of the opposites, attested by the ego's absolute participation in both, this necessarily leads to a suspension of the will, for the will can no longer operate when every motive has an equally strong countermotive. Since life cannot tolerate a standstill, a damming up of vital energy results, and this would lead to an insupportable condition did not the tension of opposites produce a new, uniting function that transcends them. Jung

"The transcendent function is essentially an aspect of the self-regulation of the psyche. It typically manifests symbolically and is experienced as a new attitude toward oneself and life." - Jung

"western man has no need of more superiority over nature, he must realize
that he is contained in it, and must learn to accept the values presented by his psyche, over
the demands of ego consciousness." - Jung

“Eternal truth needs a human language that alters with the spirit of the times." Jung

Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes. Carl Jung

"I had to abandon the idea of the superordinate position of the ego...I saw that everything, all paths I had been following, all steps I had taken, were leading back to a single point --namely, to the mid-point. It became increasingly plain to me that the mandala is the centre. It is the exponent of all paths. It is the path to the centre, to individuation...I knew that in finding the mandala as an expression of the self I had attained what was for me the ultimate." Jung

[Steve Anthony]

Hi All,

Just thought i'd share this, as it is highly relevant...

Yesterday, I went to visit a friend I hadn't seen for some time, and managed to borrow a book from him, that I had been meaning to read for some time, but was unable to find in Helsinki (where I now live). It was 'The Glass Bead Game, by Hermann Hesse.
When I got back home, I thought I'd check into a couple of forums on the internet, as I had posted a few questions the day before. When I opened the Jung forum, that I recently subscribed to, I got a bit of a shock. The questions I had posed on there previously were all about 'Synchronicity', but someone had started a new thread, asking 'what fellow Jungians thought about Hermann Hesse's novel 'The Glass Bead Game.'

That was 'spooky' enough!

Then, I came to this site, and saw that Geoff had posted a thread asking for peoples' opinions on the Metaphysics pages he was updating. I was just about to write something when I noticed the book open on the table in front of me. It is the very first paragraph, written as an introduction to the whole novel, and it reads...

"...for although in a certain sense and for light-minded persons non-existent things can be more easily and irresponsibly represented in words than existing things, for the serious and conscientious historian it is just the reverse. Nothing is harder, yet nothing is more necessary, than to speak of certain things whose existence is neither demonstrable nor probable. The very fact that serious and conscientious men treat them as existing things brings them a step closer to existence and to the possibility of being born."

(Apart from all that, it is my birthday today!)

Hmm, Synchronicity... I wonder!?

Thanks for hanging in there!
Steve.

[haselhurst]

Hi Steve,
Happy birthday!!! Another year of travelling around the sun has passed hey.
Karene and i both love Herman Hesse. I have read Steppenwolf and Siddhartha, but found the Glass Bead Game a bit abstract and gave up on it!
He is a beautiful writer. Enjoy.
Geoff

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Geoff/Karene,

I wonder, did you reach the last quarter of 'The Glass Bead Game'? There is a section of poems. Here's the very first part of the very first one...

"No permanence is ours; we are a wave
That flows to fit whatever form it finds:
Through day or night, cathederal or the cave
We pass forever, craving form that binds."

Hesse is revered as a 'prophet' in much of South America!

I see why. (Not that i'm personally 'big' on prophets!)

Cheers,
Steve.

[haselhurst]

Hi Steve,
Thanks for posting poem - I had not read it - it is very nice. In fact i read Hesse before i know anything about WSM / unity of reality, so I probably missed a lot. But he just wrote with such sensual charm and deep understanding of human nature and thought - the isolation of the thoughtful individual from the masses (how I related).

I think all great artists were philosophers too. Understood the illusion of the senses, language as metaphor, the deeper level of reality and its unity / interconnection of all things.

Yes, I don't believe in prophets, just smart people with interesting intelligent artful talents that enrich our knowledge and culture, civilise us!

Take care,
Geoff


PS - Don't forget to MSN or Skype me to discuss Jung. You can do some good work in that area. We will collect good quotes from Jung Pauli letters that will be useful too - with more physics foundations for this subtle interconnection of minds / synchronicity.

