"The most radical attacks made in the 14th century on
Aristotle's whole system of physics concerned his doctrines about
matter and space, and about motion."1
With regard to occultism, modern science faces the same challenge today. In the most fundamental sense, modern occultism as a whole, as it has been presented in this book, taxes modern science's conceptions of matter, space, and motion. Occultism claims that our minds and emotions are forms of nonphysical matter. It teaches that physical space is not the only space in which our consciousness fundamentally operates, that we operate as well in the nonphysical astral, mental and buddhic spaces. These occult concepts of matter and space give rise to a subtle new concept of motion that will be defined below.
When we look to the history of science, we see that the first truly modern science, the dynamics of Isaac Newton, was the culmination of centuries of effort to unravel the fundamental nature of motion in the physical world. From the time of Aristotle until the time of Newton, Western civilization had struggled to understand why bodies fall to the Earth, why the Heavens move as they do. And men's minds passed through a myriad of superstitions and dogmas until, through the culmination of all the right circumstances, the first steps were taken in the right direction and the mathematical laws of gravity were formulated. Since that time, there has only been a continuous and ever dramatic refinement of these concepts up to today with our conception of the physical world as seen through the modern refinements of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics of Schrödinger and Heisenberg.
I shall now present the culminating discussion in this book concerning the relationship between modern science and modern occultism. I will summarize what has been discussed throughout the book, and lay out tentative conclusions. We will summarize the relevancy of occult concepts towards scientific theories in terms of a synthesis or fusion of science and occultism. There is simply no way I can draw firm and final conclusions at our present state of knowledge. All I can do here is sketch out the rough outlines of the directions in which modern knowledge appears to be moving. In this regard, we will discuss what such a synthesis means in light of the present historical context and the vast and profound changes that are rocking and transforming the modern world.
As I started out above in showing that modern science began when the true laws of physical motion were discovered (or what was a step in the direction of more accurate and encompassing descriptions), I feel that a strong analogy exists with this and our present situation regarding science and occultism. However, we are not struggling anymore to determine the true laws of physical motion. The struggle today in our civilization is the understanding of the laws of our subjectivity. As the concept of physical motion passed through many myths and doctrines before the advent of Newton's laws, we find a similar situation with regard to the science of psychology.
What we take for psychology in our universities and academic circles today is little more than transient mythology. For these "sciences" have discovered nothing general and nothing universal about the subjective constitution of the human being. What we take for valid descriptions of our subjective constitution in these sciences today are little more than ideas which serve only to reveal our culture's underlying, and mostly unspoken metaphysical assumptions, and mostly unconscious moral orientations towards life. We are ignorant today in Western civilization about what we are and what our innate potentiality is, as subjective beings.
One of the main themes I have focused on in the discussions of this second section has been to reveal how little aware we really are of our own subjectivity. I have turned to occult doctrines to illustrate this because occultism provides alternative ways in which to see our subjective behavior, ways that make it abundantly obvious what an incredibly large role our subjectivity plays in our day to day lives. So I have attempted to show that we do not have a clear means, either scientifically or in our everyday language, for defining and understanding the nonphysical facets of our lives (such as thought, emotion and communication) and thus, we are blinded by the very factors we wish to understand.
Throughout the discussions to this point I have tried incessantly to emphasize that occultism is not at all what our culture perceives it to be, and to illustrate with example after example that occultism is the science of our subjective behavior. Though I have discussed many of the dazzling facets of occultism such as the nature of the planes, reincarnation, occult anatomy, the siddhis, and many other marvelous and wonderful facets of the occult teachings, I want to stress that the primary validity of occultism rests in its description of our subjective behaviors. Occultism is a language for understanding in a clear and objective fashion the nature of our minds and our emotions. If we allow these other notions to blind us from this fundamental fact, then we have not understood occultism at all.
And as I have explained what occultism is (however scant this
may have been), I have as well attempted to illustrate that many
of the most important concepts in occultism are identical to
concepts that are, or are becoming increasingly important in
modern science. Thus we have seen how occult concepts of our
nonphysical behavior are identical to the quantum field
descriptions of the behavior of physical matter. We have seen how
the Hermetic Axiom of the occultist is identical in important
respects to the fractal notion of self-similarity and serves to
expand the scope of fractal geometry into the spheres of our
subjective experience. We have seen how ideas from chaos theory
are relevant to occult mechanisms of thought-form behavior.
Before pursuing further the similarities between science and
occultism, I would first like to summarize their differences.
We may address the issue of the differences between scientific and occult knowledge from a couple of different angles. The first is the type of logical method used in each branch of knowledge, and the second are the underlying metaphysical assumptions inherent in each world-view. We will see that these two factors are intimately related to one another.
In terms of the underlying logic, modern science utilizes both inductive and deductive methods in the construction of knowledge, in whatever capacity each is appropriate to any specific discipline. Einstein's relativity, for example, begins by stating fundamental principles, and from these deduces specific predictions. In general, deduction is used to a higher degree in physics than in other branches of science. On the other hand, modern molecular biology, which is the study of the behavior of DNA, is a mosaic of different insights gleaned from experimental data, which one cannot deduce from simple starting principles. So molecular biology is primarily inductive. Similar descriptions could be drawn for all of the branches in modern science and, in general, the trend is that, the less mathematical the science, the more inductive, or dependent upon particular bits of experimental data, the science is in the construction of paradigms.
Inductive and deductive methods of logic stem from the ancient Greek tradition and approach to knowledge. This is a highly formal, and it is assumed, rigorous, fashion in which to think. In other words, the Greek tradition is, in the context of modern science in particular, and modern academic learning in general, the correct way to use the rational mind. This is one of the fundamental metaphysical assumptions of modern learning.
However, the methods of occult logic are not fundamentally based in the ancient Greek tradition, though occultism is by no means antithetical to this approach. In general, one could say that occult logic, at least in its traditional forms, is based on both a priori and analogical reasoning. Occultism starts with a general description of basic principles that are assumed correct beforehand. This is what is meant by the term a priori. Then, analogical correspondences are drawn, on the basis of these principles, between phenomena. This is the logical essence of the Hermetic Axiom (as above, so below); that one can draw analogies between different phenomena as a means to explain or rationalize these phenomena. Such an approach is similar to deduction in that one starts with assumed general principles. Yet occultists do not deduce particulars from first principles like a philosopher or scientist would. The occultist, by analogical reasoning, will describe how different types of phenomena are related by being different expressions of these basic principles.
Thus, the occultist relies on the use of reasoning by analogy to a much greater extent than scientists do. Scientists will occasionally reason by analogy as, for example, when the nuclear shell model was developed by analogy to the electronic shell model of the atom. But such thinking is considered informal in the scientific context. To the occultist, such analogical thinking is fundamental, and again, this is made obvious by the central position occupied by the Hermetic Axiom in occult knowledge. However, the occultist, unlike the modern academician, makes no claim that this is the only correct way to use the rational mind.
Ultimately, these differences in the logical methods used by scientists and occultists stem from the basic metaphysical assumption of what is and what is not considered valid empirical knowledge. Basically, the modern scientist, of whatever ilk, is locked into a definition of "empirical" that includes only that which can be perceived by the senses of the physical body, or by "machines" (be these physical machines, or abstract logical procedures such as statistical methods, etc.) that extend these senses. Anything outside of this scope is suspect.
The occultist, on the other hand, has a much broader definition of what is empirical. Clairvoyant observations are as much an accepted part of the occultist's empirical repertoire as are the machines of scientist. By utilizing clairvoyance, and any other siddhi for that matter, as empirical data, the occultist has a vastly greater scope of experimental data to draw upon than does the modern scientist. Thus, where the scientist must employ bulky procedures, the occultist has direct clairvoyant access. The prime example of this situation is the contrast between Leadbeater's Occult Chemistry and modern physics, though other examples are just as outstanding, such as the differences between occult psychology and academic psychology.
One of the great problems with the use of either induction or deduction in modern learning is: where does one start? In the case of deduction, the crucial question is: what shall we take to be first principles? In the case of induction, the question is: what piece of data shall we attempt to acquire? In either case, there is an outright element of arbitrariness involved, in that what is taken as one's starting point is basically arbitrary.
However, a decent understanding of occultism will display that its methods do not possess this element of arbitrariness. The Hermetic Axiom is central in occultism because, within the scope of empirical occult methods (i.e. the siddhis), one can see again and again the operation of the Hermetic principle. This is the fundamental empirical insight of occultism. Thus, it is by empirical necessity that the Hermetic axiom is the central organizing concept of occult knowledge.
Scientists, caged and limited by the senses of the physical body, have only a partial and incomplete picture, and are thus forced to rely on indirect, arbitrary or trial-and-error methods in the production of knowledge. Furthermore, because scientists have set the ground rules in such a way that they are caged by the senses, the mind and rationality associated with this approach will also be limited to the objects of the senses. This is a limited and wasteful use of the mind. The occult approach is a fuller and more meaningful use of the mind and its capabilities.
Yet, such arguments as presented above, when seen in the greater scope, are merely academic arguments. Ultimately, the issue of the differences between science and occultism comes back to one of current social perceptions of what science is or what occultism is. It is obvious that both are empirical and phenomenological approaches to the acquisition of knowledge. Yet this is not recognized because of the respective histories and resulting social perceptions of scientific and occult knowledge. Each is perceived to be different, not only by laymen but as well by the practitioners of each, and so each is treated differently. But in reality, and as one of the fundamental themes of this book, science and occultism are actually expressions of the same empirically and experientially based metaphysical approach to life, only applied at different levels of experience (see again Van der Leeuw's quote, page 28).
Yet, I think the most profound metaphysical difference between science and occultism rests in the fact that occultism is participatory, but science, on the whole, is alienatory. This is the ultimate moral implication of the different metaphysics of science and occultism. Occultism does not abstract its subject matter out of our everyday lives. Its primary orientation is to understand the processes of Nature within the context of our everyday lives. As we saw with both Seth and Dane Rudhyar, their main intentions were not simply to intellectually or objectively (whatever that may mean) describe Nature, but to describe Nature in such a way as to make our lives fuller, richer and more meaningful. Though I did not emphasize it, this was also Besant and Leadbeater's main intention throughout their writings. Over and again, ubiquitous through all of occultism is the intention of bettering and empowering the individual human being.
Occultists utilize many notions of an explicitly moral nature such as "path" or "dharma" or "karma". In the occult, the quality of the knowledge is explicitly dependent on the quality of the character of the practitioner. The occult is as much an ethical and moral approach to life as it is an intellectual system of thought. But we must be careful here by the use of the word "moral", because what we take for proper and moral behavior in our society is not necessarily what an occultist would consider to be correct moral behavior. The ethics of occultism are not arbitrary as are the majority of our social norms of moral behavior, but are a definite corollary to the mechanisms of our subjectivity as understood in occultism. Ethics and morality are psychological hygiene to the occultist. We will speak more about occult concepts of morality in the next chapter.
As well, the ethical approach of occultism is an ecological approach in which the individual is seen as a functioning unit participating in the greater whole. The individual person--you and I--are seen in occultism as both macrocosm and microcosm; we are a reflection of the whole universe, but as well contain within us the whole universe. Stated thus the notion sounds like a paradox, but it is not. This realization is the application of the Hermetic Axiom to oneself; "As Above So Below". We contain within us worlds as the world contains us within it; Nature is self-similar at all of its myriad of levels. Again, I want to emphasize, this is an ecological and participatory approach to the study of Nature, and the moral implication of such an approach is made explicit in the occult.
