Inside infinity

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

To begin the journey into a truer understanding of reality requires that we begin on common ground. We need a starting point which is unquestionably universal to everyone.

As was covered in the first chapter, the one and only mainstay of personal experience, above and beyond all else is our own individual awareness. That awareness is composed of all that is consciously known to us, and all else (whatever “that” is) which is unknown to us.

So, let’s begin by considering what we know1

Our view of the world is a complex assortment of what we have been taught (from both religious and scientific sources) and what we have deduced for ourselves, usually by making our own observations of life. We can categorize our personal experience as being a duality of that which is KNOWN and UNKNOWN. Once again, this is the most fundamental principle which could be expected to be common to all. (Refer Table 3.1)

Now, we can observe that life is a process of converting the unknown into the known. Or that life is the process of expanding the Known by encroaching upon the previously Unknown. Lets encapsulate this as shown in Table 3.2.

 The arrow reflects this continual process of conversion from the unknown into the known. For example we learn to walk, talk and live life. At first much is unknown, and through learning we come to know that which was previously unknown.

Learning is another name for the process of defining that which has not previously been defined. When we define something we make it definite, which is to say, finite. Anything which is known is finite. Dictionaries define the word “definite” as meaning something which is precise and bounded. Something which is bounded is limited—if it wasn’t we would not be able to place bounds around it, define it, or Know it. Before something becomes known it is vague, nonspecific, general and undifferentiated. Accordingly, some of the qualities of the Unknown are that it is “general, vague, non-specific and undifferentiated.”

Refer Table 3.3 below.

Getting to know something is a process of differentiation and definition. In simplistic terms, our experience of life is a process of growing or expanding circles (of knowledge). If we talk in terms of boxes, instead of circles, then learning is the process of “thinking outside the box” (of the known). Inside the box (or circle) is the known. Outside is the unknown.

As will be covered more fully in the next section, what we don’t know, i.e the full extent of our Unknowing, is infinite in scope. So we might say that our personal experiences could be seen as being an island of knowing within an infinite sea of unknowing. Our personal existence then is a combination of the Known and the Infinite-Unknown (Unknowable)2.

We can express this more meaningfully by observing that our personal experience of existence is a duality of the known and the unknowable.

In view of the foregoing, learning is a process of establishing finite, bounded boxes of awareness within an unbounded, infinite “unknowableness.”

Learning is the process of categorizing, defining, labelling and limiting. Learning is, if you will allow the term, the paradoxical process of “finitisation” of an infinite-unknown. Once again, Table 3.3 helps illustrate this basic duality.

Now, a distinction needs to be made at this point between that which is unknown (but can become Known) and that which will forever remain unknown (i.e. the infinite) and is thus Unknowable. We could say that there are three levels to existence: the known, the knowable and the unknowable. In other words, there are two forms of Unknown: The finite-unknown, which is knowable and the infinite-unknown, which is Unknowable. Both the Known and the Knowable are finite. The Knowable is defined as being able to be Known (defined and differentiated). In other words, to be able to decide if something is knowable we first must decide or discern if it is finite. It might be helpful to think in terms of the bucket of sand, mentioned in the definition of Knowable in the glossary. We may not immediately know the quantity of grains of sand in the bucket, but we do know that it is possible to get to know their quantity, given sufficient time and determination. Accordingly, the Known and the Knowable are “lumped” together (at this point) as being finite and defined. They are both quantified or quantifiable, whereas that which is infinite is beyond knowing, measurement and differentiation.

Let’s summarize the last few paragraphs by saying that our entire existence can be seen to be an island of finite knowledge and dimension within an Infinite-Unknown (the Unknowable).

In addition, our perception of the measured and the physical is via time-delyed (speed-of-light) physical senses. Accordingly, all that is known, measured, real and physical is in the past (right-wing of Table 3.4 - see section Fluid futures, specific pasts, below)

Fluid futures, specific pasts

From our own experiences we can accept the correlation of the future with being Unknowable, while the past is Known. As well, while the past is known it is also certain, while the future is uncertain. We can therefore include the correlation of Uncertainty with the Unknowable, while Certainty is Known.

I suggest that the past is Known, because we perceive the past to be over and done and to be fixed in terms of what occurred. In other words, we perceive the past to be well-defined (known). Archeological teams, for example, excavate historical digs to determine what happened millions of years ago. While debate may continue over the precise interpretation of which dinosaur lived when and how, the assumption is invariably made that only one past occurred, in which certain definite, real events transpired.

