WELCOME TO THE "SOL SCIENTIA," a fictional journal about
a physicist and philosopher of science, who is on a pilgrimage--
walking down the paths of Cosmology, Code, and Consciousness,
seeking the Plenum of the Universe, the GodHead.
Go to the very last post, which is the Introduction and work
your way forward.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
(1) Coda
Chapter Eight. CODA
I have at last come to the end of my pilgrimage. Need I say that
I have spent a goodly number of years, covering a lot of territory
during this quest of mine. As for gaining more insight, more
knowledge, I guess I have--mainly via the work of other scientists
who have struggled long and hard to understand their subject:
the universe.
After all this, however, I have reached that juncture as to what I
think about the universe, about the possibility of a Cosmic Plenum
that I prefer to call "Sol."
Basically I think that we are dealing with what I call the three "I's."
• Intelligence
• Information
• Intuition
Though I definitely realize that we are dealing only with
possibilities, only through speculation, it's scientific speculation
in that at least some of our scientific luminaries do dare to wonder
that our universe might be an Informed Universe. And where there is
Information, well there has to be Intelligence that stands behind it.
As for Intuition, we conscious humans--being part and parcel of the
universe--logically are recipients of this Intelligence and the
Information that it evolves. Through our minds, we are receivers
of Such.
Nevertheless, I realize fully that we good Homo Sapiens are not
exactly on the edge of Total Breakthrough, if you will. We folk
have been a long time coming; and, quite frankly, I believe we
are barely fledglings. But there are those among us who are
questers, who are on pilgrimage. And some have committed
their whole life towards trying to understand what stands behind
the universe in which we live.
As for me, my small journal serves as an infrastructure for my
"opus." Lots of research stands behind this journal, and now I
need put it together in a serious scholarly way. Such an effort
will probably take the rest of my life, but I'm not complaining.
Can't think of anything better to do!
Now concluding, I do hold hope in "Sol." I do believe there
surely is a LIGHT that stands behind Life and the World. Perhaps
this is my faith unfurling, but I don't think such a hope is totally
unfounded.
I have at last come to the end of my pilgrimage. Need I say that
I have spent a goodly number of years, covering a lot of territory
during this quest of mine. As for gaining more insight, more
knowledge, I guess I have--mainly via the work of other scientists
who have struggled long and hard to understand their subject:
the universe.
After all this, however, I have reached that juncture as to what I
think about the universe, about the possibility of a Cosmic Plenum
that I prefer to call "Sol."
Basically I think that we are dealing with what I call the three "I's."
• Intelligence
• Information
• Intuition
Though I definitely realize that we are dealing only with
possibilities, only through speculation, it's scientific speculation
in that at least some of our scientific luminaries do dare to wonder
that our universe might be an Informed Universe. And where there is
Information, well there has to be Intelligence that stands behind it.
As for Intuition, we conscious humans--being part and parcel of the
universe--logically are recipients of this Intelligence and the
Information that it evolves. Through our minds, we are receivers
of Such.
Nevertheless, I realize fully that we good Homo Sapiens are not
exactly on the edge of Total Breakthrough, if you will. We folk
have been a long time coming; and, quite frankly, I believe we
are barely fledglings. But there are those among us who are
questers, who are on pilgrimage. And some have committed
their whole life towards trying to understand what stands behind
the universe in which we live.
As for me, my small journal serves as an infrastructure for my
"opus." Lots of research stands behind this journal, and now I
need put it together in a serious scholarly way. Such an effort
will probably take the rest of my life, but I'm not complaining.
Can't think of anything better to do!
Now concluding, I do hold hope in "Sol." I do believe there
surely is a LIGHT that stands behind Life and the World. Perhaps
this is my faith unfurling, but I don't think such a hope is totally
unfounded.
(4) Considerations
Nonetheless, I delved into other books that talked about the scientific
quest and the idea of God. By this time, I even ran across some
theological treatises devoted to wondering what the universe might
offer in relation to their religion. Most were written by priests, who
also happened to be scientists. But I decided to avoid these tomes,
in that they tried to "fit" scientific data into their specific faith systems.
Probably pursuing the idea of a Cosmic Plenum, or the Solar Logos,
was bad enough I suppose. But this idea incorporated a much more
universal approach to God or the Creator or the Sustainer of the World.
Anyway, I found here and there more major scientists who talked about
the possibility of a Plenum, if you will. Or at least they scooted around
the topic.
There's Eric Chaisson, an astrophysicist connected with Tufts University.
Previously he served as senior scientist and division head at the Space
Telescope Science Institute of Johns Hopkins University and was also
affiliated with the Harvard- Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
Chaisson believed that the very expansion of the universe generates
*information.* But for information to occur, there has to rise an order
out of chaos. In the very earliest moments of the universe, it seemed
chaos reigned. But within a few next moments equilibrium occured,
allowing neutral atoms to move into a re-combination phase--a phase
of some half-million years that allowed energy and matter to couple.
Chaisson felt this cosmic evolution was a result of information that
"drives order from chaos." And at this point, I would like to inject a
small explanation of Chaos Theory.
[Chaos Theory tell us how the cosmos and we *create.* Chaos is
necessary for order! We go through periods or levels of chaos, and
(if we are fortunate) we move away from that path and rise to a higher
level of order. This is called "bifurcation" by the scientists. On the other
hand, precious order can not be allowed to remain stagnant. We have
to engage in that intermittency of chaos and order in order to evolve to
higher levels of creativity and being. If we don't, we would be aiming
towards total equilibrium--which, according to scientists, equates with
death.]
Paul Davies is another scientist who I selected. He is a Professor
of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia.
In one of his earlier books he immediately proposes that there is no
positive scientific evidence for a designer and creator of cosmic order.
However, as Davies put, there is more to nature than its mathematical
laws and its complex order. A third ingredient requires explanation too,
the so-called fundamental constants' of nature. "It is in that province
that we find the most surprising evidence for a grand design."
[By fundamental constants, physicists mean certain quantities
that play a basic role in physics, and which have the same
numerical value everywhere in the universe and at all moments
in time. All nature's forces contain numbers like this that determine
their strength and range.]
And, finally, I found a small selection of earlier scientists, now dead,
who pondered the great question over which I struggle. For this
journal I'll mention Werner Heisenberg, a Nobel Prize winner in
physics, famous for his Uncertainty Principle, who discussed the
motivations behind much scientific discovery and technological
innovations. As he nicely put it, "the development of science and
technology has produced, for example, the IDEA of the airplane."
Heisenberg was talking about that which is *a priori.* To quote:
"At that moment...when the true Ideas rise up, there occurs in the soul
of him who sees them an altogether indescribable process of the
highest intensity. It is the amazed awe that Plato speaks of in the
Phaedrus, with which the soul remembers, as it were, something it
had unconsciously possessed all along."
quest and the idea of God. By this time, I even ran across some
theological treatises devoted to wondering what the universe might
offer in relation to their religion. Most were written by priests, who
also happened to be scientists. But I decided to avoid these tomes,
in that they tried to "fit" scientific data into their specific faith systems.
Probably pursuing the idea of a Cosmic Plenum, or the Solar Logos,
was bad enough I suppose. But this idea incorporated a much more
universal approach to God or the Creator or the Sustainer of the World.
Anyway, I found here and there more major scientists who talked about
the possibility of a Plenum, if you will. Or at least they scooted around
the topic.
There's Eric Chaisson, an astrophysicist connected with Tufts University.
Previously he served as senior scientist and division head at the Space
Telescope Science Institute of Johns Hopkins University and was also
affiliated with the Harvard- Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
Chaisson believed that the very expansion of the universe generates
*information.* But for information to occur, there has to rise an order
out of chaos. In the very earliest moments of the universe, it seemed
chaos reigned. But within a few next moments equilibrium occured,
allowing neutral atoms to move into a re-combination phase--a phase
of some half-million years that allowed energy and matter to couple.
Chaisson felt this cosmic evolution was a result of information that
"drives order from chaos." And at this point, I would like to inject a
small explanation of Chaos Theory.
[Chaos Theory tell us how the cosmos and we *create.* Chaos is
necessary for order! We go through periods or levels of chaos, and
(if we are fortunate) we move away from that path and rise to a higher
level of order. This is called "bifurcation" by the scientists. On the other
hand, precious order can not be allowed to remain stagnant. We have
to engage in that intermittency of chaos and order in order to evolve to
higher levels of creativity and being. If we don't, we would be aiming
towards total equilibrium--which, according to scientists, equates with
death.]
Paul Davies is another scientist who I selected. He is a Professor
of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia.
In one of his earlier books he immediately proposes that there is no
positive scientific evidence for a designer and creator of cosmic order.
However, as Davies put, there is more to nature than its mathematical
laws and its complex order. A third ingredient requires explanation too,
the so-called fundamental constants' of nature. "It is in that province
that we find the most surprising evidence for a grand design."
[By fundamental constants, physicists mean certain quantities
that play a basic role in physics, and which have the same
numerical value everywhere in the universe and at all moments
in time. All nature's forces contain numbers like this that determine
their strength and range.]
And, finally, I found a small selection of earlier scientists, now dead,
who pondered the great question over which I struggle. For this
journal I'll mention Werner Heisenberg, a Nobel Prize winner in
physics, famous for his Uncertainty Principle, who discussed the
motivations behind much scientific discovery and technological
innovations. As he nicely put it, "the development of science and
technology has produced, for example, the IDEA of the airplane."
Heisenberg was talking about that which is *a priori.* To quote:
"At that moment...when the true Ideas rise up, there occurs in the soul
of him who sees them an altogether indescribable process of the
highest intensity. It is the amazed awe that Plato speaks of in the
Phaedrus, with which the soul remembers, as it were, something it
had unconsciously possessed all along."
(3) Considerations
The scenario totally shifted when I approached the thought of
David Bohm. He was a protege of both Einstein and Robert
Oppenheimer (the Father of the Atom Bomb) when he was at
the Institute for Advanced Study. In due course, Bohm moved
on to positions in Brazil and Israel--and eventually became the
Chair of the Physics Department at the University of London.
Known as the "Father of Quantum Mechanics," Bohm died in
1990.
But it was what Bohm did *after* he retired. Essentially he
became a philosopher, espousing an incredibly interesting
theory about what he called the "Implicate Order. What Bohm
was suggesting, strongly, is that there is an Inner Aspect of the
universe as well as an Outer Aspect that we normally study.
He based his theory on his knowledge as a physicist, especially
specializing in quantum physics and mechanics. But he inputted
lots and lots more into his theory. Bohm's universal system was
a *Whole,* if you will, seamless, with the Inner playing into the
Outer. Our's is a holistic universe, and the process is holistic.
Bohm believed that there was a Plenum, if you will, which he
called the "Holomovement."
Without going into a lot of seriously sophisticated physics, I'll just
make mention in this journal that Bohm's basic assumption is that
"elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated
internal structure, acting essentially as amplifiers of *information*
contained in a quantum wave." As a consequence, he evolved a
new and controversial theory of the universe--a new model of reality
that he calls the "Implicate Order."
The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic
view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any
individual element could reveal "detailed information about every
other element in the universe." The central underlying theme of
Bohm's theory is the "unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence
as an undivided flowing movement without borders." Hence the
Holomovement.
At last I had found a scientist--a great scientist, too--who dared to
suggest that there is actually an Inner that feeds out *information*
to play into the Outer part of the universe.
However, excited as I may be, I knew that I had to be practical in
my quest. I just could not latch onto a theory without more under-
standing. Consequently I spent lots of time delving into Bohm's
thought, and I must say that the man was knowledgable. He really
knew his science! And he dared to say what he thought about the
nature and process(es) of the universe.
In the end, what I really latched onto when it came to Bohm's theory
was the focus on *Information.* By sheer happenstance, a friend
of mine back at the Plasma Physics Laboratory came across a
scientific article by John Wheeler, now gone but then known as
one of the greatest physicists in the world. Quoting Wheeler, here
is what he said: "the quantum teaches us that the world at bottom
has an information-theoretic character."
Wheeler continued, proceeding with the idea of an observer-participant
universe. "Participation reveals itself in the demand for choice. In this
game, as in quantum physics, no question, no answer."
Thrilled after reading Bohm's theory, after reading Wheeler's comment,
I couldn't help but think that their thinking presupposes an intelligent
universe that has to grasp information and creativity as its primary
process.
David Bohm. He was a protege of both Einstein and Robert
Oppenheimer (the Father of the Atom Bomb) when he was at
the Institute for Advanced Study. In due course, Bohm moved
on to positions in Brazil and Israel--and eventually became the
Chair of the Physics Department at the University of London.
Known as the "Father of Quantum Mechanics," Bohm died in
1990.
But it was what Bohm did *after* he retired. Essentially he
became a philosopher, espousing an incredibly interesting
theory about what he called the "Implicate Order. What Bohm
was suggesting, strongly, is that there is an Inner Aspect of the
universe as well as an Outer Aspect that we normally study.
He based his theory on his knowledge as a physicist, especially
specializing in quantum physics and mechanics. But he inputted
lots and lots more into his theory. Bohm's universal system was
a *Whole,* if you will, seamless, with the Inner playing into the
Outer. Our's is a holistic universe, and the process is holistic.
Bohm believed that there was a Plenum, if you will, which he
called the "Holomovement."
Without going into a lot of seriously sophisticated physics, I'll just
make mention in this journal that Bohm's basic assumption is that
"elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated
internal structure, acting essentially as amplifiers of *information*
contained in a quantum wave." As a consequence, he evolved a
new and controversial theory of the universe--a new model of reality
that he calls the "Implicate Order."
The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic
view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any
individual element could reveal "detailed information about every
other element in the universe." The central underlying theme of
Bohm's theory is the "unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence
as an undivided flowing movement without borders." Hence the
Holomovement.
At last I had found a scientist--a great scientist, too--who dared to
suggest that there is actually an Inner that feeds out *information*
to play into the Outer part of the universe.
However, excited as I may be, I knew that I had to be practical in
my quest. I just could not latch onto a theory without more under-
standing. Consequently I spent lots of time delving into Bohm's
thought, and I must say that the man was knowledgable. He really
knew his science! And he dared to say what he thought about the
nature and process(es) of the universe.
In the end, what I really latched onto when it came to Bohm's theory
was the focus on *Information.* By sheer happenstance, a friend
of mine back at the Plasma Physics Laboratory came across a
scientific article by John Wheeler, now gone but then known as
one of the greatest physicists in the world. Quoting Wheeler, here
is what he said: "the quantum teaches us that the world at bottom
has an information-theoretic character."
Wheeler continued, proceeding with the idea of an observer-participant
universe. "Participation reveals itself in the demand for choice. In this
game, as in quantum physics, no question, no answer."
Thrilled after reading Bohm's theory, after reading Wheeler's comment,
I couldn't help but think that their thinking presupposes an intelligent
universe that has to grasp information and creativity as its primary
process.
(2) Considerations
As for Freeman Dyson, he is a declared non-denominational
Christian--but I believe he qualifies his Chistrianity when he
said that (for him) it is a "community that preserves an ancient
heritage of great literature and great music, provides help and
counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates
children in moral responsibility, and worships God in its own
fashion.
However, as Dyson puts: "as a scientist, I live in a universe of
overwhelming size and mystery. The mysteries of life and
language, evil, chance and necessity, and of our own existence
as conscious beings, in an impersonal cosmos are even greater
than the mysteries of physics and astronomy. Behind the
mysteries that we can name, there are deeper mysteries that
we have not even begun to explore."
Well Dyson said it: the universe remains very much a mystery for
us. And he said what I was trying to understand that there are
mysteries that stand behind the obvious mysteries we have only
begun to encounter about the universe--and our place in it.