Now this situation stands in stark contrast to the intellectual and moral approach of modern science. Though modern science grew out of a counter-cultural response to the Christian Church, it adopted the unconscious metaphysical orientation of Christianity; that of perceiving an organizing force that somehow or another exists outside of our actual everyday lives. The Christian faith sees their God as being outside of his creation, and science as well adopted, probably subconsciously, this subtle metaphysical orientation. Though science rejected God, it replaced the idea of God with mathematical formulae and abstract principles that, somehow or another, transcend or are outside of our everyday lives.
With regard to both Christianity and modern science, this attitude goes back, at least to some extent, to the Greek philosophers, with their distinction of "being or becoming". The Greeks were caught up in the dualism of the unchanging Heavens and the ever-changing Earth, and the entire metaphysical foundation of the legitimate Western intellectual approach grew up on this dichotomy. Yet we know today that the Heavens of outer space are as dynamic and ever changing as the Earth. Thus the dichotomy that led the Greeks to posit the dualism of "being or becoming" has no basis whatsoever in our experience today. It is high time science outgrew its clinging to outdated metaphysical distinctions.
Yet this is not simply an intellectual matter, for such an orientation has implicit moral and ethical connotations. Such an attitude has lead the Western mind to see itself as being outside of Nature, transcending it somehow or another, whether through an immortal soul created by God, or because of timeless abstract principles behind the ever-changing panorama of our actual experience. Thus the Western mind has seen Nature as something to use, a mere tool for the follies of Western civilization. As science grew in power and social importance, this attitude has had more and more profound effects on our actual experience. For science came to be the creator of technology, as it is today, and these technologies were and are created with little regard for Nature or Humankind, because, implicitly, these are mere ephemeralities. The result is that today we live in a world populated with arsenals of weapons that could destroy the human species, a world polluted by technologies that were not designed to operate either in harmony with the greater cycles of the Earth or in harmony with the total constitution of the human being, a world overpopulated because of arbitrary morals about the value of life. Most importantly, the implicit moral orientation of science belittles the individual human being, through the intimidation of unpronounceable words, or abstract concepts of Nature that are completely removed from our everyday experience, or through the description of so-called "scientific principles" that serve only to mechanize and dehumanize our lives.
Both science and occultism are moral attitudes, but they are fundamentally different attitudes. Occultism is morally explicit and participatory, science is alienating and morally implicit. I will discuss these issues in detail in section three as we attempt to understand the relation between science and occultism in the greater context of our actual experience, and how such moral orientations have very real and direct consequences on the health of our individual and collective psychology, as well as our physical bodies. The main point of raising these issues here is that this distinction is the fundamental crux upon which a synthesis of science and occultism is dependent. For a synthesis of science and occultism means that modern science must adopt the ecological and participatory orientation of the occultist.
We can apply our scientific tools and knowledge to occult concepts, as we have seen in our section surveying scientists who are utilizing occult concepts. But if we do not recognize the fundamental metaphysical differences between the scientific and occult world-views, and we begin to synthesize occultism with science within the context of science's implicit (and fundamentally unhealthy) metaphysics, then we will create a monster of the most unbelievable proportions. For, if I have not yet said it explicitly, let me say it now; occult claims are real. I know for a fact from my own limited experiences that the nonphysical planes exist, that we can travel these planes through our consciousness, and that the siddhis themselves are real, and that the quantum and ecological view of our subjectivity is indeed the correct view of the mechanisms underlying our thought and emotions. To paraphrase Robert Monroe; it does not matter what we believe, for we will all be very surprised to find ourselves alive and conscious after we die. It is inevitable that science will come to recognize these things. It already is beginning to on its own terms. For example, the subatomic particles and "shadow matter"2 of the physicist are the etheric matter of the occultist. The hypnogogic images of the psychologist is the clairvoyance of the occultist (albeit more often than not, a clairvoyance of the most trivial kind). There are more examples as well, but I do not want to dwell on them here. The point is that, if these phenomena become defined by science within its present metaphysical orientation, ignoring the fact that occultism already fully understands these phenomena in an ecological and participatory context, then we will have opened ourselves up to dangers that make nuclear bombs look like a child's toy. Not only that, but science will remain in the intellectually embarrassing position of always being "scooped" by occultism (as was the case with Occult Chemistry and occult psychology), and will forever be re-inventing the wheel.
Thus, in this work, I am explicitly utilizing occult terms,
and I am explicitly discussing the underlying metaphysics of both
science and occultism as I attempt to synthesize science and
occultism, to avoid the terrible catastrophe of rediscovering and
redefining occult phenomena in purely scientific terms. As I
discuss what a potential synthesis of modern science and modern
occultism may look like, we must keep in mind the ethical and
moral implications involved in such an endeavor. Ultimately, the
ethical implication of synthesizing science and occultism is to
bring a healthy sense of spirituality back into modern science.
I call this chapter "A New Concept Of Motion" because, fundamentally, that is what we are dealing with here when we scientifically interpret occultism. It is not the motion of material bodies in the physical world though, it is the motion of nonphysical objects in the nonphysical worlds. We have already discussed this issue at great length in "The Psychological Value Of Quantum Theory". What we are dealing with here is a fusion of physics and occultism to create a new approach to psychology, and the general study of subjective events. As I envision this, concepts from quantum mechanics, fractal geometry and chaos theory will be coupled with notions from occultism to produce what we might call a "quantum psychology". Or more precisely, and in line with previous discussions of the ecological nature of occult approaches, we might call our new approach to psychology an "ecological quantum psychology". But as I shall argue below, the dichotomy between psychological and sociological processes is wrong, and it is more accurate to speak of psychosociological processes. Thus, our new approach to subjective events should be called "ecological quantum psychosociology".
This "ecological quantum psychosociology" however is only one facet of what we are dealing with when we talk about synthesizing scientific and occult concepts. The other important facet of a synthesis of science and occultism entails a modification of present day physics to accommodate the occult concepts of the nonphysical planes, and to take into account the Hermetic Axiom. Accounting for the occult concept of the planes leads to a development of the physics of subjective events. The relevance of the Hermetic Axiom in a scientific context was discussed briefly in the discussions about Dane Rudhyar and Theodor Landscheidt. Here we come to grips with the notions of time and irreversibility in physics and the relevance of occult concepts in this regard. What we find happening here is that a fusion of occultism with modern physics will produce a historical, nonphysical physics (strange terms to have side by side!).
Thus, as I see it, a synthesis of science with occultism has
two main branches; the development of an "ecological quantum
psychosociology" and the refinement of present day physics
into a "nonphysical physics". But supplementary to this
is also the need for an understanding of the geometry of the
nonphysical planes. I will now address each of these three
topics.
In scientific terms, the occult world-view of Nature is an infinitely nested fractal pattern of wave (or vibrational) interactions. In simpler terms, an occultist conceptualizes Nature as an infinite song or symphony (thus, my interpretation of quantum theory in chapter 3, section 3.2). All observable forms, either physical or nonphysical, are wave patterns, be these human or otherwise. The primary organizing principle found in this infinity of nested waves is that of self-similarity, that is, "as above, so below."
In terms of the "Grand Unified Field Theory", this occult view of Nature is the "Unified Field" that physicists claim to seek. It is not a matter of "discovering" it, for we live within it already. The issue is characterizing it in mathematical terms. The problem with modern physics and its concept of the "Grand Unified Field Theory" is that this is conceptualized in purely physical terms, in terms of the unification of the four known physical forces: electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force and gravity (which no one is quite sure if it is a "force" or not).
Now this infinitely nested wave field of which I am speaking is mostly nonphysical, containing as it does the vast realms of emotion and mind, and all objective and subjective things. It includes the Theosophical septenary arrangement of planes, if we care to superimpose such a template over this field. It as well contains the realms of which Seth speaks; the "Realm Of Possibilities", his various plateaus of time and space, etc.. This is David Bohm's "Implicate Order" as well. As I try to make abundantly clear in section three, this is Infinity and we may call it whatever we wish.
Now, just because this field is mostly nonphysical does not mean that it cannot be understood in mathematical terms. As I already discussed, it is likely that mathematical systems are reflections of the inherent structure of the human mind. The human mind in turn is a product of Nature. Nature is self-similar at all of its levels, including the human mind. Thus, mathematics can as well reflect the self-similar structure of this infinitely nested field of interacting waves patterns that is Nature. Notice we are utilizing the participatory approach of the occultist.
In this conception of Nature we run into the need to superimpose some sort of template over the nebulous mishmash of infinitely nested levels of waves ("spirit" impregnating "matter" with significance). We have already seen one example of this with Rudhyar's reformulation of astrology. His concept of the zodiac, and the totality of astrological symbolism is, in his own words, a "frame of reference" to superimpose over an a priori formless Nature, to put meaning and organization where there seemingly was none.
Rudhyar's system has particular merit, some of which I already discussed. First and foremost is that Rudhyar's conception of the astrological symbolism as an "algebra of life" is inherently a historical system since it is based on the measured, relative relationship of real stars and real planets who move through time and history along with us. Thus the abstract self-similarity postulated by Rudhyar between relative positions of stars and planets and human events is historical in the most real sense, and we supersede the "being or becoming" problem in modern physics regarding the irreversibility of time. As well, his system of the self-similar correspondences found in his abstract "Laws of Cyclicness" can be applied to any level or plane of existence; physical, emotion, mental, and any other level. As a matter of fact, this is the sheer beauty of Rudhyar's system, it encompasses all of the levels of our being in a unified and inclusive framework. Rudhyar's approach is holistic, and each definable element is seen to be both a whole in itself, as well as a component in an even greater whole of which it is a part. Rudhyar's view is eminently a participatory view which focuses on relationship amongst entities as much as on the structure and function of individual entities. And finally, since Rudhyar conceives of the astrological symbolism to embody the laws of cyclic change, and our field is one of waves and vibrations to begin with, we end up describing the vibrations of the real world with a symbol system designed to describe cycles and waves.
At this point I would like to go into some more detail about Rudhyar's concept of astrology because it is relevant in the present context of determining what is the proper template to superimpose over the infinitely nested field of waves (or "Grand Unified Field") that we are discussing.
In astrology, there is a distinction between "sidereal" and "tropical" astrology. Each of these is literally a different astrological frame of reference.
In sidereal astrology, the zodiac of twelve constellations used is the one that exists literally in the skies according to astronomical measurements. In sidereal astrology, the exact and precise astronomical location of the stars in, say, the constellation of Aries (or any of the twelve constellations), is used for astrological calculations. Thus, the frame of reference used in sidereal astrology is the exact position in outer space of the stars which make up a given constellation. What this means astrologically is that each of the twelve constellations that make up the zodiac will have more or less than 30 degrees because these constellations do not each take up a 30 degree slice of the sky relative to the ecliptic of the Earth (the ecliptic is the plane of the Earth's orbit about the sun).
However, in tropical astrology, we are dealing with a completely different frame of reference. In tropical astrology the positions of the zodiac of constellations used for astrological calculations are completely imaginary. As a matter of fact, there are no star positions used at all in the tropical frame of reference, only the astronomical positions of the planets is used. In tropical astrology, the zodiac frame of reference is an imaginary circle lying along the plane of the ecliptic of the Earth. The zodiac is defined as a circle of 12 equal divisions of 30 degrees each, beginning at 0 degrees Aries at the spring equinox.
