[ Home ]

Chapter 7: Alternative Cosmologies

7:1 chapter Summary

Indigenous cultures have always maintained a sacred relationship with nature. Their cosmological perception of reality is panpsychic, meaning that the idea of the sacred is based upon the assumption that mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe.(Panpsychism 2006) As discussed in Chapter Five, the correlation between the Holographic Principle (Wilber 1982) and the preceding cosmology of the Phrygian culture is understood in terms of Panentheism. The fundamental difference between these cosmological views, is that panpsychic corresponds with immanence, the sense that the universe is intelligent at a fundamental level, and that all things material and immaterial, are alive with the Great Spirit.(Knudson and Suzuki 1992) Panentheism on the other hand is subtly different and attributes a devic status, that is, a God/dess identity as a transcendent aspect of the whole that constitutes the object or thing. Ultimately there is little difference between the concept of a Great Spirit that is immanent in all things, and the Christian concept of God. Both are considered in terms of an ultimate intelligence that was, is and will always be. Both identify the totality of this intelligence as one great being. With Panentheist, as was shown in Chapter Five, the identification with a pantheon of Gods has been interpreted in misleading ways. Ultimately there is a necessity to suspend argument concerning the difference between concepts as there is a danger of semantic confusion. This chapter, looks at the extraordinary correlations between the emerging science of wholeness and indigenous cultures.

7:2 SCIENCE FAITH AND THE SEARCH FOR ORDER:

The quest for “Ultimate Truth” as the foundational premise of scientific endeavour itself necessarily influences all educational institutions and demands that there is a certain coherence in the way of seeing or reading reality. Indeed, while tolerance of cultural difference assumes to allow relative mindsets, by virtue of the overarching paradigm, these worldviews are appreciated as curious artefacts that stem from a more superstitious or generally ill-considered perception of reality as is indicative of arguments waged against intelligent design.

The question of different perceptions of reality is itself extremely loaded and will only be resolved through locating complex networks of assumptions that are ultimately ad hoc and require and require significant revision.

The lack of coherence in science today is partly due to lack of communication amongst scientists themselves and a lack of transdisciplinary cross fertilisation. There are other factors that need to be mentioned and some of these include the prohibitions placed upon scientists by governing agencies which restrict the release of information to English speaking nations as is the case with Hartmut Muller who was restricted by Russian authorities in for a decade; the dominance of the English language and time lag concerning translations into English; epistemological blocks to alternative views and a tendency to dogmatically hold onto beliefs; outright scepticism based on emotional projections and little science; general habitual use of ideas that exist within a long chain of linear knowledge constructs; gatekeepers of knowledge that maintain scientific bias and at times are not capable of reviewing complex theories and so on. A more covert reason that needs to be considered is the agenda maintained by institutions that are governed by military bodies. There is much evidence to suggest that particularly in America and since the 1950’s, public academic institutions have had little to do with research that lies aside of the constraints enforced by “Einsteinian” physics.

"Until the end of the 20th century there has been a general tolerance of organized academic interests intent in preserving the exact validity of quantum mechanics, special relativity and general relativity for all conditions existing in the universe via the discrediting of qualified research for their generalization; abuse of academic credibility, and other means….No serious physicist can express doubts on the fact that the research currently conducted by the U.S. Military is dramatically more advanced than that conducted by U.S. academia precisely in view of the removal in military circles of any restriction for the research to be strictly compatible with Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics.”.-- Ruggero Maria Santilli (2004)

In their book “The Conscious Universe: Part And Whole in Modern Physical Theory” (1990) Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau suggest that the central problem in quantum physics is that the classical distinction between observer and observed system does not hold, and this results in the lack of a one-to-one correspondence between every element of the physical theory and the observed physical reality. What was troubling to physicists was the suggestion that we can no longer “see” the pre-existent truths of physical reality through the lenses of physical theory in the classical sense.