I've heard it said that when a priest cannot explain a complicated
theological subject, he oft says it's a "mystery." Well it seems that
scientists get into this habit, too! Still Dyson has a sense of a
Deeper Mystery, though vague. He's not willing to speculate
much beyond this.
Thus far fairly discouraged, I felt more and more bereft. My
pilgrimage was approaching "empty." Still, something within
me kept prodding to keep on going.
Christian--but I believe he qualifies his Chistrianity when he
said that (for him) it is a "community that preserves an ancient
heritage of great literature and great music, provides help and
counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates
children in moral responsibility, and worships God in its own
fashion.
However, as Dyson puts: "as a scientist, I live in a universe of
overwhelming size and mystery. The mysteries of life and
language, evil, chance and necessity, and of our own existence
as conscious beings, in an impersonal cosmos are even greater
than the mysteries of physics and astronomy. Behind the
mysteries that we can name, there are deeper mysteries that
we have not even begun to explore."
Well Dyson said it: the universe remains very much a mystery for
us. And he said what I was trying to understand that there are
mysteries that stand behind the obvious mysteries we have only
begun to encounter about the universe--and our place in it.
I've heard it said that when a priest cannot explain a complicated
theological subject, he oft says it's a "mystery." Well it seems that
scientists get into this habit, too! Still Dyson has a sense of a
Deeper Mystery, though vague. He's not willing to speculate
much beyond this.
Thus far fairly discouraged, I felt more and more bereft. My
pilgrimage was approaching "empty." Still, something within
me kept prodding to keep on going.
(1) Considerations
Chapter Seven. CONSIDERATIONS
After reviewing selected data on the New Cosmology, on Smart
Code, and Consciousness Research, I simply had to sit back
and take some deep breaths. Before I started out, I knew that the
universe would not readily present nor provide specifics when it
came to a Godhead--or the Cosmic Plenum, known as the
"Logos" in Western philosophy.
But I guess I must have had some hidden hope that I might see
more clearly. After reviewing my journal up to this point, I didn't
see many clues that uniquely suggested a Cosmic Plenum. Yet,
both my heart and my mind kept demanding that I continue to
investigate.
So I decided to read those listed books by scientists who leaned
towards a spiritual view of the universe. I wasn't hopeful, but
after all the Institute for Advanced Study had provided me with
this book list. And I remembered that one of the faculty members
had specifically mentioned three of their own star scientists:
Albert Einstein, Freeman Dyson, and David Bohm. So I began
reading into what these scientific luminaries had to say.
I gleaned through as much as I could about the late Albert
Einstein's religious views. He did admit to a "cosmic religious
feeling." From what I could tell, he was a deist under the skin.
He certainly was adamant that he was *not* an atheist nor
a pantheist.
Much to my amazement, I discovered a talk Einstein gave at the
Princeton Theological Seminary. He said that there "is no room
for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual."
With this, he was certainly not proclaiming any revealed religion!
Rather he was in awe of that he called the "spirit manifest in the
laws of the universe," of a "God who reveals Himself in the
harmony of all that exists."
I certainly had to agree with Einstein when he proffered the
following analogy: "The child dimly suspects a mysterious order
in the arrangement of books but doesn't know what it is. That, it
seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human
being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged
and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
At least Einstein refers to a God that he believes stands behind
Universal Law(s). Was he thinking of a Cosmic Plenum? The
question remains, however, how orderly the universe might be.
Quantum Theory took the punch out of Einstein, as he declared
that "God does not play dice." Turned out that that the universe
might be rolling the dice after all, especially if you have an
observer-participant universe.
After reviewing selected data on the New Cosmology, on Smart
Code, and Consciousness Research, I simply had to sit back
and take some deep breaths. Before I started out, I knew that the
universe would not readily present nor provide specifics when it
came to a Godhead--or the Cosmic Plenum, known as the
"Logos" in Western philosophy.
But I guess I must have had some hidden hope that I might see
more clearly. After reviewing my journal up to this point, I didn't
see many clues that uniquely suggested a Cosmic Plenum. Yet,
both my heart and my mind kept demanding that I continue to
investigate.
So I decided to read those listed books by scientists who leaned
towards a spiritual view of the universe. I wasn't hopeful, but
after all the Institute for Advanced Study had provided me with
this book list. And I remembered that one of the faculty members
had specifically mentioned three of their own star scientists:
Albert Einstein, Freeman Dyson, and David Bohm. So I began
reading into what these scientific luminaries had to say.
I gleaned through as much as I could about the late Albert
Einstein's religious views. He did admit to a "cosmic religious
feeling." From what I could tell, he was a deist under the skin.
He certainly was adamant that he was *not* an atheist nor
a pantheist.
Much to my amazement, I discovered a talk Einstein gave at the
Princeton Theological Seminary. He said that there "is no room
for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual."
With this, he was certainly not proclaiming any revealed religion!
Rather he was in awe of that he called the "spirit manifest in the
laws of the universe," of a "God who reveals Himself in the
harmony of all that exists."
I certainly had to agree with Einstein when he proffered the
following analogy: "The child dimly suspects a mysterious order
in the arrangement of books but doesn't know what it is. That, it
seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human
being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged
and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
At least Einstein refers to a God that he believes stands behind
Universal Law(s). Was he thinking of a Cosmic Plenum? The
question remains, however, how orderly the universe might be.
Quantum Theory took the punch out of Einstein, as he declared
that "God does not play dice." Turned out that that the universe
might be rolling the dice after all, especially if you have an
observer-participant universe.
(4) Consciousness
What to do? Like my quest towards understanding Code, I felt that
there really was no solid door to walk through when it came to the
issue of Consciousness. At least there was Genetic Code, a physical
reality in the life-forms we know on Earth. But with Consciousness,
it's not always apparently physical.
Some researchers believe the "materialist" approach is the way that
we can ultimately understand Consciousness. Conversely there's the
"idealist" approach that thinks otherwise--that Consciousness is
somehow non-material, perhaps even ethereal.
From what I could tell, we humans have not yet even come to any
conclusive understanding of Consciousness. All we know is that it
*is.*
Somehow this mystery of Consciousness brought to mind a lecture
I once attended by a famous astronomer. Discussing recent
cosmological discoveries, he stopped suddenly, grew silent, and
then said the most interesting thing. He had realized that our
mind, our consciousness, must somehow be connected with the
universe--because astronomy is not a bench science, where we
can touch and feel. Rather we seem to understand our observations,
distant and complex, when it comes to Cosmology. We seem to
be able to do this naturally, and more than often we are right
when it comes to our analyses. It's as if we are part and parcel
of the universe, and our consciousness is somehow connected
to Such.
It made me think that, yes, just maybe we are possibly what I have
come to call "Consciousness Points" rising forth in the universe.
I have to wonder whether that throughout the millions of galaxies,
there are Consciousness Points, pondering upon the meaning of
All this that Is.
there really was no solid door to walk through when it came to the
issue of Consciousness. At least there was Genetic Code, a physical
reality in the life-forms we know on Earth. But with Consciousness,
it's not always apparently physical.
Some researchers believe the "materialist" approach is the way that
we can ultimately understand Consciousness. Conversely there's the
"idealist" approach that thinks otherwise--that Consciousness is
somehow non-material, perhaps even ethereal.
From what I could tell, we humans have not yet even come to any
conclusive understanding of Consciousness. All we know is that it
*is.*
Somehow this mystery of Consciousness brought to mind a lecture
I once attended by a famous astronomer. Discussing recent
cosmological discoveries, he stopped suddenly, grew silent, and
then said the most interesting thing. He had realized that our
mind, our consciousness, must somehow be connected with the
universe--because astronomy is not a bench science, where we
can touch and feel. Rather we seem to understand our observations,
distant and complex, when it comes to Cosmology. We seem to
be able to do this naturally, and more than often we are right
when it comes to our analyses. It's as if we are part and parcel
of the universe, and our consciousness is somehow connected
to Such.
It made me think that, yes, just maybe we are possibly what I have
come to call "Consciousness Points" rising forth in the universe.
I have to wonder whether that throughout the millions of galaxies,
there are Consciousness Points, pondering upon the meaning of
All this that Is.
(3) Consciousness
As a scientist, at first I didn't consider these additional approaches
to be proper--so to speak. However, I was in for a bit of a surprise.
There were reputable scientists examining non-local consciousness.
Basically this was about morphogenetic fields, about telepathy, even
about prayer. Non-local consciousness extends from one individual's
consciousness outward to other conscious persons!
And beyond even this, scientists at well-known universities, as well
as reputable psychologists, are moving even further. In connection
with Consciousness, they are probing what used to be considered
very, very esoteric phenomena: the Out-of-Body Experience, the
Near-Death Experience, Past Life Visions, and even Reincarnation.
These additional approaches were very new, but another approach
was very old: PanPsychism. Adherents of this approach believe that
"psyche--the essence of consciousness--is a universal presence in
the world; and that this PanPsyche is evolving through the living
organisms who live on this planet. In other words, Mother Earth is
becoming more conscious.
Well, it's somewhat easy to think this way. It's obvious that we humans
are becoming fast more conscious. As for other living forms, at last
we are beginning to take note that some are starting to follow suit--
albeit at their own pace, in their own way.
I had to smile at myself, in that while reading about PanPsychism I
was constantly reminded of Teilhard de Chardin's Cosmogenesis
Theory that talked about reaching towards higher and higher levels,
via consciousness development, ultimately building the Noosphere--
a planetary Mind of sorts.
Yet I landed on another step when it came to Consciousness Theory.
Cosmic Consciousness! Maybe it was Teilhard extended, assuming
that there *is* a Consciousness that underlies all of the universe.
There are "thinkers" thinking this way.
to be proper--so to speak. However, I was in for a bit of a surprise.
There were reputable scientists examining non-local consciousness.
Basically this was about morphogenetic fields, about telepathy, even
about prayer. Non-local consciousness extends from one individual's
consciousness outward to other conscious persons!
And beyond even this, scientists at well-known universities, as well
as reputable psychologists, are moving even further. In connection
with Consciousness, they are probing what used to be considered
very, very esoteric phenomena: the Out-of-Body Experience, the
Near-Death Experience, Past Life Visions, and even Reincarnation.
These additional approaches were very new, but another approach
was very old: PanPsychism. Adherents of this approach believe that
"psyche--the essence of consciousness--is a universal presence in
the world; and that this PanPsyche is evolving through the living
organisms who live on this planet. In other words, Mother Earth is
becoming more conscious.
Well, it's somewhat easy to think this way. It's obvious that we humans
are becoming fast more conscious. As for other living forms, at last
we are beginning to take note that some are starting to follow suit--
albeit at their own pace, in their own way.
I had to smile at myself, in that while reading about PanPsychism I
was constantly reminded of Teilhard de Chardin's Cosmogenesis
Theory that talked about reaching towards higher and higher levels,
via consciousness development, ultimately building the Noosphere--
a planetary Mind of sorts.
Yet I landed on another step when it came to Consciousness Theory.
Cosmic Consciousness! Maybe it was Teilhard extended, assuming
that there *is* a Consciousness that underlies all of the universe.
There are "thinkers" thinking this way.
(2) Consciousness
Nonetheless, from my perspective as a novice, again I could
hardly get a grip on the various theories that stood behind this
pursuit to understand Consciousness. Like Information Theory,
just too, too much!
I decided that for the purpose of this little journal, I would simply
scan a number of approaches regarding Consciousness--and
leave any depth research I might do for more serious future
efforts that might lead towards a publication. In the meanwhile,
I happened onto the writings of Ken Wilber, an amazing polymath
who covered many territories and than tried to integrate them
into some sort of focus when it came to Consciousness.
A scientist, philosopher, and transpersonal psychologist, Wilber
provided a list of categories in Consciousness Research. I
should like to quote at least sparingly from Wilber's list.
" *Cognitive Science* tends to view consciousness as anchored
in functional schemas of the brain/mind, either in a simple
representational fashion...or in the more complex emergent/
connectionist models, which view consciousness as an emergent
of hierarchically integrated networks...
" *Introspectionism* maintains that consciousness is best
understood in terms of intentionality, anchored in first-person
accounts...
" *Neuropsychology* views consciousness as anchored in
neural systems, neurotransmitters, and organic brain mechanisms...
" *Individual psychotherapy*...tends to view consciousness as
primarily anchored in an individual organism's adaptive capacities...
" *Social psychology* views consciousness as embedded in
networks of cultural meaning, or, alternatively, as being largely
a byproduct of the social system itself...
" *Clinical psychiatry* focuses on the relation of psychopathology,
behavioural patterns, and psychopharmacology...
" *Developmental psychology* views consciousness not as a single
entity but as a developmentally unfolding process with a substantially
different architecture at each of its stages of growth...
" *Psychosomatic medicine* views consciousness as strongly and
intrinsically inter-active with organic bodily processes...
" *Nonordinary states of consciousness,* from dreams to psychedelics,
constitutes a field of study that, its advocates believe, is crucial
to a grasp of consciousness in general...
" *Eastern and contemplative traditions* maintain that ordinary
consciousness is but a narrow and restricted version of deeper and
higher modes of awareness...
" *Quantum consciousness* approaches...consciousness as being
intrinsically capable of interacting with, and altering, the physical
world, generally through quantum interactions...
" *Subtle energies* research has postulated that there exist subtler
types of bio-energies beyond the four recognized forces of physics
(strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational) and that
these subtler energies play an intrinsic role in consciousness..."
[Ken Wilber, an article entitled "Integral Theory of Consciousness.]
Breathless, realizing that Consciousness Research may only be
starting, I have to commend Ken Wilber posing to integrate all these
approaches--and, no doubt, come up with his own theory.
Figuring what with all the above cited approaches, there likely would
be no breakthrough on the subject of Consciousness in my lifetime,
I was about to throw in the towel. But, gasping, I happened on even
more approaches that widened the net.
hardly get a grip on the various theories that stood behind this
pursuit to understand Consciousness. Like Information Theory,
just too, too much!
I decided that for the purpose of this little journal, I would simply
scan a number of approaches regarding Consciousness--and
leave any depth research I might do for more serious future
efforts that might lead towards a publication. In the meanwhile,
I happened onto the writings of Ken Wilber, an amazing polymath
who covered many territories and than tried to integrate them
into some sort of focus when it came to Consciousness.
A scientist, philosopher, and transpersonal psychologist, Wilber
provided a list of categories in Consciousness Research. I
should like to quote at least sparingly from Wilber's list.
" *Cognitive Science* tends to view consciousness as anchored
in functional schemas of the brain/mind, either in a simple
representational fashion...or in the more complex emergent/
connectionist models, which view consciousness as an emergent
of hierarchically integrated networks...
" *Introspectionism* maintains that consciousness is best
understood in terms of intentionality, anchored in first-person
accounts...
" *Neuropsychology* views consciousness as anchored in
neural systems, neurotransmitters, and organic brain mechanisms...
" *Individual psychotherapy*...tends to view consciousness as
primarily anchored in an individual organism's adaptive capacities...
" *Social psychology* views consciousness as embedded in
networks of cultural meaning, or, alternatively, as being largely
a byproduct of the social system itself...
" *Clinical psychiatry* focuses on the relation of psychopathology,
behavioural patterns, and psychopharmacology...
" *Developmental psychology* views consciousness not as a single
entity but as a developmentally unfolding process with a substantially
different architecture at each of its stages of growth...
" *Psychosomatic medicine* views consciousness as strongly and
intrinsically inter-active with organic bodily processes...
" *Nonordinary states of consciousness,* from dreams to psychedelics,
constitutes a field of study that, its advocates believe, is crucial
to a grasp of consciousness in general...
" *Eastern and contemplative traditions* maintain that ordinary
consciousness is but a narrow and restricted version of deeper and
higher modes of awareness...