Thus, sidereal astrology is grounded in the real world and historical positions of the stars, but tropical astrology is not. But tropical astrology is the one most used by astrologers today. So what does this mean in terms of the self-similarity of Nature principle that I am presenting here?
Well, first off, at this point I must qualify this discussion by stating that most astrologers work from a completely different conception of astrology than did Rudhyar. Most astrology today is literally grounded in ideas that were taught during the Middle Ages. Rudhyar's concepts are totally unrelated to popular astrology. His position on the technical details of astrological calculations are so complex and subtle that it has never caught on to any great extent in the astrological world3. Thus, my discussion here is an elaboration on Rudhyar's concepts and has little bearing on popular astrology. Furthermore, I am claiming that Rudhyar's ideas are relevant in the context of modern physics. Again, this is a clear cut example between modern and rationalized occultism (Rudhyar's view) and traditional occultism (the popular view).
In terms of the difference between the sidereal and tropical astrological frames of reference, this issue of having a historical frame of reference is not as relevant to the practice of astrology as it is in the context of irreversibility in physics. Even Rudhyar himself favors the tropical system, because, in astrology, it is the symbolic meaning of the symbolism that is important. The issue I am discussing here of finding an abstract frame of reference that captures the self-similarity of Nature in a historical and irreversible fashion is addressed by Rudhyar in his discussions of the sidereal system. He dismisses this approach to astrology arguing first, that a true sidereal approach should contain all of the stars in the galaxy and not simply an arbitrary set defined by the zodiac of constellations. And second, he feels that such a galactic approach to human events is meaningless given the present stage of evolution of the human race. That is, since the vast majority of Humankind is still driven by primarily terrestrial based biopsychic urges and functions, a galactic-based astrological interpretation of human events would be meaningless because such galactic forces play a mostly unconscious role at our present stage of cultural development. Thus, the simple seasonal pattern symbolized in the tropical system is more than adequate to astrologically describe the events commonly found in human experience.
However, from the point of view of modern physics, Rudhyar's arguments are not pertinent. If it is indeed the contemporary physicist's desire to find the abstract pattern of relationship that ties together all of Nature (i.e. A "Grand Unified Field Theory"), then the galactic and sidereal system of astrology is highly relevant. Rudhyar is correct in criticizing current practice in sidereal astrology. The stars that make up the constellations of the ancients have no relation between them except that some ancient person thousands of years ago saw a picture of a scorpion or lion in them. Thus, a true sidereal astrology should contain the relative locations of all of the stars in the galaxy. In turn, this would produce an extremely immense and subtle pattern of relationship which could stand for a template frame of reference that reflects the pattern of self-similarity found up and down the infinity of nested levels of resolution that is Nature. Obviously such a program would be totally dependent on the use of computers. And the real problem with this system from the physicist's viewpoint would be interpreting it in a meaningful fashion. Thus, this approach is not only over the head of modern astrology, but it is also beyond the intellectual means of modern physics. Yet I predict that eventually, somehow, this type of a galactic mapping of the stars will serve a function similar to what I am defining here. Actually, the subtle and unbelievably complex patterns embodied in the relative positions and motions of all of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy might just map (that is directly correspond to) the complexity of processes occurring in the human brain. Thus, Rudhyar's "galactic astrology" may one day be the meeting ground between physics and neurology.
Let us leave Rudhyar now and turn to another alternative by which we may superimpose a template over the self-similar levels, or planes of Nature, one that is highly relevant in the context of contemporary physics. This next alternative again derives from the work of Stephen Phillips, who we will recall was the author that vindicated Besant and Leadbeater's Occult Chemistry in terms of modern particle physics. Dr. Phillips is, like myself and others, involved with understanding the relevance of the occult notion of the planes in the context of modern physics. In a personal communication, Dr. Phillips explained to me how he has devised a mathematical theory of the septenary arrangement of the planes as taught by Theosophy. What Dr. Phillips has done here is utilize the 26-dimensional bosonic string theory, again, based on the observations in Occult Chemistry. Unfortunately I have no reference available for this work (as of 1993), but Dr. Phillips is presently writing this information up in his second book which will detail his more recent theories. However, the details of this 26-d bosonic string theory are well worked out4. Almost unbelievably, this model, coupled with other models of modern physics--notably the 6-dimensional hypertorus model of Superstring theory--is highly consistent with the observations in Occult Chemistry.
Dr. Phillips utilizes this 26-dimensional bosonic model of
space-time that unifies the forces known to modern physics,
including gravity, in conjunction with string theory models.
Then, what he has done is to associate the various mathematical
dimensions of this model with the seven planes as described in
Theosophy. In his own words:
"Each plane turns out to be a 7-dimensional space, but
four dimensions of each plane are shared by the next higher,
interpenetrating plane. The four "etheric sub-planes"
spoken of in theosophy are simply the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th
dimensional aspects of (physical) matter...The astral plane,
which overlaps the four etheric subplanes, extends from the 4th
to the 10th dimensions, the mental plane from the 7th to the
13th, and so on, 7 dimensions per plane, until we reach the
last--the adi plane--which extends from the 19th to the 25th
dimension of 26-D space-time.5" (parenthesis mine).
And time, in this model is the 26th dimension. I cannot even begin to stress how amazing this concept is. Dr. Phillips has literally provided a mathematical interpretation of the septenary arrangement of the planes as described by Theosophists utilizing a unified model of space-time that is completely meaningful and well-known in the context of modern physics. This is an absolute first in modern history. Dr. Phillips' model accounts for the three-dimensional appearance of space in the physical world, and how these dimensions are related to the space dimensions of the nonphysical planes, as well as providing a scientific explanation of the details of Occult Chemistry, above and beyond what was discussed in section 6.2.4.
The other 22 space dimensions in Dr. Phillips' model are called "compactified" dimensions by physicists. This means that each point in 3-D space has hidden and curled up inside of it 22 different (and mutually perpendicular) possible directions in which to move. These directions are hidden unless they are "decompactified", which means these dimensions become unwound or exposed. Normally these hidden dimensions cannot be decompactified and that is why the world looks and stays three dimensional to us. One of the interesting implications of this model is that the siddhis somehow decompactify space and allow the clairvoyant to perceive into directions unavailable to most of us. A corollary to this idea is that somehow dreaming would be another psychological process related to the decompactification of space-time. Like the perturbation force he has postulated to explain the micro-psi observations of exotic two atoms states, Dr. Phillips is again presenting ideas that suggest actual mechanisms that may be involved in the use of siddhis.
As in the case of the composite quark (or sub-quark) theory he has developed to explain Occult Chemistry, his mathematical model stands among many competing models and is not verified as physical fact. Also, this model does not address the issues of time, history and irreversibility, as we might expect a "Grand Unified Field Theory" to do. However, none of the "unified field theories" in modern physics address these issues, and this is one of the great inconsistencies of modern physics. But the important contribution of Dr. Phillips' model at this point is to show once again that occult descriptions of Nature are not only consistent with those of modern science, but can be described by the same mathematical tools of modern science. That is, occult and scientific descriptions of Nature are identical. Again, I must stress to the reader that I have provided only the simplest and most cursory discussion of Dr. Phillips' work. This material is highly technical and its understanding requires much knowledge of contemporary nuclear and particle physics, and these issues are simply far beyond the technical scope of this book.
At this point I have discussed two different approaches to defining the nonphysical planes of the occultist in terms of modern physics. Dane Rudhyar's approach is relevant in the context of the current debate about time and irreversibility in physical theory. Dr. Phillips' model is relevant in terms of modern particle physics and the search for the Grand Unified Field Theory. Both of these discussions have been greatly oversimplified. However, it has been my intention to illustrate that modern physics and occult physics today converge on fundamental issues. In all likelihood, this situation will only become more pronounced over time as more scientists begin to discover the profound wealth of occult concepts.
Now I would like to turn our attention to the new concept of
motion that I feel will eventually surface from a synthesis of
science and occultism.
As I said, modern science grew from an accurate conception of physical motion. This understanding of motion was grounded in an appropriate understanding of the geometry of the space in which this motion occurs. All the great scientific advances, from Newton to Einstein to Schrödinger, occurred because of an accurate understanding of the geometry needed to model the problem under study. Thus, I have made every effort throughout this work to attempt to elucidate the geometry behind our subjective experience. I believe that the hybrid scientific occultism that I am presenting here will grow out of an accurate conception of the motion of nonphysical objects. Thus, we need to develop an understanding of the nonphysical geometry of the space(s) within which nonphysical motion occurs.
Thus far we have touched upon three fundamental geometrical
insights in regard to the geometry of our subjectivity. These
are:
1. The ego, or point of intersection between physical and
nonphysical realms, involves a Möbius type geometry (described
in chapter 10).
2. Astral and mental objects behave like quantum particles
(chapter 11).
3. Perceptions in altered states of consciousness have a large
fractal component to them (chapters 12 and 13).
Each of these three observations embodies distinct geometrical implications. Let us now attempt a general discussion of these geometrical properties, and see if we can find a fashion in which they are all related (utilizing the vast generalizing power of mathematical thinking). Fortunately for all involved, there are no proofs given here. The following discussion will be qualitative, and is meant to outline potential mathematical directions that may be useful in describing the mathematical properties of the nonphysical worlds.
To some extent we have already touched on this topic in "The Psychological Value Of Quantum Theory" when we said that thought-forms (or subjectively speaking, our thoughts), as representative nonphysical objects, behave in a manner analogous to quantum particles. What this means in terms of their motion is that thought-forms "quantum jump". They blink on in our mind, just as a quantum particle will blink on in the quantum vacuum. And thought-forms serve as virtual quanta, holding us together in our relationships with other people. I will go into all of this in the next discussion about "ecological quantum psychosociology". For now I simply want to focus on the concept of the motion of nonphysical objects.
The question is: How do nonphysical objects move and what does this imply about the structure of the space in which they move? We have only three precedents before us in terms of physics. First is Newton's conception of motion. In this concept we imagine baseballs flying through the air, or us walking across the room. Here we are discussing continuous motion through continuous space. In this conception an object moves from point a to point b by passing through every point in some trajectory (or path) that connects points a and b. The second concept of motion we have is Einstein's concept of motion. This concept is more subtle than Newton's, in that now, objects move not through space over a period of time, but through space-time. I don't want to get into the subtleties of light-cones here. The point I want to make is that Einstein's concept of motion is like Newton's in that we are dealing with spaces of continuous trajectories. Something at point a in space-time moves to point b in space-time via a continuous path between the two points.
Our third concept of motion is that of a "quantum jump" as utilized in quantum mechanics. Here we have no parallel to Newton or Einstein's notion of continuous motion, instead we are dealing with discreet motion, that is, harmonic transitions. When an object makes a quantum jump (or quantum transition), that means that an object is at point a, then suddenly disappears and reappears at point b, without passing through any of the points in between (in a manner analogous to how the notes of a melody move one to the next in a discreet fashion). Actually, this is inaccurate from a technical point of view. There is no concept of "points in space" when we discuss quantum transitions. There are "states" (energy states). A quantum particle quantizes from state a to state b in a discontinuous fashion without ever being in any states intermediate to states a and b.
Quantum theories do not operate in one space. In Schrödinger's formulation of quantum mechanics, one uses a mathematical space called "Hilbert Space". Hilbert Space is an infinity of mutually orthogonal (or more simply, perpendicular) continuous spaces. Each discreet state is described by a continuous space, but the transition from state to state is described by a transition from one continuous space to a different and (linearly) independent space.