“The essential paradox of wave-particle dualism is visualisable phenomena is easily demonstrated. View the particle as a point like something …and the wave as continuous and spread out. The obvious logical problem is how can a particular something localized in space and time, the particle, also be the spread out and continuous something, the wave?” (Kafatos, 1990)

In “The Unidivided Universe An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory” (1993), David Bohm and Basil Hiley describe an interpretation of quantum theory which goes beyond the ‘conventional interpretation’ and provides a radical view of ‘wholeness’,  a notion ‘in which a system formed a totality whose overall behaviour was richer than could be obtained by the sum of its parts.’  Whilst there has been significant experimental observations concerning the fundamental nature of reality, such as nonlocality and wave particle duality Bohm and Hiley state that

“In the ontological theory that we present here, this wholeness is made manifest through the notion of nonlocality, a notion that is seemingly denied by relativity. Yet there is no observational disagreement with experiment. Nevertheless nonlocality does not fit comfortably within a space-time structure that is taken as a priori given and described by a differential manifold. Thus…we present some radically new ideas which take us beyond the present paradigm.”

In an interview in Omni in 1987 Bohm commented that “Consciousness is unfolded in each individual” and meaning “is the bridge between consciousness and matter.” Other assertions in the same interview, like “meaning is being”, “all moments are one”, and  “now is eternity” would be familiar to anyone who has studied eastern metaphysics. (Kafatos,1990)

David Bohm also poetically suggests that matter is revealed as an ocean of energy and light.

“Matter, as it were, is condensed or frozen light.... all matter is a condensation of light into patterns moving back and forth at average speeds which are less than the speed of light...it’s energy and also it’s information- content, form and structure. It’s the potential for everything.” (Williams  E. Williams 1992.)

In contemplative traditions there are many descriptions of higher vibrational realities that are apparently available to those who wish to devote their lives to the deep study of the subtleties of human energy fields. In a higher dimensional reality or in a state of higher vibrational frequency, the matter of the body would cease to be visible, a state which is commonly referred to in Buddhist, Sufi and many other sacred texts.

In a passage written by one of the foremost interpreters of Tibetan Buddhism, Sogyal Rinpoche, a Dzogchen master, describes the first of the four phases of the bardo of dharmata, “Luminosity- the Landscape of Light.”

“In the bardo of dharmata, you take on a body of light. The first phase of this bardo is when “space dissolves into luminosity”: Suddenly you become aware of a flowing vibrant world of sound, light, and colour. All the ordinary features of our familiar environment have melted into an all-pervasive landscape of light. This is brilliantly clear and radiant, transparent and multicoloured, unlimited by any kind of dimension or direction, shimmering and constantly in motion.” (Rimpoche 1992)

The study of comparative cosmology shows how different cultures have used different metaphors to describe the same reality with a significant level of coherence with certain interpretations of scince most of which have been influenced by Bohminan physics. Books like Fire in the Mind (Johnson 1996),  Wisdom of the Elders (Suzuki and Knudson 1992), Blackfoot Physics (Peat 1996), Cosmology, Ontology and Human Efficacy (Smith and Kwok 1993) The Spirit of Science (Lorimer 1998), “The Main Stalk: A Synthesis of Navajo Philosophy”( Farella 1993) An Introduction to Islamic cosmological Doctrines (Nasr 1964) are studies of indigenous philosophical scientific and mathematical systems used to describe perceptions of reality that are uncannily similar to the complex cosmologies derived from contemporary quantum physicists.

This is not surprising as they are all intuitions of the one reality and ultimately all humans have the same potential. What is surprising however, is not that the dominant Western mindset is so different, but that there is a rejection of alternative perspectives that are not based on scientific investigation but rather on a biased view that chooses a relatively narrow focus. It is as if there is a blind faith in a reduced and limited construct as if it makes sense to objectively simplify what is in reality a highly complex and dynamic system that is paradoxically generated by relatively simple analogues.

Whilst there is an explosion of ideas focusing of the New Physics, there are many confusing territories involved with the philosophical implications and interpretations. What becomes apparent is that there are sometimes quite subtle interpretational differences that may appear to be empirically the same but differ ontologically.

In  an essay titled A Dilemma For the Realist  James Cushing (1998) explains that the confusion inherent in interpreting the revelations of Quantum theory are due to the paradox that Bohm’s interpretation is consonant with and even conducive to a realist position, yet it is empirically indistinguishable from the ontologically incompatible Copenhagen interpretation which poses a serious challenge to the realist. What follows from this particular dilemma is that each reconstruction could be equally rational but there would not necessarily be any rational means to choose between them.

Whilst there seems to be a theoretical impasse it is the highly paradoxical nature of these problems that lead us to necessitate a broader examination of reality that will question the centrality of dominant perspectives and marginalised views. 