" *Quantum consciousness* approaches...consciousness as being
intrinsically capable of interacting with, and altering, the physical
world, generally through quantum interactions...
" *Subtle energies* research has postulated that there exist subtler
types of bio-energies beyond the four recognized forces of physics
(strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational) and that
these subtler energies play an intrinsic role in consciousness..."
[Ken Wilber, an article entitled "Integral Theory of Consciousness.]
Breathless, realizing that Consciousness Research may only be
starting, I have to commend Ken Wilber posing to integrate all these
approaches--and, no doubt, come up with his own theory.
Figuring what with all the above cited approaches, there likely would
be no breakthrough on the subject of Consciousness in my lifetime,
I was about to throw in the towel. But, gasping, I happened on even
more approaches that widened the net.
(1) Consciousness
Chapter Six. CONSCIOUSNESS
When it came to the pursuit of Consciousness Theory, I found
that I had walked into a mainly unknown but incredibly exciting
land. As I began to discover, in the scientific world the topic of
Consciousness may be one of the "hottest topics in town." In
other words, we humans have arrived at the Big Question: "We
know, but we don't know how we know."
There's no lack of trying, as I found out. Again I was fortunate
living in Princeton, because I had a friend who had worked with
the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
Program. At the time he was part of this small group of academic
colleagues from various countries who explored their interest
in the topic of consciousness in the face of physical reality. PEAR
was connected with the university's School of Engineering and
Applied Science. And, essentially, its agenda was to study the
"interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical
devices, systems, and processes, and developing complementary
theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of
consciousness in the establishment of physical reality."
[Just a special note, but PEAR no longer exists. Rather it has
been superseded by the International Consciousness Research
Laboratories (ICRL), which has expanded this quest towards
understanding consciousness via an even more international
and integrative level.]
But back when I talked with my friend at PEAR, he informed me
of then annual conferences held at the University of Arizona,
sponsored by a group which later became known as the Center
for Consciousness Studies. Anyway, my friend was going to attend
one of their special conferences--and asked if I might like to join
him. It was Fall and growing cooler in Princeton, so I figured
warm Arizona might be just the kind of exposure I might need
trying to come to grips with this big "unknown" called
Consciousness!
So we winged our way out to Phoenix, rented a car and drove
through the desert and cacti, and arrived in Tucson for maybe
one of the most fascinating congregation of people I have ever
encountered. The focus was Consciousness, but the approaches
towards such were about as diverse conceivable! Virtually all
the academic disciplines known seemed to be represented,
ranging from Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Philosophy, Ethics,
Theology, History, Sociology, Psychology, to Parapsychology.
Amazing, too, there were "big names" at this conference. That's
when I began to realize that the subject of Consciousness was
beginning to become hot stuff in the academic world.
Later I learned that the succeeding Center for Consciousness
Studies at the University of Arizona--now--was not only holding
annual meetings, but providing lecture series, interdisciplinary
graduate courses, bimonthly meetings, workshops, panels at
professional meetings, etc.
Well, I certainly got the message that Consciousness Research
was by no means just an "esoteric pursuit."
When it came to the pursuit of Consciousness Theory, I found
that I had walked into a mainly unknown but incredibly exciting
land. As I began to discover, in the scientific world the topic of
Consciousness may be one of the "hottest topics in town." In
other words, we humans have arrived at the Big Question: "We
know, but we don't know how we know."
There's no lack of trying, as I found out. Again I was fortunate
living in Princeton, because I had a friend who had worked with
the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
Program. At the time he was part of this small group of academic
colleagues from various countries who explored their interest
in the topic of consciousness in the face of physical reality. PEAR
was connected with the university's School of Engineering and
Applied Science. And, essentially, its agenda was to study the
"interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical
devices, systems, and processes, and developing complementary
theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of
consciousness in the establishment of physical reality."
[Just a special note, but PEAR no longer exists. Rather it has
been superseded by the International Consciousness Research
Laboratories (ICRL), which has expanded this quest towards
understanding consciousness via an even more international
and integrative level.]
But back when I talked with my friend at PEAR, he informed me
of then annual conferences held at the University of Arizona,
sponsored by a group which later became known as the Center
for Consciousness Studies. Anyway, my friend was going to attend
one of their special conferences--and asked if I might like to join
him. It was Fall and growing cooler in Princeton, so I figured
warm Arizona might be just the kind of exposure I might need
trying to come to grips with this big "unknown" called
Consciousness!
So we winged our way out to Phoenix, rented a car and drove
through the desert and cacti, and arrived in Tucson for maybe
one of the most fascinating congregation of people I have ever
encountered. The focus was Consciousness, but the approaches
towards such were about as diverse conceivable! Virtually all
the academic disciplines known seemed to be represented,
ranging from Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Philosophy, Ethics,
Theology, History, Sociology, Psychology, to Parapsychology.
Amazing, too, there were "big names" at this conference. That's
when I began to realize that the subject of Consciousness was
beginning to become hot stuff in the academic world.
Later I learned that the succeeding Center for Consciousness
Studies at the University of Arizona--now--was not only holding
annual meetings, but providing lecture series, interdisciplinary
graduate courses, bimonthly meetings, workshops, panels at
professional meetings, etc.
Well, I certainly got the message that Consciousness Research
was by no means just an "esoteric pursuit."
(4) Smart Code
Genetic Code is present in all of the Earth's life forms, including us!
It's a set of rules, by which information is encoded in genetic material
(i.e., DNA or RNA sequences). In my journal, I mainly am focusing on
DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid, which is a double-stranded molecule
twisted into a helix--like a spiral staircase. Hence we have the Double
Helix!
Reading into this, each strand in a helix is comprised of a "sugar-
phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in
pairs." And the four "bases" that make up the spiraling are
(A) adenine, (T) thymine, (C) cytosine, and (G) guanine. Hence
we have a *code* that make scientists--again--liken such to computer
software. This four-part genetic alphabet can combine into complex
sequences that "act as instructions to guide the formation and
functioning of the host cell."
Some scientists refer to the Genetic Code as a "floppy disk of binary
code." Only in this case the "sequencing and function of the Genetic
Code is enormously complex." I should say so! During a lecture I
attended on DNA, the geneticist made the most amazing statement:
The Human Genome Project revealed that our DNA sequence
provided enough information to fill six or seven telephone directories!
As for what stands behind the Genetic Code, I'm sure people have
all sorts of opinions. I'll hold off on that for awhile. On the other hand,
the Genetic Code is more than a theory. It's a fact-of-life, to toss a
pun. It's real, right here on Earth--a planet in a galaxy that is part of
the universe. It's a Smart Code, moving, mutating in some life forms
towards higher levels of Intelligence.
So, at least, I had found a small piece of evidence. A Cosmic Code
does exist, existing in our very own DNA. And it's complex, and
obviously capable of become ever more complex infinitum. I have
to wonder how this Genetic Code, this Smart Code, might display
itself on other life-sustaining planets.
Yes, imagination is a wondrous ability. I'm just glad that I am
conscious of all this, and that my mind can soar with the possibilities.
Pondering, I knew that the next stop of my pilgrimage had to be the
study of Consciousness.
It's a set of rules, by which information is encoded in genetic material
(i.e., DNA or RNA sequences). In my journal, I mainly am focusing on
DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid, which is a double-stranded molecule
twisted into a helix--like a spiral staircase. Hence we have the Double
Helix!
Reading into this, each strand in a helix is comprised of a "sugar-
phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in
pairs." And the four "bases" that make up the spiraling are
(A) adenine, (T) thymine, (C) cytosine, and (G) guanine. Hence
we have a *code* that make scientists--again--liken such to computer
software. This four-part genetic alphabet can combine into complex
sequences that "act as instructions to guide the formation and
functioning of the host cell."
Some scientists refer to the Genetic Code as a "floppy disk of binary
code." Only in this case the "sequencing and function of the Genetic
Code is enormously complex." I should say so! During a lecture I
attended on DNA, the geneticist made the most amazing statement:
The Human Genome Project revealed that our DNA sequence
provided enough information to fill six or seven telephone directories!
As for what stands behind the Genetic Code, I'm sure people have
all sorts of opinions. I'll hold off on that for awhile. On the other hand,
the Genetic Code is more than a theory. It's a fact-of-life, to toss a
pun. It's real, right here on Earth--a planet in a galaxy that is part of
the universe. It's a Smart Code, moving, mutating in some life forms
towards higher levels of Intelligence.
So, at least, I had found a small piece of evidence. A Cosmic Code
does exist, existing in our very own DNA. And it's complex, and
obviously capable of become ever more complex infinitum. I have
to wonder how this Genetic Code, this Smart Code, might display
itself on other life-sustaining planets.
Yes, imagination is a wondrous ability. I'm just glad that I am
conscious of all this, and that my mind can soar with the possibilities.
Pondering, I knew that the next stop of my pilgrimage had to be the
study of Consciousness.
(3) Smart Code
Mumbling and grumbling over all this business about code, I
happened to drop-in a bookshop specializing in used books.
Browsing I spotted a book that took hold of my attention. It
was by the late Heinz Pagels, entitled THE COSMIC CODE:
QUANTUM PHYSICS AS THE LANGUAGE OF NATURE,
published back in 1982.
I bought the book, fully expecting a depth discourse on Quantum
Physics. But plowing towards the end of the book, I found what
really interested me. Pagels talks about what he believes is the
discovered order of the universe--that he calls the "cosmic code."
Pagels attempts a broad outline that seem characteristic of the
physical laws we have come to understand. Quoting Pagels,
from his book, pp. 292, 296-301.
" Invariant nature. A physical law is a proposition that something
always remains the same--an invariance.
" Universality and simplicity. The universality of physical laws is
perhaps their deepest feature--all events are subject to the same
universal grammar of material creation.
" Completeness. Physicists strive for completeness, because a
great theory cannot be a partial picture of nature but must give the
complete laws of a class of events--hence the quest for the grand
unified field theories.
" Relation to observation and experiment. Physical theory without
experiment is blind. The experimentalists keep the theorists honest.
And the theoretician must make a leap of the imagination, combining
new data with new theoretical ideas.
" Relation to mathematiics. Physical laws are expressed in the precise
language of quantitative mathematics. And mathematics makes the
theorist's statements unambiguous and hence they can be disproved
by an experiment.
"HOWEVER, physicists used to believe that they could capture all of
nature in their net of mathematics. But, remarkably, in modern quantum
theory the idea of a mathematical description of all of nature has
broken down. Individual quantum events are not subject to any
mathematical-physical law. The laws of physics are not deterministic
but statistical, a discovery which implies the end of a mathematical
description of all of nature."
So says Heinz Pagels. As I read him, Pagels says forget the math.
We just have to keep looking to discover any kind of Cosmic Code
that may/may not exist. We just need continue observing, and maybe
one day we will come to realize the Grand Understanding of the
universe and the Great Code that may stand behind the All of it.
After Pagels and the computer gurus, I nearly threw in the towel when
it comes to any kind of universal code. Then I remembered our good
lady, Mother Earth. These past many years we have been awash in
the discovery of Genetic Code. The discovery of the Double Helix
opened our eyes to an incredible world--consisting of Code.
happened to drop-in a bookshop specializing in used books.
Browsing I spotted a book that took hold of my attention. It
was by the late Heinz Pagels, entitled THE COSMIC CODE:
QUANTUM PHYSICS AS THE LANGUAGE OF NATURE,
published back in 1982.
I bought the book, fully expecting a depth discourse on Quantum
Physics. But plowing towards the end of the book, I found what
really interested me. Pagels talks about what he believes is the
discovered order of the universe--that he calls the "cosmic code."
Pagels attempts a broad outline that seem characteristic of the
physical laws we have come to understand. Quoting Pagels,
from his book, pp. 292, 296-301.
" Invariant nature. A physical law is a proposition that something
always remains the same--an invariance.
" Universality and simplicity. The universality of physical laws is
perhaps their deepest feature--all events are subject to the same
universal grammar of material creation.
" Completeness. Physicists strive for completeness, because a
great theory cannot be a partial picture of nature but must give the
complete laws of a class of events--hence the quest for the grand
unified field theories.
" Relation to observation and experiment. Physical theory without
experiment is blind. The experimentalists keep the theorists honest.
And the theoretician must make a leap of the imagination, combining
new data with new theoretical ideas.
" Relation to mathematiics. Physical laws are expressed in the precise
language of quantitative mathematics. And mathematics makes the
theorist's statements unambiguous and hence they can be disproved
by an experiment.
"HOWEVER, physicists used to believe that they could capture all of
nature in their net of mathematics. But, remarkably, in modern quantum
theory the idea of a mathematical description of all of nature has
broken down. Individual quantum events are not subject to any
mathematical-physical law. The laws of physics are not deterministic
but statistical, a discovery which implies the end of a mathematical
description of all of nature."
So says Heinz Pagels. As I read him, Pagels says forget the math.
We just have to keep looking to discover any kind of Cosmic Code
that may/may not exist. We just need continue observing, and maybe
one day we will come to realize the Grand Understanding of the
universe and the Great Code that may stand behind the All of it.
After Pagels and the computer gurus, I nearly threw in the towel when
it comes to any kind of universal code. Then I remembered our good
lady, Mother Earth. These past many years we have been awash in
the discovery of Genetic Code. The discovery of the Double Helix
opened our eyes to an incredible world--consisting of Code.
(2) Smart Code
In our own time, in the so-called Information Age, computers are
in the forefront when it comes to concepts of code. For example
there is Binary Code--a system representing computer instructions
employing the two-binary digits "0" and "1". And a binary string of
eight digits can represent some 256 possible values. Also there's
the binary tree, which is a data structure in which each node has
a child node. Oh well--binary trees are helpful implementing
what is called search trees and binary heaps.
There are other models come to the fore, such as a Cellular
Automaton. This model is "studied in computability theory,
mathematics, theoretical biology, and microstructure modeling."
There's a grid of cells, "each in one of a finite number of states,
such as On and Off." Beyond this, there's a neighborhood of cells.
In other words, new cells can be generated. Each new generation
"determines the new state of each cell in terms of the current state
of the cell and the states of the cells in its neighborhood."
Whatever can any of these codes or cells mean toward
understanding an universal code? Like Fractals, Binary Code
and Cellular Automata are mathematical models that have arisen
in the human mind. In other words they are theoretical, but their
application seems to work.Therefore, though a product of our human
mind, could it be that since we are part and parcel of the universe,
that these concepts of ours are guideposts towards understanding
a possible cosmic code?
I certainly can afford to wonder about this, but I wouldn't stake any
money currently over such a possibility. Regardless, some computer
scientists have been willing to go out on a limb--thinking aloud that
the universe may be governed by "pure whole numbers, or integers,
and even space and time are broken up into tiny digital increments."
However, other scientists are not crawling out on that limb.
in the forefront when it comes to concepts of code. For example
there is Binary Code--a system representing computer instructions
employing the two-binary digits "0" and "1". And a binary string of
eight digits can represent some 256 possible values. Also there's
the binary tree, which is a data structure in which each node has
a child node. Oh well--binary trees are helpful implementing
what is called search trees and binary heaps.
There are other models come to the fore, such as a Cellular
Automaton. This model is "studied in computability theory,
mathematics, theoretical biology, and microstructure modeling."
There's a grid of cells, "each in one of a finite number of states,
such as On and Off." Beyond this, there's a neighborhood of cells.
In other words, new cells can be generated. Each new generation
"determines the new state of each cell in terms of the current state
of the cell and the states of the cells in its neighborhood."