Of these three choices of motion and spaces, we have already seen in chapter 11 that nonphysical objects behave in a quantum fashion. Yet we need to refine this notion to more accurately capture the behavior of nonphysical objects. For one thing, if we read closely Besant and Leadbeater's descriptions of thought-forms or elementals, they will speak of them as "hovering" "floating" or "swarming" within an individual's nonphysical bodies. And such images imply a continuous type of motion as we might find in Newton or Einstein's concepts. So how can we reconcile the fact that nonphysical objects seem to display both quantum and continuous motion?
First, what we must realize is that, fundamentally,
clairvoyants like Besant and Leadbeater are describing subjective
realities. We can get baffled by their descriptions of
thought-forms or whatever, and we then make the mistake of being
blinded by the process we want to identify. If we take too
literally their description, then try to built a science from it,
we are deluding ourselves by holding a thought in our mind--in
this case the thought of how we visualize Besant and Leadbeater's
description of a thought-form. We are too busy looking at the
thought itself to realize how the thought moves in our mind. What
we must first and foremost do is see how our own thoughts move
through our mind. We must realize that we are dealing with
subjective events. In this regard, Leadbeater's warning is apt:
"The vast majority of those who look at the pictures (of
thought-forms) are absolutely limited to the consciousness of
three dimensions, and furthermore, have not the slightest
conception of that inner world to which thought-forms belong,
with all its splendid light and color."6
So let us attempt to see how our thoughts move within our own subjectivity. Let's try a simple exercise here to illustrate this motion. What I ask here is that you watch in your own mind where each image comes from as we go through this "train of thought": Think of your mother. Look at her face. What is the expression? What color are her eyes? What happens as you hold each of these images in your mind?
I do not know if this exercise was effective in illustrating the motion of the reader's thoughts, but what it was meant to illustrate is that thoughts seem to sink one into the next, or grow or bud out of each other. Each thought seems to be contained in the previous thought. That is to say, thoughts are nested. And they are not nested in any particular geometric pattern either. Perhaps when you imagined your mother, you thought of her one day while the family was on a picnic; you saw her in a green dress sitting under a tree, then you thought about the picnic and what you did that day. And all this might have occurred in your mind before you even read the next sentence of this text, because it is obvious that the mind moves from association to association very quickly.
And it is this motion that I want to describe here; how the
mind moves from association to association. Again I have to
present the following quote by Alan Watts:
"Closedeyed fantasies in this world (of one's
hallucinations) seems sometimes to be revelations of the secret
workings of the brain, of the associative and patterning
processes, the ordering systems which carry out all our sensing
and thinking. ...they are for the most part ever more complex
variations on a theme ferns sprouting ferns sprouting ferns in
multidimensional spaces, vast kaleidoscopic domes of stained
glass or mosaic, or patterns like the models of highly intricate
molecules, systems of colored balls, each one of which turns out
to be a multitude of smaller balls, forever and ever Is this
perhaps, an inner view of the organizing process which, when our
eyes are open, makes sense of the world even at points where it
appears to be supremely messy?7" (parenthesis mine)
In my experience, this is probably the most vivid description I have ever seen of the motion of thoughts. Ernest Wood discusses how our thoughts are like a Chinese box in which there is a box within a box within a box. And in our mind we have a thought within a thought within a thought.
But the situation is obviously not so simple, because any thought can trail off into potentially many thoughts. So instead of thinking of my mother at a picnic, I imagine her home cooking dinner, or I imagine her tucking me into bed as a child, or I imagine her scolding me, or sitting and watching TV. So the initial thought of "mother" can give rise to almost any other thought I could have. The point is that any thought can trail off into any other thought, and it is our intention that directs the process. Without the intentional direction of our train of thought (which is a function of the ego as I discussed in chapter 10) it seems that any given thought contains within it all of our other thoughts.
Now, though we discussed the three types of motion and associated spaces found in physics-Newton's, Einstein's and the notion of a quantum transition-it seems that we are dealing with an altogether different type of motion when we look at how our minds move. Indeed we are, but it is not a motion without precedence in the mathematical and scientific world. Yet the concept I am about to introduce that defines the motion of our minds is itself not thought of as a form of motion, though I am going to treat it as such. This process is that found when one "zooms in" on a fractal curve with a computer. I claim that this process of zooming in on the details of a fractal curve mimics very important, and as yet unidentified, processes of motion in the mind.
When one watches a film of a computer scanning in on progressively finer and finer details of a fractal curve, then one is seeing a slow motion representation of how our mind moves from concept to concept. That is to say, this fractal zooming process is fundamental in the patterning and associative processes of the mind. This is how the mind moves. This is how nonphysical objects move. This fractal zooming is the main qualitative feature of nonphysical motion, and as such serves as the basis for all types of subjective motion.
Let me discuss now at some length what this process of fractal zooming entails. Then I will discuss in what respects this mathematical process does and does not share features with the movement of nonphysical objects, and in doing so I will be presenting a new concept of motion.
Mathematically, when we construct a computer image of a fractal (if the reader is familiar, it will help to imagine the Mandelbrot set as our fractal), what we are doing is generating the fractal as it is defined at a particular level of resolution. At this level of resolution we will only see finite detail, both because of the computers limitations, but as well because of our eye's ability to resolve the image. In Plate 13, I have given an illustration of a very discontinuous fractal zoom, that, even though it does not display the seeming continuity of a film zoom, still illustrates many of the properties of the fractal zoom process.
Now we can arbitrarily pick any region of the fractal along its boundary and magnify this region and generate a new image. It is the same fractal, but we will see a different visual representation of it, we will see what it looks like at a different level of resolution. Now what we want to do is pick our regions in such a way that the next one is only slightly smaller than the previous region. As we generate these regions of slowly decreasing area, each time we have a complete image, we want to transfer the complete image to one frame of motion picture film. What we will then have is a piece of film in which each progressive frame contains the image of our progressively smaller regions of the fractal. When we then watch this film it will look as if we are going deeper and deeper into the detail of the fractal. This film is a fractal zoom. And this entire process of making the film is what is what is needed to understand how one constructs a fractal zoom.
When we watch this film, what happens is that there is a definite sense of motion involved, a sense of going deeper and deeper into the details of the fractal boundary. As well, this zooming process seems to take advantage of the organic sense of depth and illusion of perspective found in a fractal curve (see Plates 3, 5, and 6 which illustrate this quality). We can zoom in on a curly cue (for lack of a better term) and see curly cues shrink off to infinity. What is most amazing about these fractal zooms, referring to Plate 13, is that we will go deeper and deeper through one explosively beautiful panorama after another and then, seemingly out of nowhere, we are back where we started. Or it least it appears we are back where we started. For we will eventually come upon an image that looks identical to where we started our zoom, but now we are perhaps a million-fold inside of our original image. This again is self-similarity, and we find the same pattern repeating at different levels of resolution. In the case of the Mandelbrot set, as seen in the zoom of Plate 13, there are infinitely many copies of the set contained within itself.
All of these properties associated with the fractal zoom process can be found within the movement of our minds.
One thought will nest inside of another thought, branching off into any conceivable direction or association. And we pass through a myriad details only to return again to the same thought, perhaps in the same train of thought, maybe in a later one. But like the Mandelbrot set, it is not the same thought as it was before, it is a new thought in a new context. It seems to be the same thought but is, in reality, at another level of resolution within our mind.
However, the Mandelbrot set has a definite "top" level of resolution to it (defined by the region on the imaginary plane of 4 units in the x direction and 2 units in the y direction, centered at the origin). The mind has no "top" level of resolution to it. The mind is like Nature, it is simply an infinite nesting of self-similar levels with no inherent geometrical organization. Any organization we see to the mind is a template our mind has superimposed over itself. The implication of this fact will be discussed in the next section.
As we saw with the example about our mother above, there are potentially many directions of association available in which to move away from a thought. This same feature is found in the fractal zoom process. At any level of resolution of a fractal, there are many "directions" we can zoom-in on, yet any zoom entails the inspection of finer and finer details around one point. Thus, alternate paths of thought are similar to the alternate zooms possible on a fractal curve. This notion also gives rise to a new concept of "probable realities", but I will let the reader figure this one out.
Trying to explain the similarity of the mind's motion to the fractal zooming process is a very difficult concept to discuss in words. Yet it is crucial for a true and accurate science of the mind to pinpoint and identify this motion, for this nonphysical motion that is represented by the process of fractal zooming is not only relevant to understanding the motion of our minds, but also is important for understanding how we move in our dreams.
We have all had the experience in our dreams of thinking we were about to enter one place but, upon walking through the door, find that we were somewhere else that we did not expect to be. Normally we dismiss this as nonsense because physically we do not experience this. But when one comes to recognize how their physical mind moves, they will also realize that this same motion occurs in dreams, as in the example I just gave. Even though dream motion at times seems to involve discontinuous "quantum jumps", I will now argue that this motion is but a special case of the more general discontinuous motion found in the process of fractal zooming.
The crucial similarity between the fractal zooming process and the mind's motion is that they both are inherently quantized. The continuous motion of the fractal zooming process itself is an illusion, what is really going on is a discreet process. In the case of the fractal zoom, the illusion of continuity is created by the fact that the difference in areas of each successive frame of the zoom is small. Thus, when we run a film of these frames, the zooming motion appears continuous.
In this regard we have a theoretical explanation of the lock-mold cycle I described previously (in chapter 13). Our consciousness is fundamentally made up of discreet transitions, but the discreet transitions are either so close to each other, or move faster than our focus of attention, so that we perceive continuity where there really is none. Again, this process is identical to the way motion is created in cinematography; the technologies we create are a reflection of ourselves, the creators. I believe this is why clairvoyant reports will have descriptions of discreet and continuous phenomena simultaneously; the quantum phenomena are fundamental, but at any given level of resolution (plane) there will be phenomena that appear continuous because these will move faster than the focus of attention. Thus, the motion of nonphysical objects is quantized but not in the same sense that objects in quantum theory are quantized, but in the sense that the fractal zoom is quantized.
Now as I am presenting these notions about the motion of nonphysical objects, I am aware that these notions are still in need of greater refinement. They serve, at this level of formulation, to make sense of phenomena that are not presently understood in science, such as thinking or dreaming, in a qualitative, though mathematically suggestive way. That these notions are related to fractals points to the necessary mathematical directions. At this time however, it is simply my intent to describe these processes, to point them out as I see them. Again, it is my hope that this is not the last word on these subjects.
Thus, the "new concept of motion" that results from a scientific interpretation of occult phenomena is the fractal zoom nature of the movement of nonphysical phenomena such as our minds, or our dreams. We are dealing here with quantized transitions that bleed into each other in a fashion identical to that found in zooming in on the finer and finer details of a fractal. However, though the abstract relationship (i.e. patterning and associative processes) which organizes the mind is identical to that found in the fractal zoom process, the concept of "level of resolution" as used in fractal geometry takes on a different meaning when applied to the mind. We are not dealing with areas on a plane as we are with fractal zooms when we look at the levels of resolution of the mind. The levels of resolution of the mind are patterns of intent. In some fashion, these patterns of intent are related to each other in a fractal-like fashion, but it is unclear to me how this could be expressed mathematically. Perhaps it does not need to, or cannot be expressed mathematically. Perhaps this "new concept of motion" of nonphysical objects will only serve as a metaphor as to the fundamental and inherent motion of the mind and other nonphysical objects.