Kafatos and Nadeau suggest that the new epistemology of quantum theory reveals that fundamental oppositions disclosing the profound truths of nature are complementary, and those constructs have consistently brought us closer to a vision of nature which belies both classical ontological dualism and the bias that ultimate truths are transcendent and pre-existing.(1990)

The fundamental dissociation between the subject and object has occurred through the technologising of the experience of science itself. The assumption that machinery can objectify experience, is due to the reduction of complex causality. If causation is only considered through local and immediate processes, then the assumption of a second order interaction with experiments may seem logical, indeed it seems like the most plausible reason for the assumption of objectivity. By creating distance between the object and the human perceiver, the subjective experience that was historically the foundation of making science, has been reduced. (ibid)

However the experience of reality as quantum physics reveals is far more subtle, far more interconnected and the collection of processes we call “self” is not isolated from the whole.

“It is as if the price we paid for dispelling the notion that we are not skin-encapsulated egos was the terrifying realisation that there is no empirically valid connection between our formalism for describing physical reality and physical reality-in-itself. The paradox is that we are evidently one with a cosmos in which we feel existentially alone because the foundation of our being, although quite obviously a “given”, cannot be completely known or revealed in the scientific description. If we demand the prospect at least of complete scientific knowledge as a prerequisite to affirming a necessary connection between our existence as intelligent beings and the life of the cosmos, then the sense of alienation so arduously and painfully communicated by the French atheistic existentialists is not merely the stuff of fiction or philosophy. There does appear to be, to borrow a phrase from Sartre’s famous play, “No Exit” in epistemological terms. It is our view that in arriving at this conclusion we are making in terms of the new epistemology of science a large, and certainly a very grave mistake. The ultimate extension of complementarity is that between the whole and the part, or the contingent and the particular. Each of these complementary constructs is necessary for the complete description. What is finally different about the whole, as the results of the Aspect experiments atest, is that it has by definition no definable parts in its ultimate nature. When we consider that the validity of physical theory is dependent entirely upon measurement of the part, this conclusion is not as trite as one might initially suppose.”(Kafatos and Nadeau 1990)

7:3 TRUTH

I have discussed the dilemma that Nietzsche realised as he contemplated the nature of Good and Evil and found that there was no way that he could differentiate if a thing was wholly good or wholly evil, that the concepts themselves were transient, unfixed and dynamic. An experience may be assumed to be the greatest thing to occur initially, but in time and in retrospect the goodness of the experience can be found to have been completely misleading. The desire for determination, security, and a fixed sense of continuity is not surprising in a cultural mindset informed by catastrophe. Ultimately the denial of the new science is the expression of deeply disturbed fear of freedom and surrender to the natural preexistance of fundamental intelligence.

The deconstruction of deterministic epistemologies have led to a hosts of scholars writing about the  “masculinisation of thought” to use one of Susan Bordo’s phrases, or “Feminist Standpoint Epistemologies” to cite Sandra Harding, who has been consistent in her questionings of the validity of science as a construct of truth. A collection of essays including those mentioned above are the subject “The End of Science? Attack and Defense; proceedings of the 15^th Nobel Conference. (Elvee 1992)

Certainly the whole dilemma of the nature of truth itself is well known to those interested in reading postmodern philosophy and is the reason why scientists since the 1920’s have sought philosophical underpinnings for the new sciences in Eastern cosmologies have provided, and also why Western philosophy got so bogged down in the laborious

David Hall, an American comparative philosopher, sees the “philosophy of presence” and “difference” particularly Derrida’s “logocentrism” to be central concepts to both Taoism and Confucianism. He argues that premodern Chinese thought is actually postmodern and contains resources that answer some of the problems represented by the debate over modernity and postmodernity. He suggests that a ‘polar sensibility precludes such delimitation in any but the grossest terms. Thus, the classical Chinese understanding of yin and yang as complementary concepts cannot coherently lead to dualistic translations or interpretations. Yin is becoming yang; yang is becoming yin. The locution “as different as day and night” would then have to mean “as different as night- becoming-day from day-becoming-night.’ (Hall, 1991)

Similarly in the “Reenchantment of Science”, David Ray Griffin proposes ‘a positive, revisionary postmodernism. Inspired both by various developments in twentieth century science (e.g. general relativity, quantum theory, the Gaia hypothesis, recognition of mind-body interactions in immunology), and by Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophy of “organism”’. (Griffin 1996)

