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, consciousness, inner cosmos, natural, Uncategorized

WE ARE MICROCOSMS

It has been over three months since I last wrote about the “inner cosmos”, and over a month since I last wrote about anything! Put it down to two broken legs. Mine came first, when skiing in March. And then Ana broke hers climbing some big rocks in the garden. There is nothing like a broken leg to play havoc with one’s routine. Two broken legs is havoc squared!

While recovering, I have been giving a lot of thought to the inner cosmos. If I had to define it, I would say that it is the reflection of the Cosmos within us. We are similar to the Cosmos in more ways than you might imagine. I believe that this is very significant.

First, it is a new way of saying that “God is within us”, meaning that we somehow contain the Universe inside us. This in turn gives us a fresh perspective on religion and spirituality.

Second, it helps to explain why we just know things about the Cosmos and about its various “levels” (planets, stars, etc.), without any apparent reason for knowing. We know because we resonate  with the Cosmos and with its levels, and we resonate because we are like them! We are on the same wavelength, if you like.

Third, as I will show in future blogs, it provides a very effective basis for developing our consciousness. In essence, this involves “unpeeling” successively deeper layers of our inner cosmos. Once they are revealed, they can resonate with their external counterparts, and we experience this resonance as consciousness and knowing.

Fourth, it gives us a new way of understanding what it means to be human, to be natural, to be earthly (i.e. of this planet), and to be Cosmic. I will say much more about this later.

Fifth, perhaps most controversially, the fact of our inner cosmos strongly suggests that we are not alone. It is conventional wisdom to believe that life happened here by chance, and that we human beings evolved out of that chance happening, and only on this one planet. I believe differently. I believe that the existence of our inner cosmos, and the immense holarchy that it reflects, suggest that we human beings are integral parts of the universe and that, as such, we are to be found all over it. That said, our appearance will vary widely, according to local conditions.

Although I could list many more far-reaching implications of our inner cosmos, I will just mention one more today. Since we are microcosms of the Cosmos, it flows that it is a macrocosm of us! This surely means, does it not, that if we want to understand the Universe, we should first understand ourselves. And that if we want to understand ourselves more fully and more deeply, we should study the Universe more fully and more deeply.

In my next blog, I will outline what our inner cosmos looks like, and how it functions.

 

 

being natural, Intelligence, natural, simplicity, Taoist, Uncategorized

FULL OF AWE

I spent my honeymoon in 1970 on the banks of Loch Awe in Scotland. At the time I wondered whether its name had any relationship to “awe”, meaning “wonder, marvel”. It was only recently, when the word “awesome” became ubiquitous, that my mind went back to original meaning of this word.

As you may know, “awesome” is now used in virtually any situation to mean “the best, the greatest”, often when the thing being described is far from the greatest, far from the best. Whereas in Scotland, we might say “that’s not bad”, Americans (and many others) would say “awesome!!!”

Indeed, “awesome” seems to the word of choice in a world of permanent hyperbole. Nothing is ordinary any more!

It may interest you to know that “awesome” and awful” used to mean the opposite of what they mean today. Awful meant “full of awe” – therefore, wonderful, marvellous. Awesome, as the word suggests, meant “some awe” – therefore, not quite so wonderful.

I have no idea when the change occurred, but I can speculate why. I believe it is mainly because we live in a world of topsy-turvy values…where footballers get paid much more than nurses, and where people become overnight celebrities because they say something rude or stupid on Twitter or YouTube.

I had this cultural decline in mind when I organised and chaired a conference in Scotland in 2000 – entitled “Thinking Allowed”. The strapline was “Bring Back Thinking – All is Forgiven”. Of course, this was partly tongue in cheek, but the serious intent was to demonstrate that the quality and range of thinking has deteriorated markedly these last few decades.

A few years later, when I was living in New Mexico, I used to watch a programme called “Thinking Allowed” on Sunday mornings. As its host, Jeffrey Mishlove, pointed out, this was a play on words. He also pointed out that it was difficult to find people who could really think, and whose language reflected this. The fact that he was able to find a few was, of course, awesome!

global change, Intelligence, natural, simplicity

ARE WE HERE BY CHANCE

Today I will apply intelligent simplicity to an important question: are we here by chance? Do we human beings just happen to be here, for no reason, on this particular planet, and nowhere else? In any event, what do we mean by “chance”? When we say that the toss of a coin or the throw of the dice is a matter of chance, what do we really mean?

What we really mean is that we cannot predict the outcome. This is not because the outcome is theoretically unpredictable. It is because we cannot do it in practice, because we do not know all the variables. There are two many of them, and the effect of some of them (for example, the exact force exerted by our thumb, or the influence of the air temperature) are too difficult to know.

This is important because it suggests that there might be no such thing as inherent chance – meaning no reason at all for something to happen. What we have instead is apparent chance – meaning our inability to know exactly why something happens. There is a world of difference between inherent incomprehensibility, on the one hand, and our current inability to understand or explain. The first would be a quality of the universe. The second simply reflects our state of knowledge and consciousness. The problem is that we tend to confuse the two.

Having said this, I believe that nothing happens by chance. We may not be able to explain why it happens, but this is no reason for consigning it to “chance”.

Significantly, if we are not here by chance, but for very good reasons, it is clearly important that we discover what these good reasons are. To express another way, if there are good reasons for our being here, this suggests that there is a purpose – a meaning – for our being here. We have a role to play in the grand scheme of things! How would we go about finding out what our role, our purpose is? For the moment, I think this question is best left hanging in the air!