In the connection of nonphysical geometry, the second point I would like to address is how clairvoyant or occult perceptions, or more generally, any altered state of consciousness fits in with this idea of the "fractal zoom" nature of the mind's motion.
Now, as has already been mentioned, occult perceptions are not the only perceptions relevant in this regard. To use Mavromatis' classification scheme, the following "altered" states of consciousness are also relevant to this discussion: dreams, hypnogogia, meditation, the mystical experience, schizophrenia, creativity, hypnosis, sensory depravation, electrical stimulation, hallucinogenic drug experiences, eidetic imagery and epilepsy.
In each of these altered states of consciousness, we find overwhelming similarities to the visual imagery (or so-called "hallucinations") perceived. Plate 4 is modern psychology's attempt to find the "universal hallucinatory image", but I have already argued that modern psychology has focused on the wrong levels of geometric similarity. That is, the "lattice tunnel" of Plate 4 is merely an illusion created by the true fractal nature of these imageries. What I will now do is isolate out the common geometric factors in the imagery perceived in these altered states of consciousness. That is, we are now going to define, as rough and crude and as qualitative as this attempt may be, the general geometry of nonphysical spaces.
Let us begin this attempt by considering the following quotes
by Leadbeater concerning the nature of what is perceived on the
nonphysical planes. In regard to astral plane vision, Leadbeater
says the following:
"(To look at an opaque cube) astrally you would see all
the sides at once, and all the right way up, as though the whole
cube had been flattened out before you...You would be looking at
it from another direction, at right angles to all the directions
we know."8 (parenthesis mine).
Leadbeater then goes into a description of 4-dimensional
space, and claims that astral plane vision is the perception of
the fourth dimension of space. Elsewhere he says the same:
"Looked at on the astral plane, for example, the sides
of a glass cube would all appear equal, as they really are, while
on the physical plane we see the further side in
perspective--that is, it appears smaller than the nearer side,
which is a mere illusion. It is this characteristic of astral
vision which has led some writers to describe it as sight in the
fourth dimension--a suggestive and expressive phrase."9
Leadbeater advocated the idea that astral sight was a perception into a fourth dimension of space. However, he never pursued this idea to any great extent, which is no surprise considering the tremendous variety of topics with which he dealt.
Let us here start with the relatively simple-minded supposition that astral sight is the seeing into a literal fourth space dimension. In this regard, we can get an idea of how this might appear to an observer if we look at Plate 2. Here is an Escher engraving that is aptly, for our purposes here, titled "Another World". Here Escher is giving us some idea of what it may be like to have astral vision, as in this print we see the duck-man creature from three simultaneous perspectives: from below, from behind and in front. So in some sense or another, we seem to be viewing this scene from a position that is at right angles to the normal space of our 3-D consciousness.
In this regard, let us now look at the Tantric mandala in Plate 7. I have argued that this Tantric art very likely reflects imagery of altered states of consciousness. What we see here, as we progress outward from the center of the mandala, are what appear to be many separate three dimensional spaces. There is the central three dimensional space of the mandala and then six separate three dimensional spaces that are rotated relative to the central space. In the cube surrounding the central circles, there are four 3-D spaces perpendicular to the central space. Along the periphery of the image are many buddhas floating in what appear to be their own separate 3-D spaces. Again, we could interpret this image as an attempt to display on a two dimensional medium, perceptions that are inherently four dimensional.
Yet, we still must account for the "lattice tunnel" effect of the imagery of altered states of consciousness, and thus, the fractal-like nature of this space. There is no good geometrical reason why a nonfractal four dimensional object would display this illusory "lattice tunnel" effect. What we must do is reconcile the four dimensional interpretation of this imagery with the fractal geometric interpretation of this imagery. Can we perhaps say that this imagery occurs in a four dimensional fractal space?
If we look to the other Tantric images provided in Plates 8, 9 and 10, we can begin to discern an answer to this question. In Plates 8 and 9, we can see the floors of the Tantric temple stack in a fractal-like fashion. In Plate 10, the statue's head also stacks in a fractal-like fashion. If we take each face of the statue, or each floor of the temples to represent a single three dimensional space, then it is obvious that these separate three dimensional spaces are stacked in a fractal-like fashion relative to one another. That is, each of the separate 3-D spaces is related to the others by being self-similar replicas of each other. Thus, these images make it obvious that, to a large extent, perceptions in altered states of consciousness, are perceptions of a four dimensional fractal space. And thus, definite levels of nonphysical space geometry are indeed four dimensional fractal spaces. Again, the key to this interpretation is to realize that separate spaces stack upon each other in a fractal fashion, or that separate 3-D spaces are self-similar to each other.
In a normal four dimensional space, separate three dimensional spaces are stacked upon each other in a fashion equivalent to stacking up an infinity of two dimensional planes to form a three dimensional solid. What this means is that all of the axes of each separate three dimensional space are identical and coincide with each other (in technical jargon, the axes of a normal three space are "scale-invariant"). In a fractal four dimensional space however, the axes of each three dimensional space are somehow scaled and rotated relative to one another in such a fashion as to produce the effects observed in Plates 8, 9, and 10. These would be the "multi-dimensional spaces" that Alan Watts describes in the quote on pages 102 and 102. An interpretation of this imagery simply as being a perception into some fourth space dimension is not correct by itself. This idea has to be amended with the notion of the fractal-like stacking of separate three dimensional spaces to form a four dimensional fractal space, and then we will have a more accurate conception of the space in which the images of altered states of consciousness appear.
Now, having some concept of the geometry of nonphysical worlds, let us turn to the issue of the Möbius nature of the ego (see chapter 10). To repeat, the reason we have applied the concept of Möbius geometry to the ego is because this geometry provides a means by which a point, surface or space may simultaneously point in two seemingly opposite directions. Again, the fundamental point about this concept is that we are discussing the geometry of intersection between physical and nonphysical, inner and outer, subjective and objective.
Now why would the intersection of our three dimensional physical space with (as we have argued above) the four dimensional fractal space(s) of the nonphysical worlds produce a Möbius-like geometry? Frankly I do not know the answer to this. Yet it is apparent that this is the case. I feel that this clue is fundamental and that any mathematical model of the nature of the planes must account for this fact, for it is an empirically observed reality. The connection points between our physical three dimensional space and the vast four dimensional fractal spaces of our subjectivity are not simple points, they are Möbius points. At my present stage of investigation, it is unclear to me why we observe this Möbius connection between the physical and nonphysical, but the functional significance of such a geometrical arrangement is obvious. As I said, such a geometry allows an object to exist in both spheres simultaneously.
The point of this discussion is, again, we can most definitely interpret occult descriptions of nonphysical reality in mathematical and scientific terms. That we can say there is a definite geometry to the imagery perceived in altered states of consciousness is of the most profound importance. Theoretically, one could scientifically come to understand the relative relationships amongst the planes of Nature, and this would lead to a scientific cosmology that dwarfs anything being presently entertained by the scientific community. Such a cosmology would contain not only the objective physical world, but also the subjective nonphysical worlds.
I spoke briefly about the implications of occult notions for
concepts such as space travel and time travel (in section 6.2.3).
The type of mathematical cosmology I am describing here could
lead to much more than simply a bunch of cute ideas in these
regards. If we could develop a precise understanding of the
mathematical relationships between the outer objective physical
world and the inner subjective nonphysical worlds, then there is
simply no telling what Destiny would hold for the human race. It
is, however, simply my hope at this point to stimulate thinking
along the lines I have laid out here.
Aside from the very dramatic possibilities inherent in the above discussion, what we have done above is lay a "hard science" foundation for a theory of psychological and sociological processes. We have described, as rough and as sketchy as it may be at this point, the physics and geometry of nonphysical objects. What we may then do is build upon such a nonphysical physics and attempt to describe the subjective processes involved in our experience as human beings.
I have already undertaken many of these steps in the preceding chapters. Scientific and occult concepts were utilized in tandem to define our subjective experiences of sensation, emotion, and thought as being responses to, or senses for, the vibrations of nonphysical matter (chapter 9). We discussed the gestalt/ecological nature of our personalities in terms of the Möbius geometry of our nonphysical psyche's intersection with the physical world (chapter 10). This geometry gives rise to the ego, to our sense of self, of "I-ness". This "I-ness" is in turn like a magnet or a whirlpool, drawing round it nonphysical objects such as thoughts (thought-forms) and emotions (elementals), these in turn forming our personalities. This view allows us to see our personalities as an ecosystem of nonphysical objects: thoughts and habits, memories, opinions, attitudes, tendencies and emotional orientations. Next it was explained how these nonphysical objects behave like quanta of "psychomagnetic radiation" (in chapter 11), binding our minds into gestalt configurations, and binding us into the greater social systems of which we are a part. These ideas taken together form the backbone to an "ecological quantum psychosociology". Let us elaborate on this model now and present it in a unified fashion.
The root of this whole approach stems from not only Besant and Leadbeater's conception of thought-forms, but as well from the ideas of a British ethologist named Richard Dawkins. Dawkinsis well known for his book The Selfish Gene in which he refines concepts of Darwinian evolutionary theory. The essential gist of this book is that the organisms that form biological life are "survival machines" created by the genes (DNA) to ensure the survival of the genes. I have to a minor extent touched on the differences between scientific and occult concepts of evolution elsewhere. In light of what was said above about the differences between the underlying metaphysics of science and occultism, this is another example. The title of the book speaks for itself. I do not agree with Dawkins that our lives are merely "survival machines" for the DNA nested deep within our cells. From an occult viewpoint (mainly Seth's viewpoint), our physical organism (i.e. physical body), our DNA, and our consciousness (ego/personality) are, as Seth says, involved in a great cooperative venture in which each serves to enhance the value fulfillment of the others. Since I am now to draw on Dawkins work to some extent, I feel that it is important to make clear that I do not accept his implicit metaphysical orientation.
Dawkins puts forth in this book a very unique idea concerning
the mechanisms of cultural evolution and cultural behavior.
First, he has defined DNA to be the fundamental
"replicator"--or unit of evolutionary transmission--in
biological evolution. He then draws analogy with this concept and
defines (or postulates) an equivalent type of replicator present
in cultural evolution. These he calls "memes". To quote
somewhat extensively from his book:
"Most of what is unusual about man can be summed up in one word: `culture'...Cultural transmission is analogous to genetic transmission in that, although basically conservative, it can give rise to a form of evolution...Language seems to `evolve' by non-genetic means, and at a rate which is orders of magnitude faster than genetic evolution.
Cultural transmission is not unique to man...There are other examples of cultural evolution in birds and monkeys, but these are just interesting oddities10. It is our own species that really shows what cultural evolution can do. Language is only one example out of many. Fashions in dress and diet, ceremonies and customs, art and architecture, engineering and technology, all evolve in historical time in a way that looks like highly sped up genetic evolution, but really has nothing to do with genetic evolution...
The analogy between cultural and genetic evolution has been frequently pointed out...for an understanding of the evolution of modern man, we must begin by throwing out the gene as the sole basis of our ideas of evolution...
What, after all, is so special about genes? The answer is that they are replicators. The laws of physics are supposed to be true all over the accessible universe. Are there any principles of biology which are likely to have universal validity?... Obviously I do not know but, if I had to bet, I would put my money on one fundamental principle. This is the law that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. The gene, the DNA molecule, happens to be the replicating entity which prevails on our own planet...