[Gil]

Hi Knotty Nuf-Rumi, I enjoyed your post on Jung and its possible further connections and extensions to and of WSM. As far as I am concerned you are headed in the right direction, as I am also headed in this same direction of connecting Jungian Unconscious more to metaphysics, infinity and WSM. Just as a quick addition at this moment, more at a later date, I am looking at the entire connections between your thoughts, Geoff's and Jung's as the super-consciousness[the totality of finite and infinite facts and opinions of all minds - the abyss?] being the unconscious infinite space inter-connectedness of all these ideas. As a matter of fact I have recently been introduced to a philosophy professor of scientific axiology that may be of help to you also, as it is to my own work. I'm only in the early stages of putting my ideas all together with these many new connections and my older work, but see unbelievable possibilities of creating an entirely new mataphysics, as does the professional process philosopher who introduced me to Dr. Robert Hartman's work. I think it would be worth your time to check it out at: http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/html/MeasurementOfValue.htm

It's about using mathematics of infinity[formal second order math and logic] to prove the conceptual intentionality of infinite, intrinsic human values. It has been scientifically used since its creation in the seventies. It is sound sience, and can be interpreted beyond its present use with the addition of other fields of study, such as economics equilibrium theories, and physics'/economics' ergodicity theories, as my philosopher friend and I are now working on. It will be some time before I can comment further, but I already know it is very promising. I know it is one of the missing links between the joining of metaphysics and physics, i.e., Jung, infinite superconsciousness and WSM, also the finite and infinite worlds of other thought areas, as you mentioned, i.e., little and big. I have already realized Hartman's transfinite math corresponds easily with greater and lesser magnitudes, greatest and least magnitudes, which makes explanations much simpler. See what you think.

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
BTW, excellent post. I would quibble a little, but overall, almost perfect. And also, what do you think of Hafez, Rumi's latter being?

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Lloyd,

That's fantastic. Just the kind of response I was hoping for. I just checked in momentarily today, but please give me a few days, and i'll attempt a worthy response for you. Our thoughts, I feel, have a certain 'synchronistic' feel to them! Mine are mostly intuitive, (Please quibble away!!) ...as a 'grounding' is just what I need to progress... So, thank you for the wonderful link!

Will return very soon.


- Geoff, Skype is looking doubtful on this pc at the moment (audio probs.), but it would be great to MSN sometime soon (mid-week onwards?). Let me know when is convenient for you, and I should be able to arrange the time from here.

Regards everyone,
Steve.

[haselhurst]

Hi Guys,
It is a pleasure to read your posts - thank you.
Will read Hartman's ideas and comment later.

Steve,
I am on the computer most days. I am 8 hours later than GMT (London).
MSN is fine.

Take care,
Geoff

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Lloyd,Geoff, et al...

Response to your above post -

Firstly, the 'Hartman' article.
As an 'overview', I found it a little 'cold'(?) and methodical, at times, but this is purely MY perspective, and scientifically, I understand that this is necessarily the way to proceed, and it 'grew on me' as I continued to read. My only reservation in this area would be the subject matter itself; 'consciousness', which must also encompass 'emotion' as part of its totality.
Here, I feel, would be the point at which a more 'spiritual' soul would 'turn off', and thus perpetuate the divide between the 'Religious' and the 'Scientific'.
It is a subject that can gain no ground, until a degree of acceptance is met on either perceived 'side', I feel.

Here, I might specifically mention the use of the term 'wife', as part of an 'experiment'. This, I also feel, would 'turn off' anyone approaching from a 'feminist' view point, or at least give them an unconscious bias of opposition. Also, the whole 'business ethic' angle might have a similar detrimental effect, in certain circumstances, but we have to see through that, into the very meaning of what is being stated.

And, having stated that, and determined to carry on with as open a mind as I am able to muster, I found the whole article to be intriguing, and can see very clearly the connection you perceive, particularly regarding Dr. Hartman's views on 'intrinsic value'.
It is most definitely a 'step in the right direction', as far as I can see.

I cannot pretend to know much on the intricacies of advanced mathematics, or indeed claim to be any kind of 'expert' whatsoever, in any particular 'field'. This has proven to be an obstacle for me, as the 'academic world' will seemingly only ever converse with one of it's 'kind', and yet, I feel, this very aspect is what allows me to perceive a 'bigger picture', where 'they' are primarily concerned with a particular branch of research. At the same time, I am quite willing to accept that I may be very 'wrong' with my personal observations, and thus happy to learn, without bias, from whosoever is willing to 'teach'. (I seem to have naturally adopted a kind of 'Tao' approach, over the years, mostly without even realising what 'Tao' is!)
This is the essence of how and why my thoughts have resonated, not only with the WSM, but with Geoff, personally, giving greater 'weight' still, to the idea of interconnectivity.
Apart from anything else, the whole experience is teaching me to be more truthful with myself, and this is where I recognise the connection to Jung's 'Individuation process', which implores, and encourages us to do the same. Unconsciously, it would seem, there is a great deal in common between Geoff's method of getting the whole idea of the WSM across to people, and Jung's 'Individuation process', as their realisations both necessarily 'hang' on whether we can recognise a Greater 'truth' than our own personal one, or not.