The question of whether or not science can  reveal the ultimate truth is one that remains stuck in binary logic. I suggest that science has proven to be a remarkable tool through which the veil of reality has been progressively lifted and most likely is capable of revealing all. What we need to ask is whether we can afford to continue to pursue science in the way that is being maintained by the advocates of the dominant paradigm. Can we afford to continue working within the parameters of the gross physical at the expense of a future. The implications of the new science speak of a reality that is vastly different from that which is moulded by materialism and perpetuating the worsening of the global crises. The trade off for the planet and life itself is at a critical point. Every day functioning through the reason of the dominant paradigm will cause years of damage control to reinstate the further destruction that is the wake of this mindset.

The need to develop a Postmodern cosmology is the same need to realise a universal human reason, and therefore a differential epistemology of Ultimate Reality. It is necessary to discard the modernist logic mechanism, atomism, determinism, and the Cartesian dualism of mind and body for nondual dualism. Griffin argues that contemporary science itself, in discarding these modern notions for holistic and indeterminist alternatives, is becoming Postmodern. (Griffin 1996)

7:4 The ARTist as shaman And Higher Meaning

As an artist working with a language of symbolism, it is impossible to ignore the interconnectivity of meaning that flows through signs and symbols. Research into creativity, symbolism and mythology by such authors as Joseph Campbell, Mercia Eliade, Robert Graves, Sir James Frazer and Carl Jung have acknowledged these interrelationships as ‘confirmation...of the unity of the race of man, not only in its biology but also in its spiritual history, which has everywhere unfolded in the manner of a single symphony, with its themes announced, developed, amplified and turned about, distorted, reasserted, and today, in a grand fortissimo of all sections sounding together, irresistibly advancing to some kind of mighty climax, out of which the next great movement will emerge’. (Campbell 1968.)

The potential for science alone to comprehend the hard questions of consciousness, creation, in-form-ation, generation, and the dynamic relationship between the subjective and the objective, indeed the relationship between the shadows on Plato’s cave and the world of forms, is not likely unless radical reforms critique the constraint that the dominant mindset has on true scientific investigation. The emphasis that the dominant mindset places on physics to reveal that which remains hidden and subtle, renders the exercise of discovery itself impotent.

Joseph Beuys, Germany’s most significant artist of the latter part of the 20th century, identified with the Artist Shaman as he described the transceiving qualities of human ontology. Hermeticism for him was the creative process itself. He was the ‘healer and wise man of primitive tribes’. (‘Joseph Beuys Drawing’ Joseph Beuys, London 1983).For Beuys, the creative process itself was an act of ritual magic and the alchemy of the process was  realised through the personal, spiritual engagement with the meaning fields held not only in the significance of the materials, but also in the symbolic shapes, colours, and forms that he chose to make. The consolidation of his inspiration, that is the breathing in, inspired thought, is concretised in the physical structure. He was said to have believed that

“only art can again reactivate all of man’s senses in the face of the exclusive diktat of rationality. All of Beuys’ artistic actions and provocations were thus directed towards regenerating man’s creativity, submerged beneath constant use of reason. Beuys hoped that the man whose creativity was thus revitalised…. Would then no longer comprehend himself as an individual…. But rather as a creative element within an all-embracing organism…. As a microcosm of a universal macrocosm. ( “In Memorium Joseph Beuys, Joseph Beuys, Bonn 1986.)

A poem, a narrative, a myth, a created construct, is a multidimensional realm of interconnectedness. A multidimensional mindset, realises the dialectics of meaning, and in doing so comprehends the positive and negative attributes, the field of meaning is alive, providing numerous levels of interpretation where the gestalt of dynamic fields allow for complex associations to unfold. The very attributes of creativity is the mind function in a higherdimensional, able to move between both hemispheres with ease, able to make connections to things that superficially may seem to be separate, able to utilise the ultimately the total brain.

“Because of its novelty and its action, the poetic image has an entity and a dynamism of its own; it is referable to a direct ontology….Very often, then, it is in the opposition of causality, that is, in reverberation, that I think we find the real measure of the being of a poetic image. In the reverberation, the poetic image will have sonority of being. The poet speaks on the threshold of being.”

“I propose…. to consider the imagination as a major power of human nature.”