I think a new kind of replicator has emerged recently on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but it is already achieving evolutionary change at a rate which leaves the old gene panting far behind.
The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun which conveys the ideas of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. `Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like `gene'. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme...
Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes
fashions, ways of making pots or buildings arches. Just as genes
propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to
body via sperm and eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the
meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in
the broad sense, can be called imitation"11.
Dawkins then goes on to explain that the survival of memes is not necessarily related to the survival of DNA. That is, memic evolution is a separate form of evolution built upon biological evolution, but independent of it as well. He points out how memes can exist that are antithetical to the survival of the genes, such as memes for suicidal behavior, or the various memes for celibacy.
There are many important features of this notion that are relevant in the context of an ecological quantum psychosociology. First, Dawkins has postulated a mechanism of psychological and social behavior that is species independent. The idea of memic evolution applies to any species that shows the ability to learn behaviors and transmit them in a cultural fashion. This is a first and necessary step for any true theoretical psychosociology. Humans are not the only organisms with brains and nervous systems, and a general psychosociology must be broad enough to account for the behavior of any sentient creature.
Secondly, the actual mechanism he suggests in memic evolution is identical in both the process of learning and the process of cultural transmission. He calls this process imitation. But we have already refined this mechanism in other discussions by speaking of the process of communication and social interaction in terms of resonance. Broadly speaking, these processes are identical; imitation is psychological resonance. Thus we have a mechanism of psychological behavior that is species independent. But more importantly, this mechanism is amiable to mathematical analysis. Imitation as a form of resonance implies waves, or wave-like behavior (or more precisely, phase-coupled behavior), thus this notion fits in with our nonphysical physics which sees all interaction as wave interaction or resonance.
Now what had utterly amazed me is that, a couple years after having read Dawkins' notion of memes and seeing its inherent utility as a fundamental concept in any worthwhile approach to a science of psychosociology, I came across the book Thought-forms by Besant and Leadbeater. We have discussed the nature of thought-forms at some length, but what is important to realize at this point is that the thought-forms of Besant and Leadbeater are exactly the memes of Richard Dawkins. Both of these concepts are identical.
Again, I can't help but point out, we see another example of occultists beating scientists to the punch-line. Thought-forms was originally published in 1901. Dawkins' ideas were not presented until 1976, and there is no other idea in modern science equivalent to Dawkins' idea of memes.
Now the idea of thought-forms is actually more substantial from a scientific point of view than the idea of memes. Dawkins only speaks nebulously of memes "jumping from brain to brain", and that somehow, memes must be the long sought after "memory traces" of the neurophysiologist. Again, the scientific view is only seen in physical terms. Besant and Leadbeater's notion of thought-forms is a nonphysical concept, infinitely rich in its descriptive capabilities. The concept of thought-forms is already inherently described as a phenomenon of resonance, both in the creation of a thought-form (on the mental plane) and its effects and transmission. And as I already discussed (chapter 11), the idea of thought-forms leaves itself open to mathematical analysis by means of quantum mechanical concepts, chaos theory and the theories of nonlinear phase-coupling.
Again, I want to emphasize that the approach to psychosociology I am presenting here is grounded in concepts used to describe purely physical phenomena. As such it illustrates that nonphysical phenomena are tractable to the same types of mathematical analysis as physical phenomena (or, as we should be used to by this point: "As above, so below").
From the standpoint of an operational theory of psychosociology, there is also another important fact built into both the idea of memes and the ideas of thought-forms. This is their ecological nature. What I mean by this is the idea I expressed in the discussion "What Is The Ego?" and this is that thought-forms or memes form a nonphysical community or ecosystem of entities in human minds. Thought-forms/memes are symbionts in the human mind . Note here that I have said "mind" and not "brain". Memes/thought-forms are inherently nonphysical mental creatures, though they leave definite physical effects in the brain as we shall discuss below.
Now I would like to turn back to the mechanism of resonance by which thought-forms/memes operate and discuss this in greater detail. This mechanism explains many things, but to see this we must first get our terms straight. For example, in psychology the concept of "learning" is investigated, but the concept itself is nebulously defined. Maybe it is thought of in terms of problem solving tasks such as teaching a rat to run a maze, or teaching a pigeon to press a particular button for food, or teaching a child a mathematical theory. Yet, in reality, learning, in these terms, is only a special case of a more general process, and that is the process of cultural transmission. That we can teach a rat something that a human understands, means that to some degree, cultural transmission is an interspecies process. This has vast implications in terms of any attempts we may make to communicate with other species, such as dolphins.
Not only do we see a confusion of terminology in present day psychology, but we see the same problem in present day sociology. Many social phenomena are discussed in the same nebulous fashion as seen above. For example, sociologists speak of "primary group conditioning" as a process in itself. In reality this concept means that we learn from those in our immediate environment; family, friends, co-workers, etc.. But this process is only a special case of learning, which we already said is a special case of cultural transmission. Thus, if we try too hard to stick to accepted terminology, we will ultimately only confuse ourselves.
The point here is that psychological and sociological processes are so interrelated that it is misleading, and probably wrong, to discuss them as if they are separate phenomena. Learning, memory formation and personality development are intimately related to the social system in which these processes occur. We simply cannot get a clear comprehension of these processes if we abstract them from one another. Thus I prefer to speak simply of nonphysical processes instead of making the distinction between psychological and sociological processes. Furthermore, as I already pointed out, all types of psychological and sociological processes are grounded in the same mechanism; this being (psychomagnetic) resonance. Thus, I prefer to speak of the various nested levels of resolution at which nonphysical resonance occurs. Then, for example, a personality is seen as a nonphysical community or ecosystem nested within a greater nonphysical community or ecosystem, this being a culture.
With our terminology straight, we can now discuss the process of psychomagnetic resonance and how it leads to the formation of various nested levels of resolution of nonphysical ecosystems. When these processes of resonance are discussed in terms of quantum mechanical processes this is what I mean by an "ecological quantum psychosociology". As a matter of fact, in this model, as we have seen already (chapter 11), we describe psychological and sociological processes analogously to how physicists and chemists describe the structure of matter.
Now chemists and physicists do not normally think of molecular structure as "ecological", but in a very real sense it is. A protein molecule for example is composed of perhaps 10,0000 atoms (mainly carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and sulfur). I do not think it is unfair to modern chemistry to view such a massive structure (from a subatomic point of view) as a habitat for electrons and protons. However, the word "habitat" is normally reserved for biological species. The implicit difference being that species evolve via natural selection but atoms do not. Because biological species have left obvious signs of evolution (i.e. fossils and genetic records) we think of biology as a historical science. But it is widely accepted today that atomic evolution occurs inside of stars and man-made accelerators. Modern cosmology itself is in large part the struggle to understand the evolution of the atoms of Nature. But because atomic evolution occurs at a completely different scale of space and time, we do not think of atoms as evolving via natural selection.
Yet this view again rests in the "being or becoming" dichotomy that runs through modern science. The concepts of real-life time and irreversibility play a meager role in our present mathematical descriptions of atoms (quantum mechanics) and space and time (relativity). But on the other hand, biologists are forced to think of the evolution of species in an irreversible, and hence, ecological sense. It seems to me that as our understanding of atomic phenomena at the empirical level grows, physicists will eventually have to adopt an ecological view of the structure of physical matter.
But in our attempt to understand the quantum nature of social interactions, we do not need to be held back by such academic concerns. First, at this stage we are only presenting a rough and crude qualitative picture of the quantum nature of nonphysical realities. And second, modern physics is more than capable of correcting its present inadequacies. Let us then review our rough picture of the quantum interactions involved in human behavior.
Thought-forms can be thought of as quanta which carry the essential force of nonphysical objects. In the chapter "The Psychological Value Of Quantum Physics" I called this the "social force", but in the chapter "Biological Perceptions" I called it the "psychomagnetic force". I will use this latter term because it is more descriptive, though both can be interchanged with no semantic difficulties. Whatever we call it, this force is the basis of the resonant behaviors of nonphysical objects. Thought-forms are the carriers of this psychomagnetic force. Subjectively speaking, the psychomagnetic force is meaning, it is the cognitive and emotional value we give to our thoughts and perceptions. And like the quanta of subatomic matter, this psychomagnetic force is of a two-fold nature; repulsion or attraction. Depending on the qualitative and particular nature of any given thought-forms, they will essentially either attract or repel each other.
Now when we speak of a force in modern physics, there is always a force-field associated with the force. Thus the (Newtonian) gravitational force is associated with the gravity field, or the electromagnetic force is associated with the electromagnetic field, and so on for the two other forces. The question arises; what is the field associated with the psychomagnetic force?
Now the answer to this question is simple in theory but slightly more involved with regard to our actual subjective behavior. The psychomagnetic force as has been discussed to this point is the sum of two forces, and thus represents two force-fields. These force-fields are the astral and mental planes. I have discussed the fact that in our normal day to day behavior we quite subconsciously intertwine our emotional and mental behavior to such a great extent that we are not capable of dissecting our subjective responses into distinct emotional or mental components. Thus our subjectivity is primarily in the form of attitudes, these being the intimate associations of thoughts with emotions.
But as I discussed with regard to contexts (in "The Gestalt Nature Of The Mind"), attitudes resolve themselves into, on one hand, an attractive or repulsive emotional component, and on the other hand, a set of facts that have some particular and unique meaning (or cognitive value and content) within the emotional context. Both of these components taken together are what I have been calling the "psychomagnetic force". But in reality we are dealing with two forces; an emotional or astral force, and a mental force. The emotional force, though expressed through the spectrum of human emotions, always resolves itself into the simple dichotomy of emotional attraction or emotional repulsion. The mental force is more complex in that, on one hand, there are levels of mental meaning (or cognitive substance) that are dichotomous or dualistic, but there are also levels of meaning in which there is no dichotomy, only a holism or gestalt of meaning.
This two-fold nature of the mental force is recognized in occultism in the doctrine of the "higher" and "lower" mental planes. Normally it is taught that the "lower" mental plane consists of thoughts that are bound in the desires of physical existence (such as sexual desire, hunger, prestige, possessions etc.), and that the higher mental plane houses those thoughts not ground in the desires of physical existence (meditation, the desire for enlightenment, etc.). This view is not incorrect, but as usually stated it is misleading. It is true that the mental plane has a two-fold nature, and we may speak of the "lower" and "higher" mental planes if we wish, but these regions of the mental plane do not follow the separation popularly given to them. The two-fold division of the mental plane rests in the fact that some levels of thought (i.e. the thought-forms of the "lower" mental plane) exist only in relation to the opposite thought, but other levels of thought (the thought-forms of the "higher" mental plane) exist without having an opposite. The dichotomous levels of thought can be taken as the "lower" mental plane, the nondichotomous levels of thought can be taken as the "higher" mental plane.
Examples of lower mental plane thought-forms can only be defined in pairs of opposites. Examples of such thoughts are; up/down, left/right, left/took, positive/negative, good/bad, lower/higher, girl/boy, man/woman, young/old, night/day, hot/cold, existence/nonexistence,, explicit/implicit, loose/tight, yin/yang, clear/muddled, and so on. As well as such dichotomous thoughts, other common thoughts which are grounded in our physical experience are of the "lower" mental plane variety. These are thoughts such as: building, paper, shelf, car, TV, school, church, food, space, time, matter, or even verbs that reflect physical experience such as run, eat, sweat, desire, die, born, cry, sleep, meditate, etc.