Lloyd - "I am looking at the entire connections between your thoughts, Geoff's and Jung's as the super-consciousness[the totality of finite and infinite facts and opinions of all minds - the abyss?] being the unconscious infinite space inter-connectedness of all these ideas."


Steve - You know, I see no reason why we cannot adopt the scientific doctrine of 'Occam's razor', as a method of more correctly perceiving ALL 'Truths', and yet it is rarely used outside of 'Science', or more specifically 'Physics'. To this end, how many possibilities regarding 'consciousness' are there?

1. It comes (is 'generated') from within.
2. It is 'given' (or connected to) from without.
3. It is a combination of both.

Scenario 1.
We can no longer, by any stretch of imagination, state that 'consciousness' is a purely 'Human' phenomenon. Therefore, we can deduce that the 'Animal brain' is the 'generator' of what we currently consider ''consciousness', in Scenario 1, which is mostly the 'modern scientific' view. Now, we have increased its 'scope' to included many 'creatures' other than ourselves.

An interesting link, for those further interested in the self-realisation of other creatures...

http://mbdefault.org/17_species/default.asp

Or, scroll to the middle of this page, to avoid a lengthy build up, and go straight to 'the chart'! ...

http://mbdefault.org/17_species/4.asp

If there is any 'truth' in these findings whatsoever, it would suggest that 'consciousness' is a phenomena common to all things in varying degrees. 'Scenario 1' then rests on whether the personal consciousness of all things is always 'generated' from within. Now, we need to understand our use of the word 'consciousness'. I would be inclined to use the 'plant world' here, as an example of what we can also term 'Awareness' (as a kind of 'primordial, or 'basic' consciousness'), for there seems to be an extremely fine line between these definitions. If I may be allowed to use 'awareness', for a moment, could we consider that the roots of a plant ever be 'UNaware' of their surroundings? Would they 'shy away' from water, in some random direction, if that water source were close enough to be reached with just a little effort? Even if this 'effort' were to be considered 'mechanical' in some way, it would still have to be recognised as a 'mechanical awareness' on behalf of the plant, as to be 'unaware' would be contrary to the 'laws' of evolution, and result in the unnecessary death of the plant. Not a 'trait' of survival instinct at all! Therefore, I state that even 'plant life' has some degree of 'mechanical awareness', that is converted to what we more comfortably understand as 'consciousness', the further up the evolutionary 'ladder' we go. Why should 'consciousness' be any more or less subject to the process of evolution, if we accept 'evolution' at all? And why should 'science' have objection to 'evolution', under these circumstances, either? I realise that a lot hangs on this interpretation of 'mechanical awareness', but that has been my personal observation of Nature, as well as an 'intuition'. Now, using the latest scientific findings, it is possible to conceive that the 'water' and the 'roots' have a common 'awareness' of each other, all be it 'mechanical', rather like our own 'craving for water', our sensation of feeling 'thirsty'. Like atoms attract each other.


Scenario 2.
This is mostly the 'Religious' angle. It is 'God-given'. Most 'animalistic' or 'superstitious' cultures still subscribe to this point of view, but also, it must be noted, this was our Natural way of thinking. We evolved, like all other creatures, without 'belief', but we ALL have survived a 'journey', in which our ancestors were 'contactable', and were able to 'connect' with other 'spirits', or animals. Also, to believe in 'Scenario 1', is to court scientific/evolutionary hypocracy, if we allow ourselves the definition of 'mechanical awareness', as stated above.. There was a point in Human history, in which no 'theory', other than 'connected', was held, and I would suggest that this is because of our unconscious 'awareness' of Scenario 3...


Scenario 3.
...That a combination of 'both' 1 and 2, are the realities concerning 'consciousness', deducted from the reasoning that neither 1, nor 2, can be entirely right! Can we envisage a 'consciousness' that comes from without, and is then interpreted from within? The answer might well lie in the understanding of the WSM. Again, if we can intuit a 'primordial consciousness', or the above mentioned 'mechanical awareness', based on 'like attracting like' (as quantum physics has proved to be the case) we can easily see how this fits in with the idea of interconnectedness in all things, and yet also become aware of how the phenomena could have 'evolved' into the 'consciousness' we perceive today. Thus giving rise to the two, equally valid, and yet unconsciously separated, perceptions we currently (generally) hold. This is nothing new, of course, but merely another interpretation of what true 'bridging' pioneers such as Fritjof Capra have written about for the last quarter of a century, plus. The realisation of the WSM, makes it all the more obvious.
Really, we only need to accept this connection, and everything 'falls into place', which is exactly what the (minority)'mystical tradition' has been doing for the last 2000-3000 years.