“It is impossible to receive the psychic benefit of poetry unless these two functions of the human psyche- the function of the real and the function of the unreal- are made to co-operate.” (Bachelard. 1969)

Such an architecture of geometrical and symbolic associations is generally considered superficially, it is judged from a limited flatland mindset which reduces the potential for meaning. The dualism of such a mindset accepts binary relationships as opposed and discrete, separate dichotomies. Opposites are pitched against each other, instead of being realised as inherent attributes of each. For example, a concept or thing is considered as being either good or bad, the potential for the concept or thing to have both good and bad qualities is either not considered or ignored. If considered at all, there will be a tendency to assume that it is mostly good or mostly bad, and the ability for the mind to settle into judgement is readily achieved. 

Such a mindset, seeks to find truth in either one aspect of a thing or its opposite. In reading the world and its objects as separate entities, able to be differentiated, and distinct in-them-selves, with boundaries of categorical correlatives, the general assumption is that an entity is knowable in the sense that x=x  x≠non x (Leibniz). In a multidimensional system of logic, x=y and x=z where y and z are complementary opposites of x yet y≠z. From the perspective of Alchemy and the process of individuation, the self x is both male and female, y and z. The outward appearance or ‘sex’ of an individual is a basic factor, but the more subtle attributes of maleness and femaleness are  attributes inherent in the self that require balance.

Women can be more masculine than feminine, as men can be more feminine that masculine, and some women can be completely feminine just as some men can be completely masculine. Neither one of these ‘types’ is balanced. In seeking to rise into the individuated self, the dynamics between these opposites will bifurcate through a variety of expressions, and the ideal individuation self with be neither male nor female, but the result of a divine marriage of the two, a unified whole. The more complex comprehension of the deeper analysis or nature of thing, is not simply able to be reduced. Robert Lawler in his book ‘Earth Honouring’ (1990) suggests that since the feminist revolution there is a need for males to connect with their more feminine self, that is to accept that they to can develop their sensitivities, their more holistic vision, and the sense of interconnectedness with everything around them. The potential imbalance inherent in the feminist revolution where the swing to be just like men, powerful, dominant, career oriented, focussed on particulars, is not moving through the bifurcations of the dynamic experience of both attributes. It has primarily been a pendulum swing into a domain that in many cases has denied the primary feminine attributes. The complexities here are obvious, it is very difficult to not assume the either or collapse into the binary code. It is the bifurcation that is the very aliveness of being however, and the rigidity and ossification that comes with premature acceptance or judgement leads to a stagnant and impotent non-creative and biased construct.

Upon a deeper analysis of a concept or thing, more of the positive and negative attributes are revealed. This is perplexing for the mind that wants resolution in judgement. It can lead to a mental ‘gridlock’, indecisiveness, and anxiety. The more one explores the subject, the more paradoxical the world seems. The more paradoxical the world seems, the more chaotic it is.

This bifurcation between oppositional attributes, is like a ladder of information, on the one hands it is like this, but then on the other hand it is like this, (It is a curious and non trivial fact that we use such language to describe oppositional relationships, the left refers to bad, evil, the sinister, left handed, and the right, to good, positive)

7:5 Dialectics and Higher dimensional thought

 The work of David Bohm is integral to comprehending the deep implications of such ideas. In the field of anthropology and sociology, Gregory Bateson was intuiting the complexities of higher order logical process. The dialectics of Marx, Hegal and Kant were informed by these deeper concerns for more highly complex understandings of reality, appalled at the gross tendency to simplify and therefore reduce toward entropic and dissipative, synthetic models of inert simulacrum. In recent correspondence with Professor Stein Johansen concerning the implications of higherdimensional logic, his response was this:

“I think it is a restriction of thought to ACCEPT thinking inside the binary one-dimensionality subjective vs. objective, or relativism vs. objectivism, or idealism vs. materialism. The clue must be to LIFT ones thought by the PROGRESSING UPWARDS THROUGH each of the polarities in a dynamical LADDER of thought. This WALK of thought will pass through the two poles MANY times, because they will show up again on each new step of this ladder. Bohm argued (in the article about soma-significance: a new theory of mind and matter) that one cannot FREEZE what is mind vs. matter (significance vs. soma) because this is RELATIVE to the step of the ladder (the degree of ORDER); what is soma on one level will be significance on the level below. (If you spot a PATTERN in something, for example a coin with the inscription “5 dollars”, the pattern of the inscription is significance compared to its relevant background, the rest of the coin. But THIS pattern is to be regarded as SOMA compared to the GENERAL meaning of “5 dollars”. Also, there IS no pattern without a non-pattern as its background in the context of the relevant observation.