Whatever can any of these codes or cells mean toward
understanding an universal code? Like Fractals, Binary Code
and Cellular Automata are mathematical models that have arisen
in the human mind. In other words they are theoretical, but their
application seems to work.Therefore, though a product of our human
mind, could it be that since we are part and parcel of the universe,
that these concepts of ours are guideposts towards understanding
a possible cosmic code?
I certainly can afford to wonder about this, but I wouldn't stake any
money currently over such a possibility. Regardless, some computer
scientists have been willing to go out on a limb--thinking aloud that
the universe may be governed by "pure whole numbers, or integers,
and even space and time are broken up into tiny digital increments."
However, other scientists are not crawling out on that limb.
(1) Smart Code
Chapter Five. SMART CODE
My pilgrimage almost came to a thundering halt when it came
to information theory and code (which is a carrier of information).
It was at this point that I felt that I had walked into a maze of very
complicated theoretics, nearly coming from and leaning forth
in all directions. Talk about "complexity," I was overwhelmed. I
couldn't even get a handle on any of this--and I once considered
myself a physicist, working on cutting-edge fusion research.
But when it came to my foray into "smart code," well I seemed
such a loser! I couldn't even find one of those yellow-backed
book-pamphlets that said "Information Theory for Dummies."
As it happened, however, I was lucky. One of the luminaries of
Fractal Theory presented a lecture which I attended. It was a
presentation open to the public, hence the presenter nearly
made it understandable.
I came to understand that a fractal is a computer-generated
geometric shape that can be split into parts. It can be iterated
down to the lowest point, flipped and reiterated from the smallest
of scales, yet remaining self-similar, forward to large scale
topological dimensions that can picture natural objects such as
clouds, mountain ranges, coastlines, snowflakes, and even
lightening bolts.
This lecture on Fractals took my breath away. Here we had a
mathematical fractal based on an "equation that undergoes
iteration, a form of feedback based on recursion." Albeit based
on computer-generated geometrics, far beyond Euclidean
geometric language, my imagination caught fire over Fractals.
Still not fully understanding the intricate basis of Fractals, I
believed that such a sophisticated means of carrying information
from an infinitely small process--via iteration--that results in the
depiction of large-scale natural objects could conceivably relate
to a kind of cosmic code. It's a stretch, but boy it is sophisticated.
[From the dictionary: FRACTALS are useful in modeling structures
in which similar patterns recur at progressively smaller scales,
and in describing partly random or chaotic phenomena such as
fluid turbulence and galaxy formation. ITERATION is the repetition
of a mathematical or computational procedure.]
My pilgrimage almost came to a thundering halt when it came
to information theory and code (which is a carrier of information).
It was at this point that I felt that I had walked into a maze of very
complicated theoretics, nearly coming from and leaning forth
in all directions. Talk about "complexity," I was overwhelmed. I
couldn't even get a handle on any of this--and I once considered
myself a physicist, working on cutting-edge fusion research.
But when it came to my foray into "smart code," well I seemed
such a loser! I couldn't even find one of those yellow-backed
book-pamphlets that said "Information Theory for Dummies."
As it happened, however, I was lucky. One of the luminaries of
Fractal Theory presented a lecture which I attended. It was a
presentation open to the public, hence the presenter nearly
made it understandable.
I came to understand that a fractal is a computer-generated
geometric shape that can be split into parts. It can be iterated
down to the lowest point, flipped and reiterated from the smallest
of scales, yet remaining self-similar, forward to large scale
topological dimensions that can picture natural objects such as
clouds, mountain ranges, coastlines, snowflakes, and even
lightening bolts.
This lecture on Fractals took my breath away. Here we had a
mathematical fractal based on an "equation that undergoes
iteration, a form of feedback based on recursion." Albeit based
on computer-generated geometrics, far beyond Euclidean
geometric language, my imagination caught fire over Fractals.
Still not fully understanding the intricate basis of Fractals, I
believed that such a sophisticated means of carrying information
from an infinitely small process--via iteration--that results in the
depiction of large-scale natural objects could conceivably relate
to a kind of cosmic code. It's a stretch, but boy it is sophisticated.
[From the dictionary: FRACTALS are useful in modeling structures
in which similar patterns recur at progressively smaller scales,
and in describing partly random or chaotic phenomena such as
fluid turbulence and galaxy formation. ITERATION is the repetition
of a mathematical or computational procedure.]
(4) Earth Home
Indeed, I began to realize something that I hadn't considered
before. It was after attending an astronomy lecture at the
university. The speaker was talking about the Hubble revelations,
showing pictures of star nurseries, cosmic birth, cosmic death,
and then he said that with each cycle of death and birth of stars,
our suns, that there are ever more complex ingredients that
enable the process unto an ever finer quality of existence. That
little tidbit shook me, because this consideration was exactly what
I felt that I was observing when it came to Earth's natural systems!
It was about moving from the simple to the complex. In today's
world we are dealing with self-generating complex systems, if you
will. One can see it in the galaxies, in the galaxy clusters, in the
cycle of ever birthing suns and their solar systems. The cosmos
went from primordial soup on into a cooling period, wherein over
billions of years that minuscule that we deem "normal matter"
re-formed itself over and over, becoming ever more complex
and capable of sustaining the Seeds of Life.
And perhaps it should be no surprise that Earth follows this very
same pattern! Had I stumbled onto something incredible? I believe
so, and I'm willing to bet that's why some scientists are starting to
see all this cosmic process, the process on our own planet, through
new eyes. There's Something behind all this, and just maybe it's
about Intelligence!
All I have to do is look at the formation of Mind right here on Earth.
Once we humans got over our hubris about being the one and
only intelligent creature on the planet, we started looking around
more dispassionately. It seems we might share higher levels of
intelligence with the whale, maybe even with the dolphins. And
now with all the zoological studies underway, scientists are noting
different levels of intelligence and emotion amongst other animals.
It would seem that Mind (or Intelligence) is slowly rising, not only
vertically but horizontally, on this planet amongst some of its life
forms.
What might be behind this? An intelligent plenum? If so, how
does all this work? Code, smart code?
before. It was after attending an astronomy lecture at the
university. The speaker was talking about the Hubble revelations,
showing pictures of star nurseries, cosmic birth, cosmic death,
and then he said that with each cycle of death and birth of stars,
our suns, that there are ever more complex ingredients that
enable the process unto an ever finer quality of existence. That
little tidbit shook me, because this consideration was exactly what
I felt that I was observing when it came to Earth's natural systems!
It was about moving from the simple to the complex. In today's
world we are dealing with self-generating complex systems, if you
will. One can see it in the galaxies, in the galaxy clusters, in the
cycle of ever birthing suns and their solar systems. The cosmos
went from primordial soup on into a cooling period, wherein over
billions of years that minuscule that we deem "normal matter"
re-formed itself over and over, becoming ever more complex
and capable of sustaining the Seeds of Life.
And perhaps it should be no surprise that Earth follows this very
same pattern! Had I stumbled onto something incredible? I believe
so, and I'm willing to bet that's why some scientists are starting to
see all this cosmic process, the process on our own planet, through
new eyes. There's Something behind all this, and just maybe it's
about Intelligence!
All I have to do is look at the formation of Mind right here on Earth.
Once we humans got over our hubris about being the one and
only intelligent creature on the planet, we started looking around
more dispassionately. It seems we might share higher levels of
intelligence with the whale, maybe even with the dolphins. And
now with all the zoological studies underway, scientists are noting
different levels of intelligence and emotion amongst other animals.
It would seem that Mind (or Intelligence) is slowly rising, not only
vertically but horizontally, on this planet amongst some of its life
forms.
What might be behind this? An intelligent plenum? If so, how
does all this work? Code, smart code?
(3) Earth Home
As for the Land and the Water, well I decided that I needed a
breather from all the books that I had been studying. I decided
to take a "hands-on" approach and go see for myself. Hence I
spent well over a two-year period traveling around the world,
visiting great parklands, magnificent mountains, beautiful lakes,
and thunderous oceans. I could literally see what the books said,
findiing seashells and marine fossils in the desert, musing over
majestic jutting monoliths, gasping with amazement at the great
canyons eroded over millions of years by rapid rivers. All-in-all,
very impressive.
As for Life, well museums have case after case of ancient life forms.
And from their displays it is possible to see evolutionary jumps, not
just in human beings but also in many other living forms. As for going
from Big to Small, well one exhibit I saw really convinced me! One
day I was looking at an ancient shark's tooth. Inquiring, I was told
that scientists could determine from this particular tooth that this
ancient shark was as big as a semi-truck. Whew! I wouldn't want
to have run into this fellow--the Great White Shark is bad enough!
Also, there's the theory that modern birds might be descended from
the dinosaur. So it goes, moving from Big to Small.
Still there's the mystery how Life--much less all its varied forms--
emerged from a previously lifeless planet. Here we are pretty much
into speculation. One of the more fascinating guesses is what is
called "panspermia." This is a theory that the "seeds" of Life exist
all over the universe--and, thus, in time our planet was seeded.
Even more fascinating, some people speculate that Intelligent Life
Forms from other cosmic systems may have purposefully seeded
Life on our planet--hence "directed panspermia."
But beyond the speculation, we do know that the universe does
provide the necessary elements for the emergence of Life as we
know it--such as hydrogen, oxygen, silicon, carbon, etc. There's
much more, too. On Earth there's the atmosphere, the climate,
food-producing parts, and minerals that also enable Life. All the
right stuff stumbled onto our planet, and here we are!
And I am willing to bet that throughout the universe, in the midst
of all the endless galaxy formations, amongst their solar systems
and planets, there is probably Life blooming all over the place.
breather from all the books that I had been studying. I decided
to take a "hands-on" approach and go see for myself. Hence I
spent well over a two-year period traveling around the world,
visiting great parklands, magnificent mountains, beautiful lakes,
and thunderous oceans. I could literally see what the books said,
findiing seashells and marine fossils in the desert, musing over
majestic jutting monoliths, gasping with amazement at the great
canyons eroded over millions of years by rapid rivers. All-in-all,
very impressive.
As for Life, well museums have case after case of ancient life forms.
And from their displays it is possible to see evolutionary jumps, not
just in human beings but also in many other living forms. As for going
from Big to Small, well one exhibit I saw really convinced me! One
day I was looking at an ancient shark's tooth. Inquiring, I was told
that scientists could determine from this particular tooth that this
ancient shark was as big as a semi-truck. Whew! I wouldn't want
to have run into this fellow--the Great White Shark is bad enough!
Also, there's the theory that modern birds might be descended from
the dinosaur. So it goes, moving from Big to Small.
Still there's the mystery how Life--much less all its varied forms--
emerged from a previously lifeless planet. Here we are pretty much
into speculation. One of the more fascinating guesses is what is
called "panspermia." This is a theory that the "seeds" of Life exist
all over the universe--and, thus, in time our planet was seeded.
Even more fascinating, some people speculate that Intelligent Life
Forms from other cosmic systems may have purposefully seeded
Life on our planet--hence "directed panspermia."
But beyond the speculation, we do know that the universe does
provide the necessary elements for the emergence of Life as we
know it--such as hydrogen, oxygen, silicon, carbon, etc. There's
much more, too. On Earth there's the atmosphere, the climate,
food-producing parts, and minerals that also enable Life. All the
right stuff stumbled onto our planet, and here we are!
And I am willing to bet that throughout the universe, in the midst
of all the endless galaxy formations, amongst their solar systems
and planets, there is probably Life blooming all over the place.
(2) Earth Home
Plenty of time has passed to allow for all this unfolding of natural
systems. Perched on the outer rim of the Milky Way galaxy,
scientists believe that the Earth is around 4.55 billion-years-old.
Paleontologists have labeled historical periods going back close
to the emergence of the planet. There's the Precambrian period,
in which the earliest fossils dated back anywhere from 4.0 to 2.5
billion years ago--such as bacteria and stromatolites. Algae made
their appearance between 2.5 billion years and 570 million years
ago. Multi-celled animals were present some 700-600 million
years ago.
The Phanerozoic period dates from 570 million years to the
Present. First there were the molluscs, later jawless fish, then
jawed fish. Sharks have been around a long time, still quite
primitive. Marine reptiles, dinosaurs, modern fish, birds, and
mammals came upon the scene.
Primates came around between 65-56 millions years ago, and later
rodents, whales, and horses show themselves some 56-to-34
million years back. And Hominids walked across the land between
24-to-5 millions years ago. Eventually Australopithecus showed-up
between 5 and 1.8 million years ago. And, finally, Homo took the stage
some 1.8-to 0.01 million years back--along with mastodons and
mammoths.
Some of these life forms are gone, some are still here, and as we all
know, "Homo" went through stages of development, some forms gone
(like the Neanderthal), and eventually the big-brained Homo Sapiens
ruled the Earth.
I could go on and on about all these different Periods mentioned
above, even discussing a breakdown of these into different eras.
I could go into fine detail about all these specific developments,
but my little journal about my pilgrimage is not the place for such.
Maybe after I decide that I have gone as far as I can in my
pilgrimage, then perhaps I'll write a detailed book--or two or
three--about all this.
systems. Perched on the outer rim of the Milky Way galaxy,
scientists believe that the Earth is around 4.55 billion-years-old.
Paleontologists have labeled historical periods going back close
to the emergence of the planet. There's the Precambrian period,
in which the earliest fossils dated back anywhere from 4.0 to 2.5
billion years ago--such as bacteria and stromatolites. Algae made
their appearance between 2.5 billion years and 570 million years
ago. Multi-celled animals were present some 700-600 million
years ago.
The Phanerozoic period dates from 570 million years to the
Present. First there were the molluscs, later jawless fish, then
jawed fish. Sharks have been around a long time, still quite
primitive. Marine reptiles, dinosaurs, modern fish, birds, and
mammals came upon the scene.
Primates came around between 65-56 millions years ago, and later
rodents, whales, and horses show themselves some 56-to-34
million years back. And Hominids walked across the land between
24-to-5 millions years ago. Eventually Australopithecus showed-up
between 5 and 1.8 million years ago. And, finally, Homo took the stage
some 1.8-to 0.01 million years back--along with mastodons and
mammoths.
Some of these life forms are gone, some are still here, and as we all
know, "Homo" went through stages of development, some forms gone
(like the Neanderthal), and eventually the big-brained Homo Sapiens
ruled the Earth.
I could go on and on about all these different Periods mentioned
above, even discussing a breakdown of these into different eras.
I could go into fine detail about all these specific developments,
but my little journal about my pilgrimage is not the place for such.
Maybe after I decide that I have gone as far as I can in my
pilgrimage, then perhaps I'll write a detailed book--or two or
three--about all this.
(1) Earth Home
Chapter Four: EARTH HOME
If I were to plunge into any study about Earth's natural systems,
the logical place would be Princeton University's Natural History
Museum. Though not a major museum, the curators there helped
by giving me yet another reading list--or should I say "lists."
It turns out that Natural History is a very large field, consisting
of major disciplines. I really had to pick-and-choose, so I had
to think about where I might want to head in this part of my
pilgrimage.
Eventually I made my choices, reading in the following areas:
Paleontology, Botany, Ornithology, Entomology, Marine Life,
Ecology, Climatology, and Evolutionary Theory. Need I say, this
particular project took awhile. Yet it had to be done, because
our Earth home was really the only practical laboratory available
in which to work.
Reading through large batches of books that cover all these
disciplines. I realized that certain "themes" were jumping out
at me. I was beginning to detect a sense of evolutionary
movement through the millennia upon millennia.
I'm sure that I am not the only one to make this discovery, but
could be my perspective might be different. The themes I found
peeking through were interesting. A little infrastructure, if I may:
• Geologically our Earth followed the pattern of the greater
universe, in that it was primordially violent, fiery, gaseous,
eventually cooling off, developing primitive and violent land
forms that eventually moved towards more moderate climes.