From here, my further 'deduction' is that 'consciousness' is another function of Infinite Space, (a hitherto undeduced 'force', if you like) of which we are an evolved part. It has a 'basic' 'like attracts like' quality, (mutual resonance) that all 'atomic' structure has, and this gives rise to our unconscious 'perceptions', and their interconnectedness. From there, it evolves within a finite environment, from its basic atomic functioning, through a kind of 'mechanical awareness' phase (what keeps us breathing, while we sleep), to the more 'organic consciousness' that has evolved in ourselves today (the 'abstract').

We still retain access to this 'primordial consciousness', necessarily, because we are still 'atomic' in structure (our 'unconscious') but also have a more highly evolved 'personal consciousness', simply as a process of survival in our 3D environment (and hence, the many 'sections' of our brain). This 'unconscious' aspect, at atomic level, is what remains 'interconnected', where our 'personal consciousness' is the means by which we interpret both our 'from within' (which includes 'memory') and our 'from without' (the aforementioned 'unconscious aspect').

This is how I 'intuit'.

Not only that, but 'Scenario 3' also sits rather nicely with the 'structure' of the in/out wave phenomenon of the WSM. Indeed, why would it not?



Jung has come closer, from a 'western' point of view, than most, to understanding our 'conscious/unconscious' selves, but of course, he was not party to the more evolved knowledge that the WSM provides. I'm sure he would have taken more than just a 'passing interest', had he still been alive today!


So, Lloyd, thanks for the link, it is immensely relevant, and I look forward to hearing about things from a mathamatical view point! (I think!!!) It feels like there should be some 'truth' thrashed out, in all this!!


Hope you're all having fun!

Best regards,
Steve.


P.S.

"The on-going search for a 'quiet mind' culminates in acceptance...
Once we accept, we can learn. Once we learn, we can see the futility of arguing, because we accept that we were only arguing with ourselves all along..."

[Steve Anthony]

Hi all,

Been having more 'conversations' on the subject at a 'Jung forum'. Here's a reply to some skepticism I encountered recently...





Dear Steve,
Thanks for your sympathy, understanding and all.
The problem you state, about scientific proof for synchronicity, I find insoluble. The very formulation of the problem sounds not scientifically correct, in my humble opinion. It presupposes you’ll discover the Law, which is responsible for coincidences, and that will mean that in the very Experiment aimed at discovery of that law you will seek for the Power which makes the coincidences happen… something ruling your life with its right hand and sending angels with its left… this expedition is going to be rather daring, eh? (And that you’ll have to look for this power follows from the nature of science, which believes in determinism, or, taking a wider view, in the statement that their activity has sense only when there is a unifying principle to be disclosed.)
Result of the experiment is gained only in a series of similar events, when certain circumstances result in certain consequences, and that might prove a hypothetical principle stated beforehand. It means that physical laws are stated for typical situations, while a synchronistic event is something unique by definition. Synchronicity is not a hypothesis to be proved, (events do take place, and that’s not a problem, unless you’re interested in revealing a dirty play, of man or God, it doesn’t really matter), it’s more a way of reading the events. The coincidence might mean nothing to you, or it might mean a lot, but neither case is related to the science’s jurisdiction. The key word is ‘meaningful,’ and that meaning lies within you, and can’t be proved, like the fact that you’re living or the existence of the world can’t be proved scientifically. Why, in an Experiment your state of being alive can be proved: if you’re killed and dead, it will be obvious for the researcher that you at least were alive… but that knowledge, I’m afraid, will be of no great use to you. Some things can’t be proved, they can only be stated. My friend once said, maybe quoting somebody, that the obvious is the hardest thing to prove. Supposing you were writing a research work of ways and habits of seafaring men on whaling ships in the 19th century, and found a lot of information on the subject in Moby Dick, and treated the book respectively, would it mean that all the poetry of the book means nothing? It’s the problem of reading, I say it again.
I’d like to say a few words on the Measurement of Value as well. There’s a Russian joke on the subject, it’s rather difficult to translate, since it’s based on peculiarities of our obscene language… A person asks another, ‘ How much or many is it, f---ing a lot?’ The other answers, ‘Well, you can go along the railway and count the sleepers, and as soon as you think you’ve counted f---ing a lot, it’ll mean you haven’t come to the half of the number yet.’ I believe since the times of Descartes it’s been a popular temptation to explain good and evil through numbers. Now, if you don’t like a cake, nobody will prove to you, whatever numbers they have as to the sugar/fat/anythingofthekind contents of the product, that this cake is good for you. Science, since it’s realized itself as such, has always been trying to monopolize everything including morals, but that’s no good. I believe it one of the greatest defeats of science when Jung showed in his ‘Psychological Types’ that apart from the thinking type of information (logic), there’re at least three more types of it (ethics, aesthetics, fantasy), which can’t be encoded with ones and zeroes. This is the little something the creators of the artificial intellect overlooked. Moreover, they’re quite unable to see the problem when pointed to directly (I’ve tried). Quantitative evaluation isn’t prior to or more ‘exact’ than qualitative evaluation, as life isn’t prior to or better than death.
About the Tao of Physics now.
I know the book, of course.
This is the problem with them: they’re written to popularize physics, and when read by the people who are far from science, the latter get an impression that physics has changed greatly. No, it hasn’t, neither in methods nor in aims. The point the author of the book forgot to make is that the Tao of Physics refers rather to the scientific view of the world (which indeed is not the same as in Newton’s times or even Einstein’s), not to the nature of the science itself. Physicists haven’t turned into grey-locked contemplative monks full of wisdom and compassion, and physics hasn’t left the realm of descriptive disciplines to become a meditative practice. Contrariwise, the assault upon nature isn’t ceased… but that’s a different story. However great is the similarity between the view of the world in modern physics and the one in Tao Te Ching, they differ in the Intention, that is, the view of physics is impartial and aimed at gaining a practical use, while the truths of Lao Tzu are to be taken inwardly. The view of physics will not help you to find your private truth within. There are a lot of things in modern physics, which would seem to a rapturous mind highly poetic, but these things (singularities, additional time-space dimensions, string theory) are known to physicists as metaphors called to explain our common sense world. All the additional co-ordinates, as one physicists told me, are to be ‘compactified,’ that is reduced through intricate mathematics to the well-known four dimensional time-space. All these beautiful things physicists talk about (I love them myself) are nothing else but mathematical models expressed in humane discourse. No-one saw them, nor ever will, while the world of Lao Tzu is a living observable truth to any loving heart. And what good did we ever have from physics, leaving aside bicycles and some other useful things?
Last, I want to steer this discussion back to synchronicity. Recently they discovered a ‘crocofish’ in the Canadian ice. The thing is another link in the chain from fish to dry land creatures. It appeared in the terrain as is thought where there were a lot of shallow water fords, which were good places for hunting… Now, will every new place good for something give rise to a creature good at that something, or evolution walks its way notwithstanding the places, or should the two meet? It seems, after all, that the synchronicity is not an additional dimension of thinking to causative-consecutive way, but an utterly different and a better view, which always says ‘both.’
Yours
'D'