In ‘Mind and Nature’ Bateson called this SUCCESSIVE walk between the two poles of structure (“calibration”) and “process” for “the stochastic process” characteristic for both learning and evolution. Kant argued that supposing one polarity would only lead to the other, and then the thought would become TRAPPED in its dichotomy (for example supposing space or time to be finite or to be infinite), using this as an argument for philosophical LIMITS of rational thought, rational thought having to realize its limitation confronted with the paradox at hand. However, he did not have the Kb to his disposal as the adequate overarching form of paradox logic TRANSCENDING these limits.

I often stress that what is regarded as the HARDEST scientific facts is what appeals most strongly and robust to our SENSES; i.e. that the most objective is what is most subjective, the ultra-objective being judged from the ultra-subjective, hence the necessity of the KLEIN-BOTTLE to understand the unitary wholeness of this paradox. The lifting walk of thought THROUGH paradox is a systematic back-reflection of what is already constituted. Hence, it leads to the paradox of realizing the lifting or enfoldment (from low order to higher order) as SECONDARY to the unfoldment from higher order to lever. For ADEQUATE back-reflection, one must “hit the mark” in the order already unfolded, hence there always is a HIGHER objectivity involved.” (Johansen 2006)

The statement “nothing matters” on first glance negates the meaning of anything. Upon realizing its gestalt, reveals the intensity of the meaning of “nothing”. “Nothing” zero, no thing no entity, no self, no other, no reflection, no space, no time, absolute zero: such a concept holds the potential for everything within it. It invokes the bifurcation between that which is signified by the concept and its antithesis. It is the plenum. It is the un-nameable. It is at once nothing and everything, 0 and ∞. These two seemingly completely different concepts are intimately connected. Einstein’s famous statement E=mc² reveals that the faster you travel to infinite speed (velocity of light squared), the heavier the mass becomes and the more energy or fuel is required such that it becomes an impossibility. The faster you go, the more fuel you use, the heavier the mass becomes as it moves through space, due to the force of gravity and the resistance between the body of the mass and the ether. (Gforce).

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally." (Einstein)

The mutual exclusivity of these opposites is also revealed at a singularity, were the more dense the mass, as its six reduces toward zero the more intense the energy becomes, the energy moves toward a point of infinity. The result is possibly that neither reaches to extreme state but does reach a point of catastrophe whereby a complete inversion occurs, that is the near-zero sized body or mass, explodes towards its opposite infinite sized body (mass) the infinite energy is dispersed toward zero, and the near zero sized body, expands to infinity. This breaking point, catastrophe point, is a point of inversion, of passing through the eye of the needle, just as the Kleinbottle neck passes through its non-boundary-boundary, into its interior, where zero and infinity are the nondual duality. This is not so much implosion which suggests that there is nothing beyond the singularity, as is assumed by the physics of black holes, and the implosion groups gathered around Dan Winter, but the point of catastrophe, of inversion, which may only be achievable through passing through the very body of the self, and into the inner realm, there is something, a complete opposite of nondual dual states on the other side.

When Ad Reinhardt submitted an unpainted blank canvas as an exhibit of the ultimate statement of “ Art for Art’s Sake”, his point was to reveal the meaninglessness of art, however in offering nothing, he invoked everything and the piece generated for more than his personal intention could have imagined. Less is more.

Much earlier, when Rothko submitted his minimalistic abstractions of colour fields with the intention of his audience realizing the subtle and deeply sacred meaning fields that colour itself reveals, his intention was unable to be realized by his critics, who commended his efforts as a new direction of minimalism, negating the meaning he had intended and opening a entire lineage of creative work referred to as colour field painting that was devoid of spiritual intentions and interested simply in the colour, form and texture. The results being a cacophony of shape and form missing the interpretive power of the religious field the Rothko was interested in. More is less.

Icons, symbols, rituals and myth contain meaning fields that are accumulative and inherently integrative. The dialectical nature of complexity that reveals bifurcation as a primary generator of information, reveals concepts as inherently invocative of their antithetical relationship as a primary order which builds to reveal the multidimensional depth of meaning and resonance accessed by the contemplative mind. Symbols in this sense are generative and meaning limited only by the transceiver that engages its consciousness in the open field of reception to bring forth the richness and diversity of interconnectedness and wholeness through infinite extensions of relationship.