The past is perceived to be “set in concrete.” The future on the other hand is perceived to be fluid with possibility, pliable, not yet solidified into solid fact and experience. If this were not true (that the future is fluid with possibility) we would have no freedom of choice. In fact, we’d have no awareness of choice. The future would be perfectly predictable and entirely unsurprising.

Now, despite the past appearing fixed (known), and the future fluid (unknowable and unpredictable), it is necessary to keep in mind that the associations of past with known and the future with unknown are correlations—the past is not perfectly Known, nor is the future perfectly unknowable.

At this point, I’ll also include the correlation of unpredictability with the future, and the past while appearing fixed, finite and known is deemed to be predictable, in the sense that it is predictably the same tomorrow as it is today.

Once again, these correlations are not meant to suggest that the future is perfectly unpredictable. I use the term predictable in its raw literal meaning, which is that to Predict is to “pre-say.”4 That is, a prediction means that we totally and precisely know what the future holds.

1. 1. The terms “Known” and “Knowable” have, within this book, a strict definition in that they pertain to only that which can be measured, defined and bounded
2. 2. The term “infinite-unknown” is used synonymously with the term “unknowable.” Both terms are meant to convey the idea that there are aspects to existence which cannot ever be known (defined, named, labelled, measured or proven)
3. 3. The term “spiritual” is, at this point, defined to mean that which is unknowable (immeasurable and beyond definition, i.e. infinite). See also the glossary.
4. 4. The origin of the word “predict” is the Latin word praedicere, fr. prae- pre- + dicere to say.

Prisoners of light

[Excerpt Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Earlier, the model of existence as being the inseparable-duality of the physical (finite and known) and the “spiritual” (infinite and unknowable) was introduced.

Parting with the past

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

It should be reasonably straight forward to recognise that anything which is being observed is already in the past. Light travels at a speed of around 300 million metres per second. Anything we see has required a certain amount of time for the light to bounce off the object and travel to our eyes, which then forwards the signal to our brains for it to be interpreted.

If the object is millions of light yearsii away (as are some stars in the night sky) we are looking millions of years into the past. As far as we know, the object might not still exist in the immediate now-moment. Even though an object might cease to exist, its light will continue to travel towards us for many years (or millions of years). And even if the object is in our vicinity, say within 300 metres, the light will still take up to a microsecond to travel to our eyes—it will still be in the past when we interpret what we see. For this reason, Past with physical reality, which includes all material things.

Physical reality, as we perceive it through our physical senses is only ever sensed after the now-moment. In other words, physical reality, as it is normally perceived through the physical senses is an end-result product of some unknown process that converts the future (boundless, unknowable) into the physical (finite, known, local past).

Physical reality as it is normally perceived through the senses is therefore an after-effect of an on-going unknowable cause. It is an unknowable cause because we cannot absolutely know (define, measure, prove or verify) what causes physical phenomena.

The Unspeakable

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

In view of the fact that our very lives are dependent upon definitions and limits, it is to be expected that consideration of the extent of these limits invokes fear within many. Such consideration, in light of our reliance upon modern scientific limited perspectives, strikes at the core of our sense of security and survival.

Nevertheless, it behooves us to reflect deeply upon such matters of limitation and constraint.

We take for granted many aspects of everyday life which are both known and unknowable, such as our intimate experience of the past (known) and the future (Unknowable). And yet there was a time in our history when merely speaking of irrational (“Unknowable”) numbers, for example, was sufficient cause for one’s death. As the late Arthur Koestler wrote in his book The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe:

Koestler cites another source in support of this idea as being Proclos who wrote:

These are examples of how people throughout history have feared aspects of our reality which cannot be defined or limited. Aspects of our existence which are open, limitless and without bounds have been known to frighten many people to the degree where they seek to kill those who openly speak of such matters. One example of this penchant for killing those who speak the unspeakable was the execution of the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno in the year 1600.

Bruno believed that

Bruno was imprisoned in 1592 on charges of heresy. He faced eight years of questioning, but in refusing to recant his heretical beliefs was burnt alive at the stake in Campo dei Fiori on February 17, 1600.

The persecution of those who speak of ideas concerning the infinite is a recurring theme throughout history, and one that is still evident in the world today. Or put another way, societies generally persecute those who speak the Unspeakable (ideas concerning the Infinite, the Unknowable).

