consciousness, human being, inner cosmos, Uncategorized

The Modern Mystery School

I have just completed the first draft of my book. The working title is “Matter and Consciousness”, because it is an exploration of the relationship between the external world “out there” and our internal world, our individual experience. I am not giving much away when I say that the outer world of matter and the inner world of consciousness are more alike than we might imagine. Indeed, they have so much in common that they can usefully be considered as two sides of the same coin.

Now, if this is true, as I believe it is, then it has far- reaching implications. It implies, for example, that the world acts as a mirror. It reflects back to us, very accurately, who we are, our state of mind, our belief-system, and our level of consciousness. It also implies that each of us is a miniature of the universe – microcosms of the Cosmos. Conversely, it implies that the universe is Man on a gigantic scale.

It can be no coincidence that, as I was writing the book, I set in motion a process designed to create a “modern mystery school” (MMS). A number of people are now involved in this. One way of capturing the essence of the school is that it is the whole person exploring the whole world. This suggests that the school has two main components – a whole person education, and a whole person exploration. At the heart of this is the fact that, in today’s world, the vast majority of people experience only parts of themselves. As a consequence, they experience only the corresponding parts of the world. In essence, these are the physical parts. Our prevailing way of exploring the world – science – reflects this. It, too, explores only the physical aspects of the world and the human being. Indeed, science insists that these are the only possible aspects.

In contrast, the MMS will educate its students to experience and use all parts of themselves, including the non-physical parts. This will enable them to use additional forms of perception and consciousness to explore the non-physical aspects of the world.

That’s it in nutshell!

consciousness, human being, inner cosmos, natural, Uncategorized

Matter and Consciousness

Consciousness can know only itself. It could not be otherwise! This is because being conscious is a form of resonance. Something inside us resonates with something in the world around us. And resonance is possible only between two things that are basically the same. They are on the same wavelength, if you like. In other words, we are able to be conscious of the world around us only because we are very similar to it. We are essentially microcosms of the Macrocosm. To turn this the other way around, the universe is Man on a gigantic scale!

OK, then. If it is true that consciousness can only know itself, this strongly suggests that the world around us – indeed the whole universe – is consciousness itself. This enables us to define consciousness as “experience, and that which is experienced.” Consciousness is both the observer and the observed.

I have always found this idea very helpful. But of course, it flies in the face of the “science story”, which tells us that the universe is just made of dead, unconscious, meaningless, matter and electromagnetic radiation. Science tells us that everything, including ourselves, is wholly physical. This suggests that, if we want to understand the universe as consciousness, we have to find ways to go beyond the physical.

In my forthcoming book (working title is “Matter and Consciousness”), I describe two  road maps to get us beyond the physical. They are Changing Lenses, and Redefining Energy.

Changing Lenses means using forms of perception that do not rely on our five physical senses. The best analogy is changing spectacles. If we wear red glasses, the whole world appears to be red. When we wear blue glasses, the whole world appears to be blue. Similarly, when we use our physical senses to view the world – the normal for most people today – then the world appears to be wholly physical. Modern science is based on using only the physical senses. If we used our non-physical “inner senses”, then the world appears to be non-physical. I go into detail about this in my book.

Redefining Energy takes us to the point where we see energy as “ordered movement”. (In fact, quantum physics basically agrees with this idea). The important point is that there is nothing inherently physical about this. Physicality is very subjective. It all depends on us, and on what we use to perceive the world.

One more thing – consciousness is not passive. At its best, consciousness reaches out and grabs the world! (We do this by paying attention) In other words, it reaches out, and grabs itself!

 

consciousness, human being, inner cosmos, Uncategorized

Thoughts on the Inner Cosmos

We resemble the Cosmos in many ways. This surely suggests that it resembles us too, because resemblances always work in both directions. This gives us the fascinating possibility that the Cosmos is as human as we are Cosmic! So, what are the practical implications of this? I believe that the implications fall into two main categories. First, we human beings have the potential to know Cosmically. And second, we have the potential to be Cosmic. Let’s look first at our potential to know.