Their dimensionality augments meaning and allows the observer to enter into the field of dreams, imagination and metaphors that spark the fires of the mind, in turn, illuminating the consciousness and centring the observer in the moment of now, an infinite space where time is transcendent through the inner realm of the self, and ones perception of the world is unified with all that is inside and outside of them, in the minds I of eyes, in the centre of the universe that is at once the infinite nowhere now here.

It is interesting to note that the most highly creative period in Western history was the Renaissance and the political reaction to this flourishing of the symbolic was the inquisition. The irony of this reveals that the Church fathers attempt to abolish the so called diabolic, and in fact focused upon the antithesis of the diabolic, that is, the symbolic. The very act of imposing their will to destroy the influences that they judged as evil, influences that generated the most creative period known to the west, was itself a diabolic act, judged through the doctrine of necessity. The two concepts symbolic and diabolic are antithetical to each other. One interconnects or draws together, while the other pulls apart, divides and separates.

The question as to whether or not evil exists outside of the Human mind is fought with great difficulties. It is necessary to consider the potential for an accumulation of thoughtforms as constantly projected from human consciousness. A cosmology based on the primacy of consciousness, considers the power of thought as a primary generator of reality. In such a cosmology, all conscious entities continually generate thoughtforms; the more complex the consciousness, the more powerful the means through which thoughtforms will manifest an intended reality. The more disciplined and focused, the more effective the thought form.

The concretization of thought is facilitated through actualizing the thought through systems of symbolic constructs. Writing, drawing, constructing architectures of thought in one two and three dimensions, consolidates intention in physical forms. Though a culture may deny such a cosmology, it does not preclude such a culture from generating thoughtforms and having powerfully concretized constructs expressed through symbolic form.

The history of writing from all literate cultures is intimately engaged with the history of magic, science, architecture, art and mathematics. (Shlain, 1991 Drucker 1995) All of these systems of communication are means through which “magic” is performed. Whether or not one is engaged in positive or negative magic is determined not by the process but by the intentionality that is focused. Wilful projections are continuously generated by all human beings. The success of ones focus is the product of accumulated thoughtforms oriented for the same end. An individual, who is completely focused upon getting rich, is most likely to do so. An individual who has spent lifetimes pursuing disciplined practices concerning the application and projection ones will, will be potentially more powerful in a present life, not necessarily requiring long periods of study or discipline. The blocks to such potentials, however, can come from psychological distortions that may impose a debilitation of inherent skills. A homunculus or sophisticated construct of thoughtforms so powerful as to become an entity, is created by the intentional generation of focussed thoughtforms that are fed by the focused will, programmed and amplified through specific breathing techniques, stabilised and released into the environment. The process of building into such creature strength and form is one that can take months of dedicated work. (Kriashakti)

The point of such a description of ‘magic’ is that even without such skilled processes, the generation of thoughts and conscious patterns is continuous. It is for this reason that the emphasis on positivity is fundamental attribute of alternative healing modalities. Esoteric teachings delineate between white and black magic, and teach about willfull projection and its dangers. (Alice Bailey, A treatise on White Magic)  Whilst the differention between white and black magic is useful, and is generally determined by service to others or service to self, a more significant delineation is between the archetype of the magician and the archetype of the fool.

The archetype of the Magician assumes wilful control over the forces of nature. Through this assumption there is the greater assumption that there is a capacity to judge and to know what should/could be done. Most desires are associated with attachment to epistemological constructs. Positioned as the number one card, it is the beginning of the journey into enlightenment. He has need of the tools of his craft, and commands authority over nature. The lilies and roses in the foreground are symbols of aristocracy and sovereign rule. He is master of his domain.

Conversely the Fool, often assumed to be a fickle being not in touch with reality at all, is in actuality so interconnected and trusting of his reality that poised on the precipice, he is neither in fear of immanent disaster, or engaged with wilfully controlling his reality. In complete trust his dog acts as an external agent of assistance. Everything is the way it should be. He has no need of belongings or tools to strengthen his intent. He is in harmony and in surrender to the majesty of nature which he honours. He wears a feather in his hair, symbolic of the purity of his mind, his clothes are patterned with images of fecundity. Being the 0 card, he is both at the beginning and the end of the journey, he is a footloose wanderer, claims no ownership of need for a home, as the world is his abode. While he is standing on land, he is high up in the mountains, close to the abode of the angels, with the sun streaming upon him, and the emotional clouds beneath him, he signifies freedom, and non-attachment.