• Natural Systems shifted. Land once under the sea became
dry, sometimes turning into deserts. Mountains protruded
from the depths, reaching toward the sky. Tropical Rain Forests
turned into an equatorial-belt oxygen producer. Wetlands
and food producing land accommodated Life more effectively.
The oceans proved a vast reservoir for Life as well. Even the
deserts provided numerous possibilities for the survival of Life.
And within the Earth were rich veins of material that have
supported Life down through the ages.
• Seemingly Life emerged from non-Life; and over time Life Forms
moved from being large to becoming smaller. Simplicity led to
Complexity. Mindless moved to Mind.
If I were to plunge into any study about Earth's natural systems,
the logical place would be Princeton University's Natural History
Museum. Though not a major museum, the curators there helped
by giving me yet another reading list--or should I say "lists."
It turns out that Natural History is a very large field, consisting
of major disciplines. I really had to pick-and-choose, so I had
to think about where I might want to head in this part of my
pilgrimage.
Eventually I made my choices, reading in the following areas:
Paleontology, Botany, Ornithology, Entomology, Marine Life,
Ecology, Climatology, and Evolutionary Theory. Need I say, this
particular project took awhile. Yet it had to be done, because
our Earth home was really the only practical laboratory available
in which to work.
Reading through large batches of books that cover all these
disciplines. I realized that certain "themes" were jumping out
at me. I was beginning to detect a sense of evolutionary
movement through the millennia upon millennia.
I'm sure that I am not the only one to make this discovery, but
could be my perspective might be different. The themes I found
peeking through were interesting. A little infrastructure, if I may:
• Geologically our Earth followed the pattern of the greater
universe, in that it was primordially violent, fiery, gaseous,
eventually cooling off, developing primitive and violent land
forms that eventually moved towards more moderate climes.
• Natural Systems shifted. Land once under the sea became
dry, sometimes turning into deserts. Mountains protruded
from the depths, reaching toward the sky. Tropical Rain Forests
turned into an equatorial-belt oxygen producer. Wetlands
and food producing land accommodated Life more effectively.
The oceans proved a vast reservoir for Life as well. Even the
deserts provided numerous possibilities for the survival of Life.
And within the Earth were rich veins of material that have
supported Life down through the ages.
• Seemingly Life emerged from non-Life; and over time Life Forms
moved from being large to becoming smaller. Simplicity led to
Complexity. Mindless moved to Mind.
(4) Cosmic Contour
At least some major cosmological theorists say out-loud
that there is a Plenum of the Universe. My attention perked for
a moment, thinking back to our religio-philosophical intuitions
of a Solar Logos that serves as the Cosmic Plenum, But hold
on! There just might be a problem. Could be that our universe
is *not* the one and only universe!
The theories maybe are getting out-of-hand. There's the
theory that there is a multi-universe derived from the many-
worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In quantum
mechanics, there is this paradoxical situation in which an
object often seems to exist in two or more different states at
the same time. (Remember the dual character of light, or
electron, sometimes appearing as a wave, sometimes a particle.)
The many-worlds interpretation deals with this, theorizing that
if an electron seems to exist in two states, then that at every
quantum mechanical event, the universe splits into two, This
could go on infinitum, it you will. And ultimately this could lead
to incredibly huge numbers of branching universes.
Gasping, I found yet another theory that really is boggling--
especially if true. That there is a Parent Universe that spawns
universes, including ours. I found this interesting, because a
little thought passed my mind when I studied more about the
Big Bang. It seemed as if this event was like a "birthing."
Maybe this theory of a Parent Universe isn't so way out after
all.
But as for the Solar Logos, well what little we know from our
empirical observations of the universe tell us little that is
definitive. In this small journal, my account of my pilgrimage,
I have only touched upon some of the cosmological theoretics
floating about; and they do lend to insight, and scientists and
some theologians are wondering aloud about this strange
world in which we live.
Is there a Who-Ever who made it, a Creator? Or is the universe
or multi-worlds or Parent Universe "it"? And what might be the
nature of such a Parent or Creator? A magician, a mathematician?
As a philosopher, I find this whole business nearly unbelieavble.
The Cosmic Contour is just that--for us, a mysterious outline of
some sort of shape or form that we live in, that somehow shapes us.
I decided that my next move was to examine our own little part of
the universe--hoping to make more sense out of the world, I
decided to try to understand better the natural systems of our
Mother Earth.
that there is a Plenum of the Universe. My attention perked for
a moment, thinking back to our religio-philosophical intuitions
of a Solar Logos that serves as the Cosmic Plenum, But hold
on! There just might be a problem. Could be that our universe
is *not* the one and only universe!
The theories maybe are getting out-of-hand. There's the
theory that there is a multi-universe derived from the many-
worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In quantum
mechanics, there is this paradoxical situation in which an
object often seems to exist in two or more different states at
the same time. (Remember the dual character of light, or
electron, sometimes appearing as a wave, sometimes a particle.)
The many-worlds interpretation deals with this, theorizing that
if an electron seems to exist in two states, then that at every
quantum mechanical event, the universe splits into two, This
could go on infinitum, it you will. And ultimately this could lead
to incredibly huge numbers of branching universes.
Gasping, I found yet another theory that really is boggling--
especially if true. That there is a Parent Universe that spawns
universes, including ours. I found this interesting, because a
little thought passed my mind when I studied more about the
Big Bang. It seemed as if this event was like a "birthing."
Maybe this theory of a Parent Universe isn't so way out after
all.
But as for the Solar Logos, well what little we know from our
empirical observations of the universe tell us little that is
definitive. In this small journal, my account of my pilgrimage,
I have only touched upon some of the cosmological theoretics
floating about; and they do lend to insight, and scientists and
some theologians are wondering aloud about this strange
world in which we live.
Is there a Who-Ever who made it, a Creator? Or is the universe
or multi-worlds or Parent Universe "it"? And what might be the
nature of such a Parent or Creator? A magician, a mathematician?
As a philosopher, I find this whole business nearly unbelieavble.
The Cosmic Contour is just that--for us, a mysterious outline of
some sort of shape or form that we live in, that somehow shapes us.
I decided that my next move was to examine our own little part of
the universe--hoping to make more sense out of the world, I
decided to try to understand better the natural systems of our
Mother Earth.
(3) Cosmic Contour
There's Black Holes, for example. Cosmologists speculate that
they are usual in the centers of galaxies. Our contemporary
astrophysical technology helps us feel around the conclusion
that there is such a thing as a Black Hole. However, one does
not want to get close to such a cosmic beast. According to
general relativity, a Black Hole possesses a gravitational field
so powerful that nothing, but nothing can escape its pull. This
includes matter and even light. Nothing escapes--maybe.
Some theorists believe that a Black Hole might actually be
a wormhole. Thus it is a kind of an inner tunnel where one
might travel from one point to another point in the universe.
Hard to figure, however, if everything that enters such a hole
is destroyed. On the other hand, maybe matter seemingly
dumped into a Black Hole arrives at the other end of the tunnel.
Regardless cosmic theories are fascinating There's the String
Theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics
into a quantum theory of gravity. This theory also involves
additional dimensions to our usual three spatial dimensions
plus our one dimension of time. And further developed String
Theory moves into what is deemed the Holographic Principle.
More on that as we get into Quantum Theory.
The basis of Quantum Theory can be summarized in three
propositions: (1) In the subatomic world, few things can be
predicted with 100 % precision; however, accurate predictions
can be made about the probability of any particular outcome;
(2) One has to work with the probabilities rather than certainties,
because it is impossible--for an observer--to describe all
aspects of a particle at once as to its speed and location; and
(3) Electromagnetic energy, such as light or heat, does not
always behave like a continuous wave--rather it is grainy
because energy can be transferred only in quantum packages,
and thus light has a dual character, sometimes displaying
wavelike aspects and in other circumstances as particles.
And the magic component in this cosmic story, whether it's about
us or whether about the whole universe, is Energy!
In 1900 Max Planck had originated the theory of Quantum
Mechanics, which is a theory of energy as emanated in discrete
packages. Soon Albert Einstein took Planck's idea one step
further, assuming that light was quantized. And later David
Bohm, a premier physicist, known as the "Father of Quantum
Mechanics," believed that this underlying background of Energy
to be the plenum of the universe. Bohm likened this plenum,
this immense background of Energy. to be one whole and
unbroken movement that he called the "holomovement."
they are usual in the centers of galaxies. Our contemporary
astrophysical technology helps us feel around the conclusion
that there is such a thing as a Black Hole. However, one does
not want to get close to such a cosmic beast. According to
general relativity, a Black Hole possesses a gravitational field
so powerful that nothing, but nothing can escape its pull. This
includes matter and even light. Nothing escapes--maybe.
Some theorists believe that a Black Hole might actually be
a wormhole. Thus it is a kind of an inner tunnel where one
might travel from one point to another point in the universe.
Hard to figure, however, if everything that enters such a hole
is destroyed. On the other hand, maybe matter seemingly
dumped into a Black Hole arrives at the other end of the tunnel.
Regardless cosmic theories are fascinating There's the String
Theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics
into a quantum theory of gravity. This theory also involves
additional dimensions to our usual three spatial dimensions
plus our one dimension of time. And further developed String
Theory moves into what is deemed the Holographic Principle.
More on that as we get into Quantum Theory.
The basis of Quantum Theory can be summarized in three
propositions: (1) In the subatomic world, few things can be
predicted with 100 % precision; however, accurate predictions
can be made about the probability of any particular outcome;
(2) One has to work with the probabilities rather than certainties,
because it is impossible--for an observer--to describe all
aspects of a particle at once as to its speed and location; and
(3) Electromagnetic energy, such as light or heat, does not
always behave like a continuous wave--rather it is grainy
because energy can be transferred only in quantum packages,
and thus light has a dual character, sometimes displaying
wavelike aspects and in other circumstances as particles.
And the magic component in this cosmic story, whether it's about
us or whether about the whole universe, is Energy!
In 1900 Max Planck had originated the theory of Quantum
Mechanics, which is a theory of energy as emanated in discrete
packages. Soon Albert Einstein took Planck's idea one step
further, assuming that light was quantized. And later David
Bohm, a premier physicist, known as the "Father of Quantum
Mechanics," believed that this underlying background of Energy
to be the plenum of the universe. Bohm likened this plenum,
this immense background of Energy. to be one whole and
unbroken movement that he called the "holomovement."
(2) Cosmic Contour
As a physicist I was cognizant of the "Big Bang" originally labeled
by antagonist Fred Hoyle. He actually didn't accept the Big Bang
theory and used the term in a derisive way. However, in 1964,
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the
cosmic background radiation of the Big Bang At the time they
were in charge of a new Bell Laboratories microwave receiver,
and this receiver kept picking-up signals--from everywhere!
They thought there were kinks in the receiver, no, then they
figured it must be some sort of outside interference, like birds
defecating on the receiver, again no. So it had to be cosmic
radiation residue from the Big Bang!
At the same time, in nearby Princeton University, scientists
were intent looking for this cosmic background radiation. Word
got around, and they knew that Wilson and Penzias' microwave
receiver had done it. And 25 years later, in 1989, the Cosmic
Background Explorer satellite (COBE) was launched--and its
findings were consistent regarding the cosmic microwave
background of the Big Bang.
As to what this means is yet another story. The theoretics for the
Big Bang were already in place, years before its background
radiation was picked-up by Penzias and Wilson. In 1927
Georges Lemaitre, a physicist and a Roman Catholic priest
from Belgium, had presented his theory of what was to become
known as the Big Bang. He believed that the universe began as
a single point, a form no larger than a cell, and it "exploded."
In a few seconds the universe began to expand into what is now
considered a dense, hot "primordial soup." Later elements evolved
that allowed for the formation of galaxies, millions upon millions,
with billions of suns and presumably solar systems. Hence the
possibility of finding planets, eventually, that might sustain Life.
We have only begun the search, and someday we might be
surprised.
Using special astrophysical technology, the latest estimate is
that our universe is some 13.7 billion years old. Scientists
believe that it's an expanding universe, with the galaxies moving
farther away from one another. And here it begins to get strange.
Astronomers today figure that our present universe is composed
of Dark Energy (74%), Dark Matter (22%), and Normal Matter (4%)--
and out of that 4%, most is gas and only a minute percentage
accounts for stars and their systems.
And whatever might be Dark Matter and Dark Energy? They are
hypothetical terms that cosmologists use. They believe that
Dark Matter can be inferred by its gravitational effects on normal
matter. As for Dark Energy, it is believed that it permeates all
space and is behind the increasing expansion rate of the universe,
As for the surface of the universe, geometrists are continuously
challenged. The geometry of the universe considers two
possibilities, either the universe is curved or it is flat. And recently,
NASA announced that their WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe) spacecraft has pretty much confirmed that
our universe is flat--with only a 2% margin of error.
So whatever does this mean? Well a flat universe involves
accelerative expansion. As cosmologists put, absent
Dark Energy a flat universe will expand forever with an
eventual fixed rate. But with the presence of Dark Energy--
all 74% of it--the acceleration of the universe slows down,
but in time eventually increases.
Alas, an uncomfortable topic--the ultimate fate of the universe!
The candidates have been as follows: Heat Death, the Big
Freeze, the Big Crunch, and more recently the Big Rip. If the
WMAP is definitely correct about ours being a flat universe, and
the measurement of Dark Energy is on the mark, well than the
leading candidate is the Big Rip. If so, all normal matter will
disintegrate into unbound elementary particles as the rest of
the universe continues to expand infinitely. But cosmologists
tell us that sad event is a long, long way off. Still it's not a
comfortable thought.
Overall, however, our fledgling empirical observations of our
universe are leading into a Mystery. If we continue to increase
our knowledge, who is to say what Wonder we might discover.
But for now it's just strangely weird.
by antagonist Fred Hoyle. He actually didn't accept the Big Bang
theory and used the term in a derisive way. However, in 1964,
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the
cosmic background radiation of the Big Bang At the time they
were in charge of a new Bell Laboratories microwave receiver,
and this receiver kept picking-up signals--from everywhere!
They thought there were kinks in the receiver, no, then they
figured it must be some sort of outside interference, like birds
defecating on the receiver, again no. So it had to be cosmic
radiation residue from the Big Bang!
At the same time, in nearby Princeton University, scientists
were intent looking for this cosmic background radiation. Word
got around, and they knew that Wilson and Penzias' microwave
receiver had done it. And 25 years later, in 1989, the Cosmic
Background Explorer satellite (COBE) was launched--and its
findings were consistent regarding the cosmic microwave
background of the Big Bang.
As to what this means is yet another story. The theoretics for the
Big Bang were already in place, years before its background
radiation was picked-up by Penzias and Wilson. In 1927
Georges Lemaitre, a physicist and a Roman Catholic priest
from Belgium, had presented his theory of what was to become
known as the Big Bang. He believed that the universe began as
a single point, a form no larger than a cell, and it "exploded."
In a few seconds the universe began to expand into what is now
considered a dense, hot "primordial soup." Later elements evolved
that allowed for the formation of galaxies, millions upon millions,
with billions of suns and presumably solar systems. Hence the
possibility of finding planets, eventually, that might sustain Life.
We have only begun the search, and someday we might be
surprised.
Using special astrophysical technology, the latest estimate is
that our universe is some 13.7 billion years old. Scientists
believe that it's an expanding universe, with the galaxies moving
farther away from one another. And here it begins to get strange.
Astronomers today figure that our present universe is composed
of Dark Energy (74%), Dark Matter (22%), and Normal Matter (4%)--
and out of that 4%, most is gas and only a minute percentage
accounts for stars and their systems.