Examples of higher mental plane concepts are much more tenuous and practically impossible to express in words. Most expressions of mystical insight, or cosmic consciousness, are expressions of higher mental plane thought-forms. These thoughts have to do with the unity or oneness of things and cannot be represented easily with one word as "lower" mental plane thought-forms can.
In the occult this distinction rests on the fact that "lower" mental plane thought-forms are polarized towards the physical and astral planes, whereas "higher" mental plane thought-forms are polarized by the buddhic plane.
The point is that, when we are dealing with the mental component of the psychomagnetic force, it can potentially reflect either "higher" or "lower" mental plane field forces. Since most of our day to day subjective content is a reflection of our physical experience, we will find that in the vast majority of cases the mental component reflects the "lower" mental plane forces. I should point out that this is in no way derogatory, as the occult terminology might, and does at times, imply. We live in physical existence and it is only expected that the majority of our thought should be a product of "lower" mental plane forces. However, the problem comes in when we completely leave out the "higher" mental plane forces (which are of an imminently spiritual or holistic character). This again is an example of the explicit moral character of occultism, which will be discussed further in section three.
Thus, the force-field of the psychomagnetic force is in actuality the sum of the astral and (usually "lower") mental plane force-fields. Again, in terms of our subjective experience, this is the substantial and meaningful content of our emotions and thoughts, or, these taken together are expressed as our attitudes.
Now, there is a notion becoming increasingly popular about the nonlocality of mind, or of a "universal" mind that is not localized around particular physical bodies. For example, ideas endorsed by Ken Wilber12, and Larry Dossey13 are along these lines, and often such concepts are presented in the context of nonlocality concepts from quantum theory derived from the EPR paradox. I've addressed this issue of quantum nonlocality elsewhere (at the beginning of chapter 6), but the point to make in the present discussion is that these authors are, whether they know it or not, describing the mental plane of the occultists. The mental plane is the sphere or world of ideation and cognition. But these authors make the mistake of thinking that the mental plane is universal, or absolute in some sense, and they do not seem to realize the literal reality of this plane as it is described from the occult view. The mental plane transcends the physical world and is much vaster than the physical in many respects, but compared to the infinite field of nested waves discussed in the previous section (which is absolute), the mental plane is but an infinitesimal sliver. Furthermore, these authors do not realize the nonphysical nature of the mental plane and how it is related to the other nonphysical planes. Nor do these authors speak of thoughts (thought-forms or memes) in terms of being objects of mental plane matter.
Once again, we are forced to admit that equivalent occult notions are superior than the notions coming from the present science/mysticism debate (as defined in chapter 2) as represented by the above authors. The occult, again, provides a detailed picture of the mental plane, and the precise means by which mental phenomena are expressed in the physical world. The mental plane is indeed the general field or milieu of cognition and ideation, and as such is "nonlocalized". But, in physical terms, each individual personality is a perturbation of this field, a vortex in this field that is definitely localized around a particular physical body (or astral body in the case of a "dead" person). Our minds are our mental vehicles and they are definitely localized to the nonphysical "space" (or aura) in the vicinity of the physical body.
However, communication in the mental plane is not primarily a function of space nor time but of intent. Thus, mental phenomena are connected together not in terms of space or time, but in terms of intent. It would appear that mind is nonlocal in a quantum sense, but in actuality, mind operates under "communication" principles that do not allow us to draw an effective analogy with physical nonlocality, unless we want to assume that quantum particles also operate in terms of intent (which is probably not a bad idea). Again, turning to nonlocality and the EPR related issues is misleading in the present context.
Therefore, let us continue as we have, interpreting occult notions in terms of quantum processes. In this regard we are saying that the mental world can be thought of as a force field, and as such, it is the mental component of the psychomagnetic force. The mental and emotional components taken together make up the substantive content of our subjective experience, which is literally the psychomagnetic force. We package our subjectivity into "bubbles" of psychomagnetic force or meaning, and these are thought-forms. These thought-forms then serve as the means by which psychological and sociological events occur. Literally, these thought-forms are quanta, or discreet resonance patterns of the astral and mental fields. The fields serve as the medium or carriers of the thought-forms, the thought-forms serve as the means of communication within the psychomagnetic field.
We shoot, or emit, thought-forms out of the ecosystem that is our personality. The thought-forms that make up our personality cling together or hang together much like atoms do within molecules. They are fundamentally "in tune" with each other, and each serves to constructively reinforce the other. They are "bonded" together. Or in physics jargon, if the thought-forms bond together (within our auras) they are at a lower energy, hence more stable, than if they did not bond together. This is the essence of the ecological nature of systems of thought-forms. A community of thought-forms (be these an individual personality or an entire culture) will not accept a new thought-form into the community unless the new thought-form reinforces the group, exactly as an ecosystem of animals will maintain its stability in the face of changing circumstances. Or alternatively, a new thought-form can come in and overwhelm and modify the existing group, just as the introduction of a new organism into an ecosystem can potentially modify the whole food chain of a given community of organisms. Our minds operate identically, in terms of thought-forms, as groups of organisms do in a given habitat. Each of our personalities (and each society and culture) is a unique psychological habitat of thought-forms and emotional resonances, with its own internal integrity, and means of maintaining homeostasis.
Now, when two personalities come in contact, we have two ecosystems of thought-forms interacting. In this sense we can think of the personalities as "auras" or virtual clouds, each emitting into the surrounding nonphysical environment virtual quanta which are thought-forms, each of these carrying some value of psychomagnetic force (again, see Figure 6). No physical communication need occur, these processes operate spontaneously on nonphysical levels. Simply bringing two personalities (or auras) in contact will result in a field interaction between them.
This is the only level in which space proximity plays an important role in our psychological behavior. When two auras are in close spacial contact because their physical bodies are as well, this emission and interception of "virtual" thought-forms occurs spontaneously. Potentially, this is a very important effect. For example, this is the nature of riots and mass events involving many personalities in close spacial contact. Depending on the size of the group of people, nonphysical mental resonances can be set up amongst all of the auras leading to mass behaviors that would not occur otherwise. Thus, conceptualizing the mind in terms of "nonlocality" (i.e. as Wilber or Dossey suggest) can be very misleading by missing this very important factor in mass behavior. Once again, the occult notions account for the widest variety of circumstances because of their penetrating conceptual clarity.
On a more personal and individual level, this space effect of aura resonance explains exactly why people give us distinct impressions whether we know them or not. This is because their thought-forms are being intercepted by our aura and we will react to this automatically. In contemporary culture this is often a very "subconscious" process. Most people are not aware of the subtle nonphysical resonances constantly impinging on their personality (or aura).
The greater implication of this process is that the whole concept of "privacy" is a myth in that one is constantly broadcasting their personality into the immediate nonphysical environment (via virtual thought-forms) and intercepting the broadcasts of the personalities who are in close proximity (either in close space proximity to the physical body, or in close "intent proximity" in the mental plane space). The only reason we are not consciously aware of this is because we are often too absorbed in the resonance of our own thought-forms to notice the thought-forms that we intercept from others. Again, there are exceptions to this, when we do get distinct "vibes" from others, or anticipate what a person is going to say before they say it. In this way, we are aware or unaware of the mutual nonphysical interactions with which we are constantly a part.
When the thought-forms emitted by one personality are resonant with the second personality to some degree, then to that degree an attractive communication or social interaction occurs. This resonance may be very weak or it may be very strong. But to whatever degree this resonance occurs, then to that degree a "social bond" is formed. Social interaction or communication is literally the forming of a psychomagnetic bond between two or more auras. If it is a weak resonance, then a transient bond is formed, but if it is a strong resonance, then a correspondingly stronger or more permanent bond is formed. To the extent a social bond forms, then to that extent the participating units are correspondingly more stable. This process is identical to how atoms interact amongst each other except atoms interact via the electromagnetic field..
And contrariwise, to the extent that two (or more) auras or personalities are dissonant with one another, then to that degree a repulsive communication or social interaction will occur. And the extent of this repulsion will determine the resulting mutual instability of the interacting units. What will result is an "anti-bonding" interaction that will force the units away from one another.
I want to make it clear that I am using the terms "attractive" and "repulsive" as a physicist would and not as these terms are used in our day to day language and discourse. Yet the common usage and the physicist's usage shed a mutual light on each other.
What determines the degree of interaction, or psychomagnetic bond formation between two personalities (or auras) is the total shared resonance of the interacting auras. Again, this is an ecological situation. Two auras that are significantly different will only interact to a transient degree, because each aura is seeking to maintain its own integrity. It is possible for one aura to overwhelm the other aura and polarize it in the first aura's "direction". We normally think of this as "intimidation", but this is also the essence of being "glamorized". In either case, the effect is short lived and when the first aura stops exerting its influence, then the second aura will return back to its normal state.
When a very strong resonance is present between two auras (or individual personalities), then this means there is a constant transfer of psychomagnetic force (via thought-forms), and thus, a stable social bond is present. In this case we have a "social molecule" consisting of the two auras. The auras (personalities) are like atoms, and their exchange of psychomagnetic energy (or meaning) binds them into a greater unit.
In quantum physics a process called "renormalization" is described, and this means that, when two atoms (or any two quantum particles) interact, they are different than when each was separate. To be renormalized means that each unit is defined in terms of the greater whole of which it is a part. In modern chemistry this is described in a theory called "molecular orbital theory". What this theory describes is how the resonant structure of an atom changes when it is in the presence of another atom (or group of atoms). Each atom loses its own identity, so to speak, and adapts an identity that reflects the role it is playing within the greater whole of which it is now a part (a notably ecological concept).
An identical process occurs in the formation of social molecules. When two auras (or personalities) interact to form a stable social bond (via the exchange of meaning, which is psychomagnetic force) then these auras become renormalized. The nature of our interpersonal relationships is defined only in the particular terms of any given relationship. We are different people subjectively when we are in any type of relationship than when we are alone. To the degree that this is untrue, then to that degree the relationship is weak and insubstantial.
Social renormalization is the essence behind human communication. When we have effectively communicated with someone else, then we are psychologically different after the communication than we were before it. That is, effectively intercepting another's communication (via thought-forms of course) inherently changes us psychologically, changes the configuration of thought-forms that fill our mind. The degree and intensity of the communication determines the extent to which we change our psychological configuration. Either we know more, or know something different than before the communication occurred. Thus, to say, "Yes, I understand you," is exactly the same thing as saying "Yes, I renormalize with you." This issue of effective human communication was also discussed in chapter 10.
Now, another important factor we must consider at this point in our discussion of our ecological quantum psychosociology is the existence of large-scale thought-forms and their effects on individual personalities.
Up to now we have been using the concept of thought-forms on an individual and personal basis, and this is quite in line with the descriptions given by Besant and Leadbeater. They often speak of thought-forms in terms of those emitted or generated by an individual personality. Also, this is in line with Dawkins' concept of memes "jumping from brain to brain".