The magician signifies an orientation toward judgement and control whereas the fool surrenders all need to judge or control, meeting every experience with an open and receptive pose.

 It is pointed out in Baileys book, ‘A Treatise on White Magic’ that both the white and black traditions share the same foundation teachings, but there is a separation of the modes where demonstrative wilful engagement in service to the self negates a higher form of being. It is the awareness of the limitations of judgement, and the acceptance of nondual duality, of paradox itself, where freedom from the lower forms of thinking, and the ensnarement of control is realised. (Bailey 2006)

It is this point that is often lost on the numerous modalities of new age techniques where an emphasis on manifestation of wealth generation and success takes a primary role.

“All willing arises from want, therefore from deficiency, and therefore from suffering. The satisfaction of a wish ends it; yet for one wish that is satisfied there remain at least ten which are denied. Further, the desire lasts long, the demands are infinite; the satisfaction is short and scantily measured out. But even the final satisfaction is itself only apparent; every satisfied wish at once makes room for a new one; both are illusions; the one is known to be so, the other not yet. No attained object of desire can give lasting satisfaction, but merely a fleeting gratification; it is like the alms thrown to the beggar, that keeps him alive today that his misery may be prolonged till the morrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will, so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with their constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we can never have lasting happiness or peace” (Beardsley 1960.)

To reduce the higher teachings of the sacred books of the East and West that line the shelves of all Masonic libraries, is to fail to comprehend the implications of their teachings, and the resonant meaning fields inherent in languages of symbolism.

This reductionist ‘reason’ leads scholars like Robert Lomas (1997) a practicing mason himself, to suggest that there is nothing at all that is ‘meaningful’ contained in the ritual and symbolic fields of the variety of performances that are orchestrated through the various levels of Masonic law. He suggests that they are simply old customs that have been retained but hold little significance themselves.

Any artist, shaman, or religious/spiritual person who engages with ritual or symbolic practice would know otherwise. It is not the case that these highly symbolic and ritual group practices are benign. They exist in every community, every city, every country of this planet and whilst at the lower levels they proclaim their benign activity as benevolent societies, it simply cannot be reduced to meaningless action. In a climate where global government and control is increasingly obvious, such organizations as the Illuminati, the Rosicrucian’s and the Masons, and all global fraternities of a Religious cause need to be understood in terms of the symbolic heritage from which they draw their ritual formulations, as from the very simplest level of communication through a symbolic system, to a highly organized fraternity of powerful agents, the potential for the manipulation of information and the control of resources is simply a fact. The more that the Leviathan is motivated through selfish means, the greater the potential for corruption and disinformation and abuse of such organizational information structures.

If it is the fear of loss itself that lies at the root of the drive for survival and enables reason to allow for all of the brutish and barbaric acts necessitated by the struggle to survive, thereby employing a utilitarian model of justification, the means to an end allows for atrocities against ones opponent to be justified. The insecurities that drive this mindset, fed on lower moral grounds, are rarely exposed for what it is as it is concealed by the outward appearance of the heroic deed, the saviour, the hero itself, however it is a game that requires dichotomies, it requires an enemy to be identified, it requires the other to be opposed, for without such static, didactic fields the dynamics of bifurcation would relinquish the need for power to control, which could only be realized through a higher form of global reason, a dialectics of logic based on geometries of higherdimensional topologies and Klein Bottle logic.

At a local level the impossibility of such a transformation is very real. The potential to transform such a global psyche inherently based on the fear of loss, would require the stripping of every aspect of its cosmological world view, until it was exposed naked and fragile. All of the emotional bondage associated with every false meme would be expressed through a cathartic release, so that the new self could begin to emerge, through a higher form of identity, a higher-dimensional cosmology. Such a potential program, in the scale of global politics, seems impossible, indeed on an individual level it is difficult enough, as the dominant culture has little understanding of the psycho-physical field of transformation, differing to the more basic assumption that all psychological anomalies are the product of the chemical imbalance of the physical substrate, the brain, and therefore treated as defective, not the thought forms themselves- so the Leviathan remains, in damage control, where attempts to change are thwarted by a mindset itself that limits the very potential for transformation.