REPLY,


Hi 'D'

Good, and valid points.

I sense that all these collections of ideas, have some common ground between them, and that is why I believe 'common ground' to be the most important aspect of what we currently understand as 'being Human'. Then, as I re-read these kind of thoughts, back to myself, I see the 'connection' staring me in the face. We are all Human. That IS the connection. It's no great mystery. There is no fantastically complicated algebra to perform.
If one guy sits on a rock and meditates for years, another sits in a 'lab' and jots down notes for years, what could possibly be their 'common ground'? The answer is their motivation. They are both asking questions, and are both seeking answers to the same questions that people have been asking themselves, since they discovered the ability to ask! We want to know How? and Why?
Why do we want to know How? and Why?
and How can we know How? and Why?

..the How and why become the Human obsession. Not just the 'Eastern obsession', but also the 'scientific obsession'. And this is because they are the personal obsession.

Truely, most people prefer to live with the adage that 'ignorance is bliss', and if this is their instinct, nobody is in a position to argue with them. Indeed, could this not be a construct of the 'vision' of Utopia? And thus, perfectly admirable? The only problem with this thought occurs when someone comes along to perform some unblissful act, in which case we have to abandon the ignorance angle, and concentrate on rectifying the problem, in order to return us to our original state (of bliss).

Now, I agree that any 'coincidental' occurences, perceived by the individual, can really only be valid to the individual him/herself, just as in 'dream interpretation', any 'revelations' can only be relevant to the observer. This is also the case in contemporary physics, which has had to abandon all notions of Newtonian 'laws', to derive any Absolute truth from its findings. This is why they now have to think in terms of 'quantumness' at all. At this point, modern physicists have realised that their 'Absolute truths' were starting to vere towards many, much older, 'Spiritual Truths', and could no longer deny their relevance. It seems as though 'Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder'.
And so, 'Insights' gained many thousands of years ago, by 'non-scientists', are beginning to find their way into the thoughts of modern 'seekers' of Empirical 'Truth'. This is because they are both looking for the same thing. Namely 'Truth'.

Seek, and ye shall find?' - (Anonimous quotes from the collective unconscious, all seem to have this same penchant for 'Truth' attached to them!)