But thought-forms, once created, can maintain an independent existence for any given period of time (see chapter 11 for the details of how thought-forms are created and sustained). If we construct a thought-form and put little desire or will (i.e.. psychomagnetic force, or in Theosophical terms; "elemental essence") into it, then it will dissipate soon and simply be gone. On the other hand, if we construct a thought-form and constantly feed it by repeatedly utilizing it or thinking about it, then the thought-form will grow in its power and lifetime and linger with us for an amount of time proportional to the energy we feed it. This is the nature of our habits. Habits are thought-forms that we repeatedly give energy to, making them stronger. And, in this case, they will react upon us in a psychomagnetic fashion (see quote by Annie Besant on page 102), of their own magnetic accord, to get us to keep feeding them. This is why habits are persistent and take definite energy (will power) to break.
When we have the situation in which not just one person is feeding a thought-form constantly and habitually, but many people are feeding this thought-form, then we have a case in which a vast thought-form comes into existence on the astral and mental planes. But even these can be transient, as for example when the world mourned about the explosion of the space shuttle, or the excitement generated in a movie theater by the audience while the movie is playing. These are examples of mass created, large-scale thought-forms, but since they are not habitually meditated on, they eventually disintegrate back into the astral and mental plane matter from whence they were formed.
However, if we have many people over long periods of time--generations or centuries--giving life to a particular thought-form, then what results is a behemoth thought-form of incredible psychomagnetic power. What are some examples of large-scale thought-forms? Any large-scale social institution is simply the physical expression of the vast large-scale thought-form that gave rise to the physical artifacts. Take for example the social institution of the Christian religion. Here we have a behemoth thought-form that has been continuously fed and given power over centuries and centuries. Such a thought-form is actually a vast land-scape (or emotion/mind-scape, if you will) on the astral and mental planes. Likewise, consider the thought-form of "America". This too is a vast thought-form land-scape of unbelievably great power on the inner planes. Thought-forms of this magnitude have profound effects on the physical world, leaving artifacts such as buildings, roads, altered landscapes, and altering the very shape (and perhaps fundamental nature) of the physical world.
These behemoth thought-forms have tremendous polarizing power over an individual personality. That is to say, these types of large-scale thought-forms can totally drown out the pattern of an individual aura and take over the aura to a very large extent. The red, white and blue flag waving and Star Spangled Banner marching band thought-forms of American patriotism can polarize our entire country under the right conditions (such as the recent "war" with Iraq). Or another example is the solemn cathedral and its stained-glass windows and high domed ceilings of the more illustrious catholic churches. These too are physical artifacts reflecting great thought-forms that can polarize individual auras into their meaning and mystique to an extreme extent.
Another set of thought-forms of tremendous polarizing power are those that make up modern science. The need to find legitimacy in the terms and definitions of science is a reflection of the polarizing power of the scientific thought-forms. These are by far the most powerful thought-forms existing on the astral and mental planes today. All of the authors I have discussed in this book: Leadbeater, Seth, Rudhyar, Einstein, Schrödinger, Phillips, and all the rest are subjected to a very great extent to the polarizing power of the scientific thought-forms. I myself am subjected to this power, and this book itself is proof of the control of the scientific thought-forms over my own aura.
As a matter of fact, these types of large-scale thought-forms create the patterns of individual auras. Such thought-forms are obviously the basis for societies, cultures and civilizations. These types of thought-forms far transcend any individual personality. They serve as the overriding psychosociological framework within which individual personalities develop. And like any other form in Nature, these behemoth thought-forms have their nested cycles of existence, the seasons through which they pass, and these seasons correspond to the physical rise and decline of societies, cultures and civilizations.
When Richard Dawkins talks about memes in terms of "tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or buildings arches", he is describing these largescale thought-forms. These are very different than the small-scale thought forms we emit out of our aura. Small-scale thought-forms could easily be imagined as "jumping from brain to brain" (or more precisely, from aura to aura), like an infectious disease. Large-scale thought-forms however, do not jump from brain to brain, or aura to aura, they are too big and too powerful. Large-scale thought-forms mold brains and auras, and mold the lives and experiences of millions and billions of individual personalities up and down the streams of history. If we wanted, we could call these "mega-memes".
What the existence of such large-scale thought-forms does is serve as a type of psychosocial "womb" in which personalities develop. These "mega-memes" are the psychosocial matrix within which we live our lives and from which very few people ever escape. The mystical experience, in large part, is the breaking out of this psychosocial womb or matrix, into a psychological realm of one's own unique identity. As a matter of fact, this is the true meaning of the phrase "to be born again". This breaking out of the psychosocial matrix of one's culture is indeed a rebirth into one's own unique psychosocial configurations. However, since Humanity is still so intimately dependent upon such large-scale social wombs ("mega-memes") due to the present state of cultural evolution, the truly reborn individual often encounters great psychosocial resistance and inertia from other auras that still operate within the definitions and confines of the psychosocial womb. Such ideas will be elaborated from other perspectives in the chapters of section three.
These large-scale thought-forms are indeed an ecological community, highly analogous to the great phyla of the biological world. Far-Eastern, Middle-Eastern and Western civilizations all represent vast conglomerations of large and powerful thought- forms, much like the biological kingdoms of plants, animals, bacteria and fungi represent diverse groupings of species. As each of these biological kingdoms is divided into many different grades or sub-divisions such as phyla, class, order, family, genus, and species, so too are the behemoth thought-forms divided into many different sub-classes. There are vast civilizations extending over large periods of history (such as our own Western civilization). These civilizations consist of different but historically related societies. Each society is in turn made up of any number of cultures. The cultures themselves in turn are made up of sub-cultures. Like life in the biological world, these vast psychosocial divisions within divisions ultimately resolve themselves down to the living individual; a biological creature in the case of a biological community, or an individual thought-form in the case of a civilization. In the human being, these two forms of evolution meet and occur simultaneously.
Now I am not claiming here that a one-to-one correspondence exists between the biological classifications and the nested structures contained in large-scale, behemoth thought-forms. What I am saying is that an identical organizing principle exists between the structure of biological life and the structure of human social systems. Richard Dawkins is completely correct in drawing analogy between cultural and biological evolution. These systems are structured in fundamentally the same way. This structure is the nesting of cycles of organization within cycles of organization. Such a structural organization is in some sense a fractal, was clearly described by Rudhyar, and is the basis for the nonphysical physics and geometry discussed in the previous two sub-sections. As well, this approach further emphasizes the ecological nature of the description of human psychosocial systems that I am describing here.
Now, we have one last topic to discuss in our model of "ecological quantum psychosociology" . This is the issue; what does the community of thought-forms that dwells in our minds have to do with the brain of our physical bodies? That is, what is the nature of the "traces" left in our physical nervous systems by the nonphysical thought-forms that give content to our minds?
Actually, I have already described this process, or at least a certain facet of it, in the chapter "Biological Perceptions". In this chapter, the reason I referred to the little purple creatures (see Plates 11 and 12) as "meme-bacteria" is because they are the physical "trace" left by memes/thought-forms in our brains (or to whatever level of tissue or cellular organization they belong). These creatures form a very definite and structured ecological community at some level of our physical body's organization.
Because of methods I have developed (which I have not described in this book) to understand the structure of these creatures in other people, I have come to realize interesting things about these creatures and how they are related to the structure of an individual's aura (or personality). By some mechanism that is not clear to me (perhaps involving transduction pathways through the chakras and etheric body), these creatures are subjected to the nonphysical psychomagnetic force. This force works in conjunction with the lock-mold cycle (as described in "Biological Perceptions") and causes these creatures to polarize into extremely distinct patterns. If such forces were not present, then the meme-bacteria would be freely moving like a fish or a normal bacteria. However, as I described, they alternate between a free-moving state and a fixed or locked state. The locked states these creatures assume is highly dependent upon the structure of thought-forms in the aura.
What is interesting about this picture of neurological processes is that these creatures do not leave fixed artifacts in the tissue. The way the brain works is like drawing on a blackboard with chalk; when a drawing is no longer needed, it is erased and a new drawing made. The patterns these creatures form inside of our tissue is transient; from instant to instant they shift from one unique pattern to the next. If the patterns they form are highly similar from moment to moment, then this is indicative of habits or strongly polarizing thought-forms. That is, the patterns themselves are mostly a function of nonphysical factors (i.e.. the configuration of thought-forms in one's aura).
Now there are features of the meme-bacteria's behavior that seem to be genetic, that is, dependent on biochemical and physiochemical processes. First, is the number of and size distribution of these creatures; these factors appear to vary from person to person, but seem to be linked together. That is, an individual who seems to have a lot of these creatures also shows a large variation in the sizes of these creatures. People who have quantitatively less of these creatures seem to show a more homogeneous size distribution. The second genetic factor I have observed involves the structure of the green tubes through which the meme-bacteria swim. I have been able to infer that a range of tube types exists, from the very complex to the less complex, in terms of the complexity of patterns made by the tubes. As well, the tubes' lability (or their ability to break apart and reform) seems to be different for different people.
How these genetic characteristics relate to overt psychological behavior seems to be the following. Those who display a greater quantity and size range of the meme bacteria and green tubes tend to be able to operate at finer levels of thought and perception. Or more precisely, such individuals display in their physical waking consciousness finer qualities of perception and discrimination. A second factor about these genetic factors is that they are highly unique for a given individual. They seem to be a psychological "fingerprint" for a person.
In chapter 13, I speculated a great deal on how these meme-bacteria may be related to known concepts in neurophysiology. Those indeed were speculations. The above stated facts are inferences drawn from using indirect methods to infer the structure of the meme-bacteria community within a given individual's tissue. It is simply unclear to me at this point how my observations are related to what is known by genetic and neurophysiological methods. Nonetheless, the meme-bacteria are real and serve, at least in part, as the neurological basis connecting the physical and nonphysical components of our being.
Thus, we have now surveyed all of the important elements in
our ecological quantum psychosociology. These may be summarized
as follows:
1. Individual personalities (auras) are ecological (or
molecular) configurations of thought-forms surrounding the
Möbius ego point. Thus, the gestalt nature of the mind is due to
the ecological organization of the mind's contents. These
thought-forms are literally a symbiotic community in the human
mind, and likely, in the minds of other species as well.
2. The interaction/communication of personalities (auras)
involves the quantum field-like transfer of psychomagnetic
(astral and mental plane) force via thought-forms. Such
transfers, to some degree or another, result in either a stable
social bond or an unstable (anti) social bond. Such transfer is a
function of: 1. proximity in space, and primarily, 2. proximity
of intent.
3. Large-scale thought-forms exert a polarizing effect over
individual personalities (auras) proportional to: 1. the degree
of psychomagnetic force contained in the thought-form, and 2. the
degree of mutual resonance between a personality (aura) and
thought-form.
4. The ability of the ego to break free of the psychosocial
matrix of large-scale thought-forms is, in large part, the
essence of the mystical experience.
5. Large-scale thought-forms form cyclic and nested
organizations analogous to biological systems.
6. The physical brain and nervous system are polarized into transient
patterns by nonphysical factors. The physical body serves the
role as a transduction (energy converting) apparatus between
physical and nonphysical energies.
This entire approach derives from a fusion of scientific and occult concepts. It provides a view of human behavior that is intimately grounded in concepts of the "hard" sciences. Human interaction is seen to occur via quantum interactions in psychomagnetic fields (the astral and mental planes), and the organizations that evolve in these fields have a nested, fractal-like structure identical to the organization of life in the biosphere.
Thus, through the utilization of occult concepts we have described principles of organization common to both the "hard" and "soft" sciences, and have therefore effectively destroyed this artificial distinction. A scientific interpretation of occultism indeed leads to a unified view of Humankind and Nature, one that can effectively explain the complex array of mechanism