The idea that we have historically deeply feared the infinite (the spiritual) is evident when we observe the history of the introduction and use of “zero” (the equally unknowable and immeasurable conjugate of infinity). India, an Eastern culture orientated towards the spiritual and the void (see next section), embraced the use of zero over 500 years before Western societies.

The Western fear of the infinite and the unknowable is evidenced by the fact that many religious people openly describe themselves as being “God-fearing.” When we correlate God with the infinite (the nameless and the unknowable), we can understand, in certain terms, the origin of such fear. To be “God-fearing” means, in part, to be in fear of that which is infinite, unbounded and unknowable4.

For each succeeding generation, there will always be ideas presented by societal “black sheep” who push the envelope in terms of what is possible (Knowable). Those who gently push the envelope in socially acceptable ways (e.g. in sports or business performance) will be showered with accolades and generous financial rewards. But those who do so in substantial ways which unsettle the general populace will receive a commensurate degree of condemnation or persecution. The ideas they present push people outside their personal “comfort zones.” Schopenhauer observed that grand new ideas were generally subjected to a three-step process of ridicule, opposition and eventual acceptance. Generally speaking then, the introduction of bold new ideas which lay welloutside the societal comfort zone can be expected to be faced with the following three step process:

1. The idea is ignored or ridiculed, and evidence supporting the idea is ignored or denied validity.
2. With increasing evidence in support of the idea comes a corresponding increase in the vehemence against the idea: the idea can be violently, sometimes lethally opposed.
3. It is accepted as self-evident.

1. 1. Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers: A History of man’s changing vision of the Universe, ARKANA Penguin Books, London 1989, page 40.4
2. 2. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, page 41.
3. 3. Excerpt of text on “Bruno, Giordano,” The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (Electronic Edition), Funk & Wagnalls Corporation, 1994.
4. 4. Such fear has its origin in ignorance (born of immaturity), as is more fully covered in The Evolution of the Human Psyche

The Measure of God

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

As suggested earlier in this chapter, the distinction of reality being physical (Finite, Knowable and measurable) and "spiritual" (Infinite, Non-physical, Unknowable and Immeasurable) may not at first appear significant, but as will be more fully explained throughout this book, a bias towards either the physical (Knowable) or the Unknowable explains basically all of human behavior.

For example, Eastern societies have traditionally leaned towards accentuating and experiencing the Unknowable to the extent that they regard the spiritual (Unknowable) as being the “primary reality” while our everyday world of people, cars and trees is considered an off-shoot, or secondary reality. As David Bohm, the late physicist and protege of Einstein observed ...

In other words, while our Western culture is orientated towards believing that the physical universe is a primary component of existence, Eastern (Oriental) cultures are orientated towards believing that the spiritual (Unknowable) is primary. Aspects of our reality which are spiritual (Unknowable) lay in the realm of the mysterious. As a result, we can readily observe that Eastern cultures celebrate mystery, while we (in the West) celebrate facts. Hence our educational institutions being "fact-factories."

In view of the foregoing, we can add “Eastern culture,” and “Western culture” as the heading to TOA9 for the Unknowable and Known columns (resp.). With the inclusion of these two perspectives, it needs to be remembered at this point that Western cultures are not entirely “KNOWN,” limited or lacking in mystery. Western cultures lean towards exemplifying KNOWN qualities, such as being definitive, “factual” cultures which lack tolerance of mysterious (inexplicable) events.

Eastern cultures do not embody all things Unknowable and are not unlimited, but instead lean towards exemplifying the qualities of the unknowable and the mysterious in their cultures. As David Bohm once observed:

In being biased towards proof, fact and technology, Western cultures discount or downplay the role of intuition, mystery and imagination.

We are so very much more comfortable with facts and reason (the Finite-Known) than we are with mystery, emotion and the spiritual (the Infinite and the Unknowable). As the late physicist David Bohm wrote

1. 1. David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, London 1995, page 22
2. 2. Bohm, page 23
3. 3. Bohm, page 206.

Quantum shifts

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

The observation of anomalies is an excellent fillip for suspecting that our current view of reality is incomplete.

The high degree to which we have biased our perceptions in terms of our local physical senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste) has blinded our consideration of some glaring anomalies in our thinking—anomalies (theoretical paradoxes) which have persisted for nearly two and a half thousand years.

Broken Arrows

Around 450 B.C. Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea introduced a number of paradoxes that revealed how motion (of any kind) was theoretically impossible. What he managed through straight-forward reasoning was to show that our theoretical perception of reality didn’t match our experience of it. And that mis-match between theory and practical experience has persisted ever since. In fact, it has become all the more entrenched in the last few hundreds years since the on-set of the industrial revolution.