So, synchronicity. The possibility remains that Jung had some 'primordial Insight', which he was not at liberty to express in its entirety. Anyone who is capable of accepting their own evolutionary passage of existance, will know that we haven't 'arrived' anywhere, and that we are constantly changing, in accordance with all the Natural processes. Consequently, our 'consciousness' is also subject to these same 'laws', which also explains why we all think differently (as opposed to, say, 'Ants', who must exist as a 'uniform consciousness', or 'pure collectivity'? - and are consequently unable to evolve much past the state they reached, x-million years ago)

Here, (and I know i've posted this elsewhere in this forum) is a link to a more advanced way of interpreting the actual physical aspect of 'connectivity'...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

...It's really 'early days', in the 'new' discoveries of contemporary science, but this is due to many hundreds of years of misinterpretation, belief in 'Dualism', political and religious 'hurdles'.
'Connection' is a theme that runs concurrent throughout all aspects of Human thought, and it seems that it is only when we are doubtful, or question this connectivity, that we cause problems for ourselves (and surroundings/other creatures).

Life seems to be all about making connections.
To perpetuate life, we have to connect with another life form.
To make new 'things', we have to connect aparently seperate things together.
To reach new understandings, we have to connect our old thoughts with new ones.
To plant a seed, we need to connect it to the right environment, so that it can grow.

I see no reason why such a highly evolved organ as the Human brain could not take the idea of connectivity to 'heights' hitherto unimagined, as yet, in Nature. It's going somewhere, so maybe its about time we put some reins on it, and gave our 'consciousness' a little more guidance, instead of unconsciously uncovering ways to invent more destruction through our abuse of power?


Everything must be able to be traced back to its origin. By definition, any 'origin' must be the One original thing. Call it 'God', or 'Nature', 'Infinity', or 'Tao'. Call it a million 'things', but it is still One Thing. And this is exactly what Humans do. We all have our own unique and perfectly viable interpretation of what we consider this 'One thing' to be, and yet we fail to recognise that everyone has as much right to their 'One thing' as anyone else! It is a war purely of words.

For me, it is/was just a matter of time, before a discovery of the interconnectivity in all things becomes apparent. As inevitable as the discovery of The Wheel, or Fire. A Universal Truth, that cannot be denied.
The continued denial of who/what we really are, is our biggest problem. I believe Jung recognised this, and his Insights regarding 'Synchronicity', were an unconscious 'connection' in themselves, to a stage of development which we necessarily need to acheive, in order to stop arguing and dividing ourselves from reality.

According to this new WSM theory of the Dynamics of Reality, a lack of either 'Motion', or 'Connectivity', would necessarily mean 'Non-existance', as existance needs the properties of Motion and Connectivity. Indeed these properties (of the one thing, which is Space) ARE what cause the phenomenon we know as 'Existance'. They are what give 'existance' its 'meaning' at all, and Nothing CAN exist, without these two vital properties, which are the original state of being.
Now, how close is THAT to Yin/Yang, TAO thinking?
To divide 'science' from 'Tao' at all, is not 'Taoist thinking'. And now 'science' is beginning to understand that it can no longer divide itself, and still arrive at truthful conclusions. Division is a construct of Human (over?)thinking. 'Physics' is only just opening it's skeptical eyes to the reality.
And so, I put it to you, that they are one and the same thing. Two different 'schools' of thought, both trying to reach the same 'goal', and getting there, simply because there is only ONE REALITY to arrive at. Call it what you will...

In this light, 'Synchronicity' becomes another explanation of the dynamic reality, connectable by the individual, to its/their one true origin. (If one thing truely exists everywhere, but in an infinite variety of forms, this would explain things such as 'spontaineity' and 'instantaneousness')

So, yes, we are still personally responsible for 'making the coincidences happen', and we could just as easily see them as our personal connection to everything else. This is the point.
Sometimes, someone is bold enough to stand up and say "I have this connection, and I have experienced it THIS WAY!" to which millions of 'followers' say "Ooh, can I see it your way too?". The answer is NO! You have to see it your own 'way'!!! (all you need to do is believe that it is possible, and that you have the power to connect for yourself, as your 'connection' is always as unique as you are...)

Of course, these are all just my thoughts, but i'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for giving me the chance to share them with you. In 'reality', it matters not that we agree on such 'ideas', but simply that we understand our own personal connection to what is real (call it what you will), as there can only be one true reality, that all things share, AND have a personal perspective of.
One persons 'God' is no more or less 'real' than another persons 'Infinite Space'. Same thing, different jumble of letters... Oh, there's the connection again!

All the best,
Steve.