If it is true that we and the Cosmos resemble each other, then it follows that one way of getting to know the Cosmos better is to get to know ourselves better. I am by no means the first to suggest this. It was at the heart of Pythagoras’ work and, more recently, it was Peter Ouspensky who pointed out that to know the world, we should study ourselves, and to know ourselves, we should study the world. As above, so below!

Perhaps I hardly need add that this is not the way of modern science. As you probably know, science studies the so-called objective world “out there”. Very separately, it also studies the so-called subjective world “in here”, the world of human thoughts, feeling and behaviour. When it tries to connect the two worlds, science ties itself in knots, because it makes the sweeping assumption that objectivity can be applied to subjectivity (but not the other way around!). It therefore assumes that the “objective” laws of physics and chemistry can be applied to the subjective world, such as consciousness. It has not occurred to science that this might operate in both directions, that the laws of consciousness might apply to the world “out there”. This is where the Pythagoras/Ouspensky approach comes into its own. My own shorthand for this approach is “inner cosmos”, because this term tells us that when we look closely into ourselves, we see a reflection of the Cosmos. If you like, each one of us is the Cosmos in microcosm.

The inner cosmos approach differs radically from the approach of science in two important respects. First, it makes no distinction between objective and subjective. And second, it assumes that all the laws of Nature are underpinned by deeper, metaphysical laws, the laws promoted by the Pythagoreans. I will go into detail on this later, but here is one example, just to give you a sense of what I am talking about. The Law of Octaves can be found in physics (e.g. light), in chemistry (e.g. the Periodic Table), in biology (e.g. plant morphology), and also in the arts, music being the most obvious example. It is also found in aspects of metaphysics, such as the seven major chakras, and the Seven Rays. The point I want to make is that all the laws of Nature are underpinned by deeper Cosmic principles, and that these principles underpin everything about us, just as they underpin everything about the Cosmos. Effectively, they connect us to the Cosmos, and the Cosmos to us.

As for dropping the distinction between objective and subjective, ultimately everything is subjective, insofar as everything “out there” is as seen through our human eyes, from our human standpoint, and through the prism of our human mindset. In this sense, everything is subjective. Conversely, everything is objective, insofar as it is shared between us. I leave you to ponder this thought.

What about our potential to be Cosmic? I hope this does not need much explanation. If we are indeed miniatures of the Cosmos, size should not matter. Each of us is, potentially, a very small version of the Cosmos. The more closely we look into ourselves, we more we realise the truth of this. Hence the importance of learning to access our inner cosmos. As to what it might look like to be Cosmic, I believe that we all have some sense of this, even if this sense fades too often.

christhomson1000@gmail.com

 

being natural, global change, human being, inner cosmos, Intelligence, less is better, natural, simplicity, Taoist, the big questions, Uncategorized

Joining the Dots

This is not the first time I have used this title. I assume I am using it again today because I want to solve the mystery. I want to see what the picture looks like, when all the dots are joined.

I had this thought this morning because I have just completed six long articles – three on The Inner Cosmos, and three on Intelligent Simplicity. They are part of plan to publicise my work more effectively. The plan is to publish a series of three articles every month on topics that best reflect my work. These include a very unusual range: the two mentioned above, as well as A Science of the Whole, the New Economics, Energy and Consciousness, and The 21st Century Taoist. My question to myself this morning is Why this range of topics?

I believe that part of the reason is that I have studied an unusual range – the natural science, economics, Chinese, and law, and all at university level. I also think it is because I am a heretic! I challenge orthodoxy wherever I find it…in economics, in science and medicine, as well as modernity itself, from which all current orthodoxy springs.

Some might say that I do this because I want to stand out, to be different, to be noticed. I think it goes much deeper than this. I think it is rooted in own deep sense of what the world is and what a human being is. Whatever they turn out to be, they far transcend the pictures of them painted by science. Although science may have some of the physical aspects of the world and the human being correct, it falls far short when it comes to their non-physical aspects, for the very simple reason that science denies that these aspects exist.