And whatever might be Dark Matter and Dark Energy? They are
hypothetical terms that cosmologists use. They believe that
Dark Matter can be inferred by its gravitational effects on normal
matter. As for Dark Energy, it is believed that it permeates all
space and is behind the increasing expansion rate of the universe,
As for the surface of the universe, geometrists are continuously
challenged. The geometry of the universe considers two
possibilities, either the universe is curved or it is flat. And recently,
NASA announced that their WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe) spacecraft has pretty much confirmed that
our universe is flat--with only a 2% margin of error.
So whatever does this mean? Well a flat universe involves
accelerative expansion. As cosmologists put, absent
Dark Energy a flat universe will expand forever with an
eventual fixed rate. But with the presence of Dark Energy--
all 74% of it--the acceleration of the universe slows down,
but in time eventually increases.
Alas, an uncomfortable topic--the ultimate fate of the universe!
The candidates have been as follows: Heat Death, the Big
Freeze, the Big Crunch, and more recently the Big Rip. If the
WMAP is definitely correct about ours being a flat universe, and
the measurement of Dark Energy is on the mark, well than the
leading candidate is the Big Rip. If so, all normal matter will
disintegrate into unbound elementary particles as the rest of
the universe continues to expand infinitely. But cosmologists
tell us that sad event is a long, long way off. Still it's not a
comfortable thought.
Overall, however, our fledgling empirical observations of our
universe are leading into a Mystery. If we continue to increase
our knowledge, who is to say what Wonder we might discover.
But for now it's just strangely weird.
(1) Cosmic Contour
Chapter Three. COSMIC CONTOUR
Reflecting on my small foray into religious concepts about the
Solar Logos, I had to wonder over whether this "intuition" that
reigned over the centuries was somehow connected with the
natural universe as we know it. If so, how would I even begin
to get a handle on this development? Yet there seems a dogged
pugnacity involved on the part of humans to believe that there
*is* an underlying Godhead, if you will. So I needed to try.
As a retired physicist, of course I was familiar with scientific
lingo and vaguely familiar with modern scientific discoveries
and theoretics. This gave me an advantage, I suppose, but I
needed to hone-in on such. There was the university's physics
department, but the professors there suggested that for my
particular pilgrimage I should once again "go down the street"
to talk with the folk at the Institute for Advanced Study.
Naturally I knew about this world famous institute, harboring
some of the greatest scientific minds on the planet--past and
present. However, I had never visited the place. Located on
Einstein Drive, appropriatetly so, I was surprised coming up
towards the institute. There was a huge field, looking more
like a cow pasture than a lawn that led towards the main
building.
I felt like a beggar, with hat-in-hand, talking to people at the
receptionist's desk. Once again I was mumbling around trying
to work through what I seemingly was after. Somehow I
managed to make clear that I was trying to connect an
on-going spiritual intuition with modern cosmological theoretics,
"Oh!" said the receptionist, "then you will have to talk with the
people over at the institute's School of Natural Sciences."
So I trotted over to the school to meet yet another receptionist,
again repeating my inquiry. Well, my best bet would be to talk
to people who were connected with the physics and astronomy
research teams. I felt a certain trepidation talking to some of
the faculty, considering the scientific stardom of this place.
But much to my surprise, the people with whom I talked were
pleasantly friendly.
It turned out that some of the institute's stars were not at all
adverse to a spiritual consideration when it came to the cosmos.
After all, some of their former giants--like Albert Einstein, David
Bohm, and Freeman Dyson--held to such considerations in
their own particular way.
Anyway, I frankly didn't know where to begin when it came to
this new stage in my pilgrimage. Thanks to these kind scientists
at the institute, I once again was supplied with a hefty reading
list of spiritually-oriented books written by scientists. I was
quite surprised that there were so many!
My more immediate problem, however, was how to approach
what I considered the "cosmic contour" of the Solar Logos.
Eventually I decided to get into the description of recent science
theories about the universe. I guess I was somewhat reverting
back to being a scientist and philosopher, plodding carefully.
Still I felt that I was moving into an adventure as I began my long
journey into the New Cosmology.
Reflecting on my small foray into religious concepts about the
Solar Logos, I had to wonder over whether this "intuition" that
reigned over the centuries was somehow connected with the
natural universe as we know it. If so, how would I even begin
to get a handle on this development? Yet there seems a dogged
pugnacity involved on the part of humans to believe that there
*is* an underlying Godhead, if you will. So I needed to try.
As a retired physicist, of course I was familiar with scientific
lingo and vaguely familiar with modern scientific discoveries
and theoretics. This gave me an advantage, I suppose, but I
needed to hone-in on such. There was the university's physics
department, but the professors there suggested that for my
particular pilgrimage I should once again "go down the street"
to talk with the folk at the Institute for Advanced Study.
Naturally I knew about this world famous institute, harboring
some of the greatest scientific minds on the planet--past and
present. However, I had never visited the place. Located on
Einstein Drive, appropriatetly so, I was surprised coming up
towards the institute. There was a huge field, looking more
like a cow pasture than a lawn that led towards the main
building.
I felt like a beggar, with hat-in-hand, talking to people at the
receptionist's desk. Once again I was mumbling around trying
to work through what I seemingly was after. Somehow I
managed to make clear that I was trying to connect an
on-going spiritual intuition with modern cosmological theoretics,
"Oh!" said the receptionist, "then you will have to talk with the
people over at the institute's School of Natural Sciences."
So I trotted over to the school to meet yet another receptionist,
again repeating my inquiry. Well, my best bet would be to talk
to people who were connected with the physics and astronomy
research teams. I felt a certain trepidation talking to some of
the faculty, considering the scientific stardom of this place.
But much to my surprise, the people with whom I talked were
pleasantly friendly.
It turned out that some of the institute's stars were not at all
adverse to a spiritual consideration when it came to the cosmos.
After all, some of their former giants--like Albert Einstein, David
Bohm, and Freeman Dyson--held to such considerations in
their own particular way.
Anyway, I frankly didn't know where to begin when it came to
this new stage in my pilgrimage. Thanks to these kind scientists
at the institute, I once again was supplied with a hefty reading
list of spiritually-oriented books written by scientists. I was
quite surprised that there were so many!
My more immediate problem, however, was how to approach
what I considered the "cosmic contour" of the Solar Logos.
Eventually I decided to get into the description of recent science
theories about the universe. I guess I was somewhat reverting
back to being a scientist and philosopher, plodding carefully.
Still I felt that I was moving into an adventure as I began my long
journey into the New Cosmology.
(4) Solar Logos
As for Christianity, in due course it also fit into this Continuum
of the Logos. In his gospel, St. John the Evangelist at the very
outset connected Christ with the Logos--by noting that in the
beginning was the "Word." He was the Word of Light and Life!
Some interpreters believe that Christ was the living expression
of the Logos. Other scholars consider the "Word" as a mis-
translation for Logos, the Reason, the Plenum of the universe,
the Godhead that was from the Beginning, One in being with
the Father, begotten not made.
Also the Christian "Fathers," who were the philosophers of
Christology, declared Christ as the "Incarnation of the Logos."
These early Christian scholars were classically trained, hence
most were well aware of the ancient concepts of the Greek
philosophers. They saw the phenomenon of the Christ as
an extension of the Logos concept. In other words, the Logos
had become flesh.
In the gospels, too, the writers put it that Christ declared that he
was the "Light of the World." He had become the Illuminator.
Then there was the Transfiguration, when Christ and his garments
became as bright as the sun!
In Christian art Christ took on physical aspects of the Sol Invictus.
He was depicted with a halo or solar rays around his head. His
day of worship was on Sun Day, and his birthday revolved around
the birth day of the Sol Invictus Mithras. And the earliest
"Pantocrator," an artistic expression of Christ as the Lord, the
Logos, of the universe was discovered in an ancient Christian
monastery in Egypt. The Pantocrator became a venerated figure
in Orthodox Christianity; and, eventually, it was followed as the
"Christ in Majesty" in the West.
At this point I felt that perhaps I might have come to the end of the
line when it came to this conceptual Continuum of the Solar
Logos. Over the centuries Christianity had cooled down, moving
into the Dark Ages, into strange medieval doctrines that bespoke
of the ignorance that prevailed during this historical period. I had
to wonder whether the Solar Logos had faded into oblivion within
the ranks of Christianity.
After a long hiatus, the Solar Logos jumped back *big time.* Of
all people, a Jesuit priest and scientist-paleontologist restored
the Pantocrator, the Lord of the universe, with his theory of the
"Cosmic Christ." A man of the 20th century, Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin linked the Cosmic Christ, the Alpha unto Omega, with
his sense of Cosmogenesis--which was his christianized theory
of Evolution.
Wow! I had to get into Teilhard's thought, though he was difficult
to read.
According to Teilhard, the universe is no longer to be considered
a static order, but rather a universe in process. And it is a
continuing, upslope trajectory of evolution that Teilhard declares
a cosmogenesis. The process of Teilhard's holistic cosmos
is broken into the following categories: the Without and Within
of things; the evolution of matter, life, consciousness; and
the Omega Point.
The world Without consists of inorganic and organic matter.
But there is a Within in the heart of things! Teilhard specifically
stresses that the Within is used to "denote the psychic fact of that
portion of the stuff of the cosmos enclosed from the beginning
of time within the narrow scope of the early earth." The exterior
world is lined with an interior one!
He links this Within with enfoldment. He notes that the very
individualization of the earth suggests that a "certain mass of
elementary consciousness was originally imprisoned in the
matter of the earth." Teilhard is alluding to a kind of embedded
cosmic intelligence or encoded information.
Teilhard's cosmogenesis involves an evolutionary process,
moving through stages that he identifies as the physical
biosphere and the mental noosphere. However, cosmic
evolution will not cease with the noosphere. Teilhard does not
consider the human species to be the epitome of the universe;
rather, he believes that Nature provides us with yet another
evolutionary opening...that of a "super-soul above our souls."
When I read Teilhard's mention of a "super-soul," I knew that
we were back on track when it comes to the Continuum of
the Solar Logos. Teilhard may have other names for the
Godhead, whether Omega, whether the Cosmic Christ, yet
they all add-up to the Logos!
As for Teilhard's "science," well maybe not correct these days.
Yet he tried to understand, and was regarded with respect--
except by his own church.
But my pilgrimage wasn't about religious institutions. I only
wanted to consider God, or the Logos, from a natural or cosmic
perspective. That seemed my calling when I was in the
grip of Jefferson's "Eye" back in the University of Virginia's
Rotunda.
of the Logos. In his gospel, St. John the Evangelist at the very
outset connected Christ with the Logos--by noting that in the
beginning was the "Word." He was the Word of Light and Life!
Some interpreters believe that Christ was the living expression
of the Logos. Other scholars consider the "Word" as a mis-
translation for Logos, the Reason, the Plenum of the universe,
the Godhead that was from the Beginning, One in being with
the Father, begotten not made.
Also the Christian "Fathers," who were the philosophers of
Christology, declared Christ as the "Incarnation of the Logos."
These early Christian scholars were classically trained, hence
most were well aware of the ancient concepts of the Greek
philosophers. They saw the phenomenon of the Christ as
an extension of the Logos concept. In other words, the Logos
had become flesh.
In the gospels, too, the writers put it that Christ declared that he
was the "Light of the World." He had become the Illuminator.
Then there was the Transfiguration, when Christ and his garments
became as bright as the sun!
In Christian art Christ took on physical aspects of the Sol Invictus.
He was depicted with a halo or solar rays around his head. His
day of worship was on Sun Day, and his birthday revolved around
the birth day of the Sol Invictus Mithras. And the earliest
"Pantocrator," an artistic expression of Christ as the Lord, the
Logos, of the universe was discovered in an ancient Christian
monastery in Egypt. The Pantocrator became a venerated figure
in Orthodox Christianity; and, eventually, it was followed as the
"Christ in Majesty" in the West.
At this point I felt that perhaps I might have come to the end of the
line when it came to this conceptual Continuum of the Solar
Logos. Over the centuries Christianity had cooled down, moving
into the Dark Ages, into strange medieval doctrines that bespoke
of the ignorance that prevailed during this historical period. I had
to wonder whether the Solar Logos had faded into oblivion within
the ranks of Christianity.
After a long hiatus, the Solar Logos jumped back *big time.* Of
all people, a Jesuit priest and scientist-paleontologist restored
the Pantocrator, the Lord of the universe, with his theory of the
"Cosmic Christ." A man of the 20th century, Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin linked the Cosmic Christ, the Alpha unto Omega, with
his sense of Cosmogenesis--which was his christianized theory
of Evolution.
Wow! I had to get into Teilhard's thought, though he was difficult
to read.
According to Teilhard, the universe is no longer to be considered
a static order, but rather a universe in process. And it is a
continuing, upslope trajectory of evolution that Teilhard declares
a cosmogenesis. The process of Teilhard's holistic cosmos
is broken into the following categories: the Without and Within
of things; the evolution of matter, life, consciousness; and
the Omega Point.
The world Without consists of inorganic and organic matter.
But there is a Within in the heart of things! Teilhard specifically
stresses that the Within is used to "denote the psychic fact of that
portion of the stuff of the cosmos enclosed from the beginning
of time within the narrow scope of the early earth." The exterior
world is lined with an interior one!
He links this Within with enfoldment. He notes that the very
individualization of the earth suggests that a "certain mass of
elementary consciousness was originally imprisoned in the
matter of the earth." Teilhard is alluding to a kind of embedded
cosmic intelligence or encoded information.
Teilhard's cosmogenesis involves an evolutionary process,
moving through stages that he identifies as the physical
biosphere and the mental noosphere. However, cosmic
evolution will not cease with the noosphere. Teilhard does not
consider the human species to be the epitome of the universe;
rather, he believes that Nature provides us with yet another
evolutionary opening...that of a "super-soul above our souls."
When I read Teilhard's mention of a "super-soul," I knew that
we were back on track when it comes to the Continuum of
the Solar Logos. Teilhard may have other names for the
Godhead, whether Omega, whether the Cosmic Christ, yet
they all add-up to the Logos!
As for Teilhard's "science," well maybe not correct these days.
Yet he tried to understand, and was regarded with respect--
except by his own church.
But my pilgrimage wasn't about religious institutions. I only
wanted to consider God, or the Logos, from a natural or cosmic
perspective. That seemed my calling when I was in the
grip of Jefferson's "Eye" back in the University of Virginia's
Rotunda.
(3) Solar Logos
Considering such, It was far easier for me to return to early Greek
philosophical thought that led to the idea of the Solar Logos.
• Pythagoras. He held that all things are numbers. His study
of the mathematical ratios of musical scales and planets led
him to believe that the quantitative laws of nature could be
found in all subject matter.
• Plato considered the universe as the manifestation of God.
• Anaximenes. He put forth that the basic stuff of the world is
neither water nor boundless, but rather air. He likely chose
the term "air," because at that time it conveyed the idea of
"breath," the "soul" that animated man and animals.
• Democritus. His atomic theory is as follows: 1.) that matter
comes in separate small particles, atoms, which are uncuttable;
2.) that an empty space exists in which these particles move;
3.) that the atoms differ only in shape and volume; and 4.) that
all change is the result of transfer by momentum by the moving
atoms and such transfer can occur only by contact.
• Parmenides. He believe that atoms were small chunks of the
"One Being."
• Anaxagoras. He developed the view that matter is a continuum--
giving both space and time the property of infinite divisibility. Yet,
the world is made of a single "stuff" and there can be no change.
He also believed that in everything there is a part of everything.
Additionally, he addressed what he called "Nous" (Reason or
Mind). He believed that there was a Universal Mind that remained
"unmixed and pure," that saw and knew all things, and that this
Mind originally set the world (the Cosmos) in motion and continues
to power it. And, lastly, he thought that all things had some share
of this Universal Mind--Man, in particular.
• Heraclitus. He believed that the world is like a restless "fire."