[Gil]

Knotty, you've gone way too far into emoting your ideas in these last two posts for me to even want to relate. I'll leave it up to Geoff, it's just too far from my logical reality. I would suggest though, that you shave your private language ideas down a bit with a new Ocham's Razor. WSM provides a pretty good razor, if you study it all.

regards

[haselhurst]

I know (painfully so) that it is hard to discuss things at times, to try and pare them back to the essential ideas. I am tormented by this each day as I begin again to work on the spaceandmotion website that really needs a lot of re-writing / simplifying.
This is particularly true for writing on the internet (vs in a book).

So Mr Knotty!, don't take this criticism the wrong way, it is abrupt, but it also contains some wisdom that applies to me as well.

As Pascal once wrote;
"If I had more time it would have been shorter."

I enjoy your writing and ideas - but i agree, more time thinking and editing to pare them back will be good. But I realise that you are slowly doing this, so in time I expect you will write some very good quality concise work on this subtle connection between things - how this applies to humans and their minds (Jung).
Our minds take time to adjust to new knowledge (several years i think). Only then can we write simply and clearly.

Anyway, just a short hello - a few words of encouragement!
Cheers,
Geoff



To begin with our knowledge grows in spots. ..What you first gain, ... is probably a small amount of new information, a few new definitions, or distinctions, or points of view. But while these special ideas are being added, the rest of your knowledge stands still, and only gradually will you line up your previous opinions with the novelties I am trying to instill, and to modify to some slight degree their mass. ..Your mind in such processes is strained, and sometimes painfully so, between its older beliefs and the novelties which experience brings along. (William James, Pragmatism)

[Steve Anthony]

Ah, that's a shame Lloyd.
I went from 'almost perfect' to not worth relating to, in one foul swoop! That is abrupt! A greater shame, because I feel we could actually relate some very relevant thoughts between us. You are probably a much busier man than I, at this time, so I thank you for your comments, and links.

I guess the 'Intuitive' method will always be riddled with more than it's share of individuality, and you are both right to be skeptical of that! ..which is why I always feel the need to add a 'disclaimer' at the bottom of posts "..these are MY thoughts.."
You are right also, that I need to study more on the WSM, and Math/physics in general, which I AM doing. Sorry, it's slow!

So, as I said before, I have no problem with criticism. Fully realise my shortcomings within the scientific community. There is wisdom everywhere. Plenty here, and as I have said elsewhere, you guys are being extremely helpful.

I do hope that you can see my motivations clearly, though.
My main interest is in unity among 'thinkers', especially, as these are ultimately the people who 'dictate' the next move within society. The decision makers of this planet, the 'button pushers', are influenced by the 'thinkers' firstly (Karl Marx springs readily to mind, but also Oppenheimer, et al...).
And so, while my thoughts may leave something to be desired within the cold, hard world of science (and I DO understand the need for this..), i'm hoping I can relate a little of this 'Unity' to the subject of 'Connection', which, I feel, is where 'science' and 'emotion' should maybe try and shake hands, at last.

I feel that ALL aspects of Humanity need to 'give a little', if true 'connection' is what we are really looking for (as opposed to 'prizes').

Kind regards to all,
Steve.

[haselhurst]

We humans can be so brutal to one another, even without realising. It is hard to take criticism, requires courage and determination to take it in a positive way. I am glad that you have remained positive - good on ya!

I received this email several days ago.
I replied but he has not!

"You're an idiot. You should take an advanced physics / calculus class before you try to take on Einstein's Theory's. Your "metaphysical" breakdowns of the theory make absolutely no physical or mathematical sense." (From a Mathematical Physicist)

Hi,
What a coincidence - I was just lamenting the fact that I had only received one obnoxious stupid email from a physicist in the past two years which I had deleted - but I wanted to show it to users to show what logical sensible people (who care about Science / Truth) are up against. May I use your letter on my website? I assume that you are happy to publicise your comments (and put your name to them). And they are very useful as they confirm what Max Planck wrote;

" A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

As we would both agree - if you know reality then it must be impossible to show that it is not true using rules of science. So for a starter - any evidence that space does not exist (as a wave medium) that matter is not a wave structure of space. That will be interesting! i.e. To back up your comment that WSM makes no physical sense!

And you seem to ignore that it exactly mathematically deduces de Broglie wavelength of QT and Einstein's relativistic mass / frequency increase for relative motion. You can do the maths yourself - just use Doppler shifting of two spherical standing waves moving through one another. Pure maths - check it out then explain your maths comments above!

Cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm

PS - The reason why Einstein was great is largely because he studied philosophy and metaphysics as well as physics (same as Aristotle - probably the two greatest minds in human history!)
Some relevant quotes.