That’s it! That’s the picture the joined dots will paint. The dots will reveal what I have been trying to say all these many years, ever since the 60s. Some of my work attempts to describe the world and the human being, as I see them. Other parts of my work describe how our lives could be if the world and the human being were as I see them. Hence, the New Economics, A Science of the Whole, and The 21st Century Taoist.

The pictures are getting clearer every day.

human being, inner cosmos, the big questions, Uncategorized

The Very Big and the Very Small

Note to the reader: this is very much work in progress. These are all new thoughts. Please tell me where I might be mistaken and what you think is missing

 I am writing a book about the “inner cosmos”. It explores the relationship between the macrocosm and the microcosm, in line with the idea of “as above, so below”. It specifically looks at how this relationship affects us. Recently, I have begun to wonder whether science has its own version of “as above, so below”. I have done a lot of reading about this, and note that science has difficulty in connecting the very big with the very small. What do I mean by this? Scientists believe that the behaviour of the very big – galaxies, stars and planets – can be explained in terms of relativity. And they believe that the behaviour of the very small – atoms and particles – can be explained in terms of quantum physics. Despite many attempts over the last 100 years, scientists have been unable to connect relativity with quantum physics. For example, they cannot integrate gravity with the strong and weak nuclear forces. This remains one of the great quests in science.

I believe that scientists have been unsuccessful in this endeavour for one reason. They have not included us. They have focused their attention exclusively on the “outer, objective world”, and not taken account of the “inner subjective world”. They have not recognised that what seems to be “objective” can only ever be subjective. This is because the world “out there” is ultimately a product of the world “in here”. It is ultimately the world as seen through our eyes, from our human viewpoint.

Arguably, the defining characteristic of the very big is distance. The big things are distant from each other. Therefore, it takes time for things to happen. Time is clearly an important component of the very big. As you may know, relativity is all about the interplay of space and time. One form of this interplay is the bending of space-time in the presence of mass (such as planets and stars). Scientists have a name for this “warping” of space-time. They call it “gravity.” One of Einstein’s main contributions was to connect gravity with space and time.

In contrast, the defining characteristic of the very small is no distance! So, it takes no time for things to happen. This apparent absence of time is one of the central features of quantum physics, and it is one of the reasons why the behaviour of the very small seems weird.

Since it takes time for things to happen at the level of the very big, things appear to be disconnected, separate from each other. Conversely, since it takes no time for things to happen at the level of the very small, because distance is negligible, things happen instantaneously. Thus, things seem to be totally connected to each other. This “strange connectedness” is another important feature of quantum physics.

What I have just described implies “human relativity”. This probably needs a little explanation. Everything, from the very big to the very small, is relative to us. It is the world as perceived by us, as seen through human organs of perception, and from our human standpoint. It can be no other way. The big things are big and separate, only relative to us. The small things are small and connected, only relative to us. What the big and small things appear to be relative to themselves is quite another matter. Let us now explore this.

From its own viewpoint, the very large will seem to itself to have little distance between its parts, therefore little time. From its own perspective, the very large will appear to itself to be totally interconnected, just as, from our own perspective, our bodies seem to be totally interconnected. Separateness may be a uniquely human illusion. In any event, this suggests that, when seen from its own perspective, quantum physics may apply to the very big. This is because quantum physics is relevant to situations where time and separateness are not factors.

Similarly, from its own viewpoint the very small will seem to itself to be full of distance – atoms will be the equivalent of solar systems – therefore full of time. This suggests, does it not, that seen from its own perspective, relativity can be applied to the very small. This is because relativity is relevant to situations where space and time are present.

These are very early days in this exploration, so anything I say is very tentative. That said, one of the possible implications of “the theory of human relativity” is that, at the level of the very small, the nuclear forces within the atom my be the microcosmic equivalent of gravity. I say this because it was Einstein’s genius to make the connection between gravity and space-time. Now, if space and time are actually present at the level of the very small, albeit on a scale well below our normal perception, then there are likely to forces related to this microcosmic space-time. What we currently call the “nuclear forces” could equally well be called “micro-gravity”.