It is a living fire that supplies the driving force of the world in
endless change. As surmised by others, this fire imagery is
analogous to Energy.
With this, these old Greek philosophers were talking about the
Solar Logos! They were moving towards the Plenum of the Cosmos!
I was beginning to suspect that there was a conceptual Continuum
when it came to the Logos, whether philosophical or religious.
And this became very obvious when I dipped into the various
Greco-Roman mystery religions prevalent in the Roman Empire.
The sun gods were major players.
To mention a few, there's Apollo, Helios, Mithras, unto the
Sol Invictus.
Apollo was considered a personfiication of cosmic harmony, as the
god of Light and Clarity.
Helios was considered the Light of Life, the Light of the World, It
was Helios who drove his chariot across the sky each day; i.e.,
the sun moving across the sky.
Mithras was probably originally a Persian god, but was adopted
as a favorite sun god of Roman legionaries throughout the Empire.
He was oft referred to as the "Sol Invictus Mithras."
However, following the Egyptian habit of *merging* their gods.
the Roman Emperor Aurelian revived (during the third cenury c.e.)
an old agriarian cult--the Sol Indiges--and synthesized Apollo,
Helios, and Mithras into the "Deus Sol Invictus."
Ultimately this invincible sun god became the companion to
the Emperor. Statuettes of the Sol Invictus were carried by the
standard-bearers of the Roman legions.
Emperors up to (and including) Constantine portrayed the
Sol Invictus on their official coinage. It was represented by
the radiated solar crown, oft seen worn by the emperors. The
solar crown displayed shootings of solar fire, and the halo
was an extension of this. Constantine decreed Sunday--
"dies Solis," the day of the Sun--as the Roman day of rest.
Interestingly, even after the Emperor Constantine declared
Christianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, he
continued striking his coinage depicting the Sol Invictus.
philosophical thought that led to the idea of the Solar Logos.
• Pythagoras. He held that all things are numbers. His study
of the mathematical ratios of musical scales and planets led
him to believe that the quantitative laws of nature could be
found in all subject matter.
• Plato considered the universe as the manifestation of God.
• Anaximenes. He put forth that the basic stuff of the world is
neither water nor boundless, but rather air. He likely chose
the term "air," because at that time it conveyed the idea of
"breath," the "soul" that animated man and animals.
• Democritus. His atomic theory is as follows: 1.) that matter
comes in separate small particles, atoms, which are uncuttable;
2.) that an empty space exists in which these particles move;
3.) that the atoms differ only in shape and volume; and 4.) that
all change is the result of transfer by momentum by the moving
atoms and such transfer can occur only by contact.
• Parmenides. He believe that atoms were small chunks of the
"One Being."
• Anaxagoras. He developed the view that matter is a continuum--
giving both space and time the property of infinite divisibility. Yet,
the world is made of a single "stuff" and there can be no change.
He also believed that in everything there is a part of everything.
Additionally, he addressed what he called "Nous" (Reason or
Mind). He believed that there was a Universal Mind that remained
"unmixed and pure," that saw and knew all things, and that this
Mind originally set the world (the Cosmos) in motion and continues
to power it. And, lastly, he thought that all things had some share
of this Universal Mind--Man, in particular.
• Heraclitus. He believed that the world is like a restless "fire."
It is a living fire that supplies the driving force of the world in
endless change. As surmised by others, this fire imagery is
analogous to Energy.
With this, these old Greek philosophers were talking about the
Solar Logos! They were moving towards the Plenum of the Cosmos!
I was beginning to suspect that there was a conceptual Continuum
when it came to the Logos, whether philosophical or religious.
And this became very obvious when I dipped into the various
Greco-Roman mystery religions prevalent in the Roman Empire.
The sun gods were major players.
To mention a few, there's Apollo, Helios, Mithras, unto the
Sol Invictus.
Apollo was considered a personfiication of cosmic harmony, as the
god of Light and Clarity.
Helios was considered the Light of Life, the Light of the World, It
was Helios who drove his chariot across the sky each day; i.e.,
the sun moving across the sky.
Mithras was probably originally a Persian god, but was adopted
as a favorite sun god of Roman legionaries throughout the Empire.
He was oft referred to as the "Sol Invictus Mithras."
However, following the Egyptian habit of *merging* their gods.
the Roman Emperor Aurelian revived (during the third cenury c.e.)
an old agriarian cult--the Sol Indiges--and synthesized Apollo,
Helios, and Mithras into the "Deus Sol Invictus."
Ultimately this invincible sun god became the companion to
the Emperor. Statuettes of the Sol Invictus were carried by the
standard-bearers of the Roman legions.
Emperors up to (and including) Constantine portrayed the
Sol Invictus on their official coinage. It was represented by
the radiated solar crown, oft seen worn by the emperors. The
solar crown displayed shootings of solar fire, and the halo
was an extension of this. Constantine decreed Sunday--
"dies Solis," the day of the Sun--as the Roman day of rest.
Interestingly, even after the Emperor Constantine declared
Christianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, he
continued striking his coinage depicting the Sol Invictus.
(2) Solar Logos
The creator god Atum was also considered a sun god by the
ancient Egyptians. And his son, the sun god Ra, whose symbol
was a sun disk, had his cult center at ancient Heliopolis (located
not far from modern Cairo). In turn Heliopolis was also a center of
learning, and it has been said that both Pythagoras and Plato once
visited this ancient city, and gained historical knowledge of Ancient
Egypt from the priests of Heliopolis.
But way before the time of these presumed Greek visitors, these
two sun gods merged, hence Atum-Ra. It gets complicated,
especially for a practical scientist like myself who never entertained
religious concepts much less Egyptology. But I kept plowing
through, concentrating on at least the greater solar deities of this
ancient culture.
Probably the most well-known Egyptian sun god was Aten (also
known as Aton). He was a monotheistic expression of the Pharaoh
Amenhotep IV, more popularly known as Akhenaten. From what
I could glean, Aten was given the characteristics of Ra and
was symbolically represented by a sun disk--and became known
eventually as Aten-Ra. And during the Armarna Period, during the
reign of Akhenaten, Aten-Ra became the king of all the Egyptian
gods, whose sun energy represented the Light of Life.
However, following the death of Akhenaten the career of the
sun god Aten was quickly halted by the Egyptian priests who
were devotees of the earlier creator god Atum. Sun god or no,
human power politics seem always to intrude into Religion.
Anyway, I felt that I might harken back to Heliopolis, Egypt's
ancient City of the Sun, and dare to speculate about a possible
Greek philosophical connection, i.e. the Pythagorean and
Platonic concepts of the Logos, the Point, the First Cause.
Did these two ancient Greek philosophers get the idea of
Such from the priests of Heliopolis?
Not provable, of course, but it was fascinating to wonder if the
Greek idea of the Solar Logos might have been originally rooted
in Ancient Egypt, in Heliopolis, the City of the Sun.
ancient Egyptians. And his son, the sun god Ra, whose symbol
was a sun disk, had his cult center at ancient Heliopolis (located
not far from modern Cairo). In turn Heliopolis was also a center of
learning, and it has been said that both Pythagoras and Plato once
visited this ancient city, and gained historical knowledge of Ancient
Egypt from the priests of Heliopolis.
But way before the time of these presumed Greek visitors, these
two sun gods merged, hence Atum-Ra. It gets complicated,
especially for a practical scientist like myself who never entertained
religious concepts much less Egyptology. But I kept plowing
through, concentrating on at least the greater solar deities of this
ancient culture.
Probably the most well-known Egyptian sun god was Aten (also
known as Aton). He was a monotheistic expression of the Pharaoh
Amenhotep IV, more popularly known as Akhenaten. From what
I could glean, Aten was given the characteristics of Ra and
was symbolically represented by a sun disk--and became known
eventually as Aten-Ra. And during the Armarna Period, during the
reign of Akhenaten, Aten-Ra became the king of all the Egyptian
gods, whose sun energy represented the Light of Life.
However, following the death of Akhenaten the career of the
sun god Aten was quickly halted by the Egyptian priests who
were devotees of the earlier creator god Atum. Sun god or no,
human power politics seem always to intrude into Religion.
Anyway, I felt that I might harken back to Heliopolis, Egypt's
ancient City of the Sun, and dare to speculate about a possible
Greek philosophical connection, i.e. the Pythagorean and
Platonic concepts of the Logos, the Point, the First Cause.
Did these two ancient Greek philosophers get the idea of
Such from the priests of Heliopolis?
Not provable, of course, but it was fascinating to wonder if the
Greek idea of the Solar Logos might have been originally rooted
in Ancient Egypt, in Heliopolis, the City of the Sun.
(1) Solar Logos
Chapter Two. THE SOLAR LOGOS
I didn't know a soul at the Princeton Theological Seminary, so
I thought it best to simply make an inquiry at their office. After
introducing myself, I stumbled around trying to explain what I
was after. Somehow it all seemed a bit of *deja vu,*in that the
situation reminded me of when I first approached the Philosophy
Department at the university.
I was mumbling around about the "Solar Logos" to kindly office
clerks, trying to make myself understood. Finally I was sent to
talk with an official, who promptly gave me the name of a professor
who taught Religious History at the seminary. Probably I could
get some information from him.
So, after making an appointment, I sat down and had a good
talk with this very erudite professor who later typed out a
"starter's" reading list on his computer and gave it to me. It
would be up to me to do the research on the evolving concept
of the Logos. Looking at the reading list, I saw that, generally
speaking, I could be running down the history of God the All
Powerful--starting nearly from the beginning of written history.
If this was a starter's reading list, I had to wonder what a serious
seminary scholar would have to plough through!
Fortunately this good professor took pity on me, in that he also
secured a permit for me to use the seminary's library stacks. For
this I was grateful. I already had a permit for the university's larger
library, but I figured the seminary holdings might be more specific.
And I was right in this case.
Nonetheless, I narrowed down my research almost from the start.
I decided that since I was going to carry forth my pilgrimage from
the perspective of Western Science, than perhaps it would be
wise to stick mainly with Western cultural intuitions of the Logos.
However, right off, after scanning through a number of books on
my list, I started to realize that the idea of the "Sun" was really
important to many cultures as they worked through their develop-
mental history. There were sun gods galore, everywhere, at all
levels. Why the Sun? Because it is the Light of Life. Its rays, its
warmth and illumination were utterly necessary for the existence
of Life. The Sun also played on the theme of illumination, focusing
on mental development, on wisdom. But, above all, the Sun
represented the Cosmic! Even before the advent of modern
astronomy, human observers saw all the lights in the sky,
figuring that there were thousands of suns everywhere.
And, of course, we now know via modern astrophysical
technology that there are millions of galaxies, billions of sun,
and heaven knows how many planets. Hence we come to the
"Solar Logos" that serves as the Plenum of all this universe.
But before all our modern knowledge, there was the intuition of
this great Plenum, the Godhead, that underlies the All of it.
And our evolving cultures, especially those situated around the
Mediterranean, developed a steady stream of sun gods that
has carried through to this very day.
I chose to concentrate first on the religions of Ancient Egypt,
then onward into the Greco-Roman Civilization, and finally
unto Christianity.
I didn't know a soul at the Princeton Theological Seminary, so
I thought it best to simply make an inquiry at their office. After
introducing myself, I stumbled around trying to explain what I
was after. Somehow it all seemed a bit of *deja vu,*in that the
situation reminded me of when I first approached the Philosophy
Department at the university.
I was mumbling around about the "Solar Logos" to kindly office
clerks, trying to make myself understood. Finally I was sent to
talk with an official, who promptly gave me the name of a professor
who taught Religious History at the seminary. Probably I could
get some information from him.
So, after making an appointment, I sat down and had a good
talk with this very erudite professor who later typed out a
"starter's" reading list on his computer and gave it to me. It
would be up to me to do the research on the evolving concept
of the Logos. Looking at the reading list, I saw that, generally
speaking, I could be running down the history of God the All
Powerful--starting nearly from the beginning of written history.
If this was a starter's reading list, I had to wonder what a serious
seminary scholar would have to plough through!
Fortunately this good professor took pity on me, in that he also
secured a permit for me to use the seminary's library stacks. For
this I was grateful. I already had a permit for the university's larger
library, but I figured the seminary holdings might be more specific.
And I was right in this case.
Nonetheless, I narrowed down my research almost from the start.
I decided that since I was going to carry forth my pilgrimage from
the perspective of Western Science, than perhaps it would be
wise to stick mainly with Western cultural intuitions of the Logos.
However, right off, after scanning through a number of books on
my list, I started to realize that the idea of the "Sun" was really
important to many cultures as they worked through their develop-
mental history. There were sun gods galore, everywhere, at all
levels. Why the Sun? Because it is the Light of Life. Its rays, its
warmth and illumination were utterly necessary for the existence
of Life. The Sun also played on the theme of illumination, focusing
on mental development, on wisdom. But, above all, the Sun
represented the Cosmic! Even before the advent of modern
astronomy, human observers saw all the lights in the sky,
figuring that there were thousands of suns everywhere.
And, of course, we now know via modern astrophysical
technology that there are millions of galaxies, billions of sun,
and heaven knows how many planets. Hence we come to the
"Solar Logos" that serves as the Plenum of all this universe.
But before all our modern knowledge, there was the intuition of
this great Plenum, the Godhead, that underlies the All of it.
And our evolving cultures, especially those situated around the
Mediterranean, developed a steady stream of sun gods that
has carried through to this very day.
I chose to concentrate first on the religions of Ancient Egypt,
then onward into the Greco-Roman Civilization, and finally
unto Christianity.
(4) Pilgrimage
The Stoics consider the Logos as the Soul of the Universe, especially
as the "Reason" of the universe. Matter was evolved by the Pneuma of
the Logos, the Spirit if you were. And the Logos-Pneuma stood behind
the Laws of Nature. As for Man, well they declared him as a microcosm
to the Macrocosm.
Plato's philosophy seemed more engaged with the archetypes of the
Mind. Before we could conceive of empirical abstractions, they must have
existed *apriori* as archetypal abstractions in our mind. To conceive of
the circle and the square, for example, they must have somehow
existed first in our minds.
As for *apriori*, well that led to Kant's philosophy. He was a super cool
customer. On the other hand, there's Hegel whose spiritual philosophy
is nearly indecipherable. I spent hours upon hours trying to work through
Hegel.
Nonetheless, without going into any serious detail of these above-
mentioned philosophies, they led me to another place. Talking one
day to one of my professors, I told him that somehow I felt a detached
"coldness" in their descriptions of the Godhead. Does philosophy
have to be so removed? So distant from the greater pool of humanity?
Though a teacher of Classical Philosophy my professor said that in
spite of my prejudice against Religion I should look into the various
insights and interpretations of the "Solar Logos." Religiously speaking,
the Solar Logos has a long history down through the centuries, via
many cultures, wandering through our great civilizations. I was
puzzled by his remarks, but I was inclined to take his advice.
So where might I go to learn more about the Solar Logos. My
philosophy professor said "just down the street." This surprised me,
whatever did he mean? He was pointing towards the Princeton
Theological Seminary, where one can dig into religious gold-mines.
So, awhile later--following my retirement from the Laboratory--I made
contact with the seminary. I had started out on my pilgrimage. I was
in pursuit of the Solar Logos.
as the "Reason" of the universe. Matter was evolved by the Pneuma of
the Logos, the Spirit if you were. And the Logos-Pneuma stood behind
the Laws of Nature. As for Man, well they declared him as a microcosm
to the Macrocosm.
Plato's philosophy seemed more engaged with the archetypes of the
Mind. Before we could conceive of empirical abstractions, they must have
existed *apriori* as archetypal abstractions in our mind. To conceive of
the circle and the square, for example, they must have somehow
existed first in our minds.