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Albert Einstein to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. (Albert Einstein. 'Ernst Mach.' Physikalische Zeitschrift 17 (1916): 101, 102 - A memorial notice for the philosopher, Ernst Mach.)

PPS - Any problems with the following metaphysical quotes (have you studied metaphysics and philosophy?);

(Gottfried Leibniz, 1670) Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions (principles). This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty. ... I hold that the mark of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be proved, either a priori by conceiving its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is a fact in nature. ... a distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much rein must not be given to a mans imagination under pretext of its being a clear and distinct intellection.

(Aristotle, 340BC) Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity.

(F.H. Bradley, 1846-1924) We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.

(Erwin Schrodinger. 1930s) What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.

(Fritjof Capra, 1972.) The most important characteristic of the Eastern world view - one could almost say the essence of it - is the awareness of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things and events, the experience of all phenomena in the world as manifestations of a basic oneness. All things are seen as interdependent and inseparable parts of this cosmic whole; as different manifestations of the same ultimate reality.

(David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980) The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. (Carver Mead, Professor Emeritus at Caltech. Received $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize in 1999)

Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, whose basis (principles) cannot be distilled, as it were, from experience by an inductive method, but can only be arrived at by free invention. The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions (a priori/logical truths) by sense experiences (a posteriori/empirical truths). ... Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). .. We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically. (Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1936)

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. (Albert Einstein)

Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950) (GH - Just need to change from continuous spherical fields in space time to spherical waves in continuous space - then you unite Quantum Theory with Relativity - search mathematical physicist Milo Wolff, he deduces this with maths logic.)

GH - And because he worked from continuous fields rather than discrete standing wave interactions - well this explains why Einstein also wrote;

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. . I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Geoff,

I really think it is purely a language problem, and that we probably agree on a vast amount.

Somewhere, between the ideas of science and spirituality, there is a 'missing link' (which you recognise yourself, as being 'a problem of WSM', i.e. The Mind). The Mind in question, being the Human Mind.

In 'Science', the details seem to be the all important focus, but in 'Spirituality', The Whole becomes the 'acheivement'.

I come from neither 'school'.
I am stuck in the middle, with you! (Gerry Raffety - c.1976)

...Therefore, I have no bias either way. I take no 'sides'. I believe 'division' is the very thing that stops progress, and it is pretty obvious, to me, that if we concentrate on one particular area of any given 'thing', we automatically neglect the rest of it! We miss The Whole.

To me, WSM is represented fairly and truthfully by the inclusion of Philosophy and Metaphysics, and even Spirituality, which it must do, if it proclaims to be any kind of 'Universal theory'.
'Science' cannot afford to section itself from the rest of the Human experience, for then it becomes 'elite' and open to abuse, much in the way that 'Religion' has done to itself, and 'Politics' continues to do.

The point at which these 'schools' meet, is where we find such words as 'Unity', 'Wholeness', 'Oneness'. In their respective attempts to describe this 'Oneness', they all have their favourite 'term', i.e. 'God', 'Infinity', 'Tao', 'Nature', etc...

The 'dividers', who focus on 'the details', would do well to ask "what do all these peices add up to?" or "what am I trying to acheive, here?", "where is all this leading?", in my opinion, of course!
And the people who concentrate purely on the 'whole', also need to question their faith regularly, if they want to be sure of how 'real' it is, and whether it is causing some unconscious harm, unnecessarily.

The details mean nothing, unless they are part of the Whole, and the Whole means nothing, unless it is sure of its details... Relate this to 'Jungian thought', and I believe you have what he discovered to be a 'cure', for personal/individual and collective/societal 'division'.

If I have a 'stance' either way, it is this...

Life is the Nobel-ist prize.

Peace, through non-division,
Steve.

[Gil]

Hi Steve, I realize I was rather abrupt with you and I wasn't really trying to be. I usually wait a day or two before responding. I did not. Sorry. I do appreciate your staying positive in the blast of a great storm... I guess that's why I'm responding again. I do wish you could keep your response more concise, if possible, if you will even respond at all. I won't blame you if you don't, but I think together, we may have something to help Geoff, and in turn, the world. Think about it anyway... I'm not busy, but it does tax my brain too much to go too far, for too long, into the intuitive, yet I believe it is the only bridge dialogue possible, to unite the differences of science and spirit, as you do also, I think. I'm also working with a young man from another state who is right brained intuitive, and he and I are making great headway. We are both quite concise with one another. We do not see eye to eye, by any means, but we are seeing great possibilities of a left/right, logic/intuition, science/religion and or reason/emotion union. We both agree this could be powerful and extremely useful, to much more easily relay ideas of truths of both sides.

Below, I have listed some interesting ideas of yours. I feel we may have some common ground, as I am working with many other people around the world, also, to