As for *apriori*, well that led to Kant's philosophy. He was a super cool
customer. On the other hand, there's Hegel whose spiritual philosophy
is nearly indecipherable. I spent hours upon hours trying to work through
Hegel.
Nonetheless, without going into any serious detail of these above-
mentioned philosophies, they led me to another place. Talking one
day to one of my professors, I told him that somehow I felt a detached
"coldness" in their descriptions of the Godhead. Does philosophy
have to be so removed? So distant from the greater pool of humanity?
Though a teacher of Classical Philosophy my professor said that in
spite of my prejudice against Religion I should look into the various
insights and interpretations of the "Solar Logos." Religiously speaking,
the Solar Logos has a long history down through the centuries, via
many cultures, wandering through our great civilizations. I was
puzzled by his remarks, but I was inclined to take his advice.
So where might I go to learn more about the Solar Logos. My
philosophy professor said "just down the street." This surprised me,
whatever did he mean? He was pointing towards the Princeton
Theological Seminary, where one can dig into religious gold-mines.
So, awhile later--following my retirement from the Laboratory--I made
contact with the seminary. I had started out on my pilgrimage. I was
in pursuit of the Solar Logos.
(3) Pilgrimage
Over drinks and dinner that night my friend and I had a really
marvelous discussion over how I might turn this eureka experience
into something. My friend felt that if I were really to plough into
the Book of Nature, seeking God, perhaps I best first do a little
homework on God. Religion! Oh no, that's not my forte. "So my
friend, why not start out with philosophy." He made mention that
the Philosophy of Science included Metaphysics, which connected
Cosmology with Ontology.
Ummh, "please explain" I asked. Well it's about not only the
Nature of the Universe, but also about the Nature of Being. Oh.
And where does God fit into all this? Well--as my friend put it--
"that's for you to find out." So, how about giving me a hint where to
start. My good historian put it nicely, start with Classical Philosophy.
Both Platonism and Stoicism have useful insights, or at least intuitions,
when it comes to the Foundation--or Plenum--of the universe.
They talk about this Godhead, if you will, and call it the "Logos."
Driving back to Princeton, I certainly had lots to mull over. And
shortly after I arrived home, I trotted over to the university's
Philosophy Department and introduced myself. Considering I was
a scientist at the Plasma Physics Laboratory, they actually treated
me with some amused respect. Here was an older guy asking
probably naive questions--for them--and pondering aloud how
he might move towards getting some answers.
They gently put it to me that, yes, my friend was probably correct to
point me towards the Philosophy of Science. And, most definitely,
I should take some coursework in Classical Philosophy if I were to
focus eventually on Metaphysics. The department's people with
whom I talked were friendly, bemused with me, but not con-
descending. I got an inkling that I need move into their territory.
So I put in my bid to once again enter Graduate School and study
with these good folk.
They were nice and took me on, albeit at part-time speed. I still had
my position at the Laboratory, but I figured by the time I retired I would
have secured my degree. I was right about that, and in the midst of
all this new philosophical study I had loads of fun. It seemed as if
I had moved into a new milieu that was "just right" for me.
marvelous discussion over how I might turn this eureka experience
into something. My friend felt that if I were really to plough into
the Book of Nature, seeking God, perhaps I best first do a little
homework on God. Religion! Oh no, that's not my forte. "So my
friend, why not start out with philosophy." He made mention that
the Philosophy of Science included Metaphysics, which connected
Cosmology with Ontology.
Ummh, "please explain" I asked. Well it's about not only the
Nature of the Universe, but also about the Nature of Being. Oh.
And where does God fit into all this? Well--as my friend put it--
"that's for you to find out." So, how about giving me a hint where to
start. My good historian put it nicely, start with Classical Philosophy.
Both Platonism and Stoicism have useful insights, or at least intuitions,
when it comes to the Foundation--or Plenum--of the universe.
They talk about this Godhead, if you will, and call it the "Logos."
Driving back to Princeton, I certainly had lots to mull over. And
shortly after I arrived home, I trotted over to the university's
Philosophy Department and introduced myself. Considering I was
a scientist at the Plasma Physics Laboratory, they actually treated
me with some amused respect. Here was an older guy asking
probably naive questions--for them--and pondering aloud how
he might move towards getting some answers.
They gently put it to me that, yes, my friend was probably correct to
point me towards the Philosophy of Science. And, most definitely,
I should take some coursework in Classical Philosophy if I were to
focus eventually on Metaphysics. The department's people with
whom I talked were friendly, bemused with me, but not con-
descending. I got an inkling that I need move into their territory.
So I put in my bid to once again enter Graduate School and study
with these good folk.
They were nice and took me on, albeit at part-time speed. I still had
my position at the Laboratory, but I figured by the time I retired I would
have secured my degree. I was right about that, and in the midst of
all this new philosophical study I had loads of fun. It seemed as if
I had moved into a new milieu that was "just right" for me.
(2) Pilgrimage
It all started to shift when I took a small vacation, visiting a friend
who taught at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. He taught
an interesting class which he called "Reason's Envoys." Much to
my surprise, some of these envoys were the Founding Fathers of
our nation. Right off, my friend mentioned Thomas Jefferson who
was also the founder of the University of Virginia. There was also
Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Paul Revere,
Thomas Paine, and--gasp--George Washington!
It turned out some these gentlemen were not only colonial
conveyors of the European Enlightenment but also products of
a Classical Education that surely included the ancient philosophies
of the Greeks, such as Platonism and Stoicism. They, too, were
pragmatic, some very much interested in Science and Nature.
As for Religion, well some spurned it altogether, others
accommodated themselves to such, and some even tried to
re-write the Bible (like Jefferson).
Yet, none of these envoys of Reason seemed outright atheists.
Rather the term "deist" might be a more appropriate mantle for
them, though some still attended church. It has been said that
Thomas Jefferson never missed Sunday services. It's just that he
held to his opinions rather than going with the traditional line of
the Church of England that held sway in Colonial America. My
historian friend also mentioned that George Washington also
continued attending church, though it has been said that
somewhere along the line he stopped taking Communion.
So what did these envoys of Reason really believe? Mainly they
believed in the power of Reason and their own individual approach
towards the Greater Reality that some call "God." These colonial
aristocrats leaned towards what some moderns call "Natural
Theology." In other words, they were not only looking at the
Book of Scriptural Revelation but also the Book of Nature!
Well, I had to admit that my historian friend had really given me a
lot of "food for thought." But I have to attribute a special eureka
experience towards turning me in the direction of Metaphysics.
While visiting the university's Rotunda, the first university building
designed by Jefferson, I noted the skylight atop its dome. Though
it had burned out during a fire in the 19th century, it was rebuilt
according to its original specifications. As my historian friend
pointed out, if one wishes to imagine, this skylight converges into
a round dark area that brackets the rest. The rumor is that
Jefferson likened this circling skylight and its dark center as the
"Eye of God."
And there I stood, nearly directly under that "Eye". I got the erriest
feeling, strange but not frightening, that God was looking straight
at me. Maybe that is what Jefferson intended? Standing there
unusual thoughts were entering my mind. Thoughts like God wishes
to be better known. That the Contour of God can be found in his
Creation. I was mesmerized by these thoughts--that seemed so
different from my own.
Dizzy looking up for such a long period, I finally shook away the
grasp of this "Eye" and walked down the steps of the Rotunda,
out onto the main campus. I told my historian friend about this
strange experience that I just had. And, thankfully, he didn't laugh
at me. Indeed--he said that perhaps I had undergone an eureka
experience. Perhaps "God" was lurking behind all of our recent
scientific discoveries about Nature, about the Universe, and was
just waiting for us to "catch on."
who taught at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. He taught
an interesting class which he called "Reason's Envoys." Much to
my surprise, some of these envoys were the Founding Fathers of
our nation. Right off, my friend mentioned Thomas Jefferson who
was also the founder of the University of Virginia. There was also
Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Paul Revere,
Thomas Paine, and--gasp--George Washington!
It turned out some these gentlemen were not only colonial
conveyors of the European Enlightenment but also products of
a Classical Education that surely included the ancient philosophies
of the Greeks, such as Platonism and Stoicism. They, too, were
pragmatic, some very much interested in Science and Nature.
As for Religion, well some spurned it altogether, others
accommodated themselves to such, and some even tried to
re-write the Bible (like Jefferson).
Yet, none of these envoys of Reason seemed outright atheists.
Rather the term "deist" might be a more appropriate mantle for
them, though some still attended church. It has been said that
Thomas Jefferson never missed Sunday services. It's just that he
held to his opinions rather than going with the traditional line of
the Church of England that held sway in Colonial America. My
historian friend also mentioned that George Washington also
continued attending church, though it has been said that
somewhere along the line he stopped taking Communion.
So what did these envoys of Reason really believe? Mainly they
believed in the power of Reason and their own individual approach
towards the Greater Reality that some call "God." These colonial
aristocrats leaned towards what some moderns call "Natural
Theology." In other words, they were not only looking at the
Book of Scriptural Revelation but also the Book of Nature!
Well, I had to admit that my historian friend had really given me a
lot of "food for thought." But I have to attribute a special eureka
experience towards turning me in the direction of Metaphysics.
While visiting the university's Rotunda, the first university building
designed by Jefferson, I noted the skylight atop its dome. Though
it had burned out during a fire in the 19th century, it was rebuilt
according to its original specifications. As my historian friend
pointed out, if one wishes to imagine, this skylight converges into
a round dark area that brackets the rest. The rumor is that
Jefferson likened this circling skylight and its dark center as the
"Eye of God."
And there I stood, nearly directly under that "Eye". I got the erriest
feeling, strange but not frightening, that God was looking straight
at me. Maybe that is what Jefferson intended? Standing there
unusual thoughts were entering my mind. Thoughts like God wishes
to be better known. That the Contour of God can be found in his
Creation. I was mesmerized by these thoughts--that seemed so
different from my own.
Dizzy looking up for such a long period, I finally shook away the
grasp of this "Eye" and walked down the steps of the Rotunda,
out onto the main campus. I told my historian friend about this
strange experience that I just had. And, thankfully, he didn't laugh
at me. Indeed--he said that perhaps I had undergone an eureka
experience. Perhaps "God" was lurking behind all of our recent
scientific discoveries about Nature, about the Universe, and was
just waiting for us to "catch on."
(1) Pilgrimage
It seems ages ago when, as a youngish physicist, I started work
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey.
I had traveled clear across the country to take the job. A native
Californian, Berkeley-trained, my name is Darran James. And
now here I am, after many years, retiring from the Laboratory
and embarking towards a new career of my own calling.
Several years before retiring as a government scientist, I decided
to trudge part-time through a Master's Degree bestowed by
Princeton University's Philosophy Department. I decided that I
wanted to be a Philosopher of Science, specifically focusing on
Metaphysics.
My friends at the Laboratory thought I was a bit "nuts" going back
to university--and especially getting into philosophical metaphysics.
Of course I didn't feel that the effort was a waste of time. Though I
already was well into my prime I had no intention going forth into
another job, particularly in academe.
No, what I had planned was to be a free-thinking philosopher--
and free from all job attachments that could dictate my course.
I didn't need the money. I didn't need the prestige. "Been there,
had that" to paraphrase a popular adage. What I wanted was to
*enjoy* myself, following a philosophical course that had long
interested me: How does the Greater Reality work in this world,
close to home, or far and away in the universe?
As it turned out, living in Princeton, I had available contacts in
useful places: the university's Philosophy Department and Library,
the Princeton Theological Seminary, and the Institute for Advanced
Study. Considering my project, these three nearby places should
prove invaluable!
Anyway, I have decided to keep a record of my pilgrimage--as I
have come to call my entree into Metaphysics. Beginning, I must
make mention how I arrived at this decision to move into
Metaphysics. Consequently, I must backtrack.
Beforehand, during my young adulthood I was about as pragmatic
as one could possibly be. What I couldn't observe via my senses,
or their extended technology, simply was not real, hardly worth
considering. Hence, I was neither religiously nor spiritually inclined.
As for academic philosophy, it seemed much like the nit-picking of
those medieval churchmen who tried to count how many angels
twirled atop the head of a needle. Not relevant in today's modern
world, as far as I was concerned.
So what happened to change my course?
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey.
I had traveled clear across the country to take the job. A native
Californian, Berkeley-trained, my name is Darran James. And
now here I am, after many years, retiring from the Laboratory
and embarking towards a new career of my own calling.
Several years before retiring as a government scientist, I decided
to trudge part-time through a Master's Degree bestowed by
Princeton University's Philosophy Department. I decided that I
wanted to be a Philosopher of Science, specifically focusing on
Metaphysics.
My friends at the Laboratory thought I was a bit "nuts" going back
to university--and especially getting into philosophical metaphysics.
Of course I didn't feel that the effort was a waste of time. Though I
already was well into my prime I had no intention going forth into
another job, particularly in academe.
No, what I had planned was to be a free-thinking philosopher--
and free from all job attachments that could dictate my course.
I didn't need the money. I didn't need the prestige. "Been there,
had that" to paraphrase a popular adage. What I wanted was to
*enjoy* myself, following a philosophical course that had long
interested me: How does the Greater Reality work in this world,
close to home, or far and away in the universe?
As it turned out, living in Princeton, I had available contacts in
useful places: the university's Philosophy Department and Library,
the Princeton Theological Seminary, and the Institute for Advanced
Study. Considering my project, these three nearby places should
prove invaluable!
Anyway, I have decided to keep a record of my pilgrimage--as I
have come to call my entree into Metaphysics. Beginning, I must
make mention how I arrived at this decision to move into
Metaphysics. Consequently, I must backtrack.
Beforehand, during my young adulthood I was about as pragmatic
as one could possibly be. What I couldn't observe via my senses,
or their extended technology, simply was not real, hardly worth
considering. Hence, I was neither religiously nor spiritually inclined.
As for academic philosophy, it seemed much like the nit-picking of
those medieval churchmen who tried to count how many angels
twirled atop the head of a needle. Not relevant in today's modern
world, as far as I was concerned.
So what happened to change my course?
Introduction
A fictional journal, this is a small story about a plasma physicist
who later in life begins a new career as a philosopher of science.
He is interested in Metaphysics, which involves both Cosmology
(the nature of the universe) and Ontology (the nature of being).
On a pilgrimage, this philosopher walks down the paths of the
New Cosmology, Smart Code, and Consciousness Research
in the hope of discovering an Intelligent Plenum, the Ground
of the Universe, the Godhead.
He first examines the Sun religions of the ancient Mediterranean
civilizations, culminating in the Sol Invictus onto the Pantocrator--
the Lord of the Universe. He can discern the *continuum* of
ideas in this quest; and, in tandem, he sees similar ideas in
Greek philosophy.
He believes this historical "intuition" about the universe might
be found in the new data brought forth by modern scientific
efforts about the world in which we live, whether the far reaches
of the Cosmos or the close knowledge of the Earth, itself.
who later in life begins a new career as a philosopher of science.
He is interested in Metaphysics, which involves both Cosmology
(the nature of the universe) and Ontology (the nature of being).
On a pilgrimage, this philosopher walks down the paths of the
New Cosmology, Smart Code, and Consciousness Research
in the hope of discovering an Intelligent Plenum, the Ground
of the Universe, the Godhead.
He first examines the Sun religions of the ancient Mediterranean
civilizations, culminating in the Sol Invictus onto the Pantocrator--
the Lord of the Universe. He can discern the *continuum* of
ideas in this quest; and, in tandem, he sees similar ideas in
Greek philosophy.
He believes this historical "intuition" about the universe might
be found in the new data brought forth by modern scientific
efforts about the world in which we live, whether the far reaches
of the Cosmos or the close knowledge of the Earth, itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)