Running through Infinity

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Historically, the mathematicians’ use of unreal, immeasurable numbers to explain real phenomena was initially developed by Aristotle to resolve Zeno’s troubling paradoxes.

Our unblinking faith

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

In our normal, everyday world we take for granted the ease with which we can observe the strict correspondence between cause and effect. For example, when we shoot a projectile, such as Zeno’s arrow mentioned earlier, we know that it will basically travel in a straight line, save for the curve of trajectory due to gravity or cross wind.

Duelling with destiny

[Excerpt  Be and Become, ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

As mentioned in the previous section, when physicists attempt to follow or observe the detailed trajectory of say an electron, things are not so deterministic or certain as in our normal everyday world of balls or arrows. When we throw a ball, for example we can predict quite precisely with mathematics (calculus) the trajectory of the ball. We can do so because the macro-sized world we inhabit appears to be continuous and predictable.

How can it be?

The idea that we create our reality and that we are each part of some infinite “undivided whole” can seem so utterly divorced from our normal experiences of everyday life.

For many people the idea can seem entirely unreal, even absurd. For those who realize the consistency and validity of the ideas presented thus far, it is likely it all remains rather academic and hypothetical. There can seem such a large gap between our intellectual understanding that we “create our own reality” and actually moving mountains, so to speak. Hence my disclosures in Chapter Two, concerning how even though I may understand how I create my reality, experiencing effective manipulation, movement or creation of it is another matter altogether.

Our bodies for example seem to have their own agendas, which often seem to be unrelated or independent of our desires. According to a number of recent studies a majority of women in both Australia and the United States believe themselves to be overweight. Their overweight condition would seem to be attributable to factors beyond their conscious control, for if it were simply a matter of conscious control then women would not be choosing to be overweight.

As we age we seem to inevitably show signs of wear and tear by growing grey hair and wrinkles; we get slower and more restrained in our physical movements and so forth.

In a broader context, often during our modern busy work schedules and the increasingly hectic and complex world we live in, we can often feel so utterly separate and disconnected from things “out there.” Many, many times in recent years, as I would walk down a busy street, I would reflect on the applicability of the wave-particle model to everyday life. I would look upon the buildings, roads, pavement, motor vehicles and all manner of manufactured objects and think “how can the atoms and molecules in all this be somehow “pulsing On” to form the concrete, steel and plastics of our man-made world?” I pick up a cup and I feel its texture, its realness and reflect upon the simple objective nature of its existence—it seems to be simply a “thing,” an inanimate object devoid of any living qualities ... but according to quantum theory it’s “choosing” to be a cup.

At least the natural world of plants and animals has a readily identifiable “aliveness” which at least allows us to stretch our imaginations to recognize some form of lower order intelligence in operation. But it can be difficult to sense some form of elemental mind in rocks and other naturally “inanimate material” (as do native peoples).

And yet, the quantum theories in the previous chapter (together with the resolution to Zeno’s Paradoxes), present a viable foundation for understanding that we do indeed create our circumstances and that we are profoundly intertwined with everything that exists. The ideas do form a highly consistent basis by which to explain reality. And from my own limited experience, some of which was mentioned in Chapter Two, such ideas when applied to our intimate relationship with the animate and inanimate world around us do indeed yield results consistent with the ideas.

How then can we reconcile our obvious and profound sense of separation from the world around us, with the idea that we are in fact part of an “undivided whole?” How can we begin to accept that the atoms and molecules which compose the everyday objects in our reality, such as televisions, tables, chairs, books, computers, motor vehicles are all colluding to form the objects we so readily enjoy using or abusing?

How can we begin to delve into the unspeakable and unknowable profundity of the idea that the entire universe is somehow “self-aware,” somehow “alive”? That as I sit at my computer writing this book the computer is choosing to be a computer? That the chair upon which I sit is, thankfully, continuing to “choose” to be a chair? How can I stop from feeling overwhelmed by the enormity of this realization—how can I begin to accept its relevance in my life?

First things first

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

One of the difficulties in relating to the ideas presented in this book is that they need to be felt, rather than simply thought. In Western societies we are more “objectively” orientated than native or traditional Eastern cultures. As explained in Chapter Three, we therefore bias our perceptions in terms of objective facts, while we discount the validity of mystery, magic and feelings. As a result much of this book may not be believable or acceptable from an objective, scientific perspective, even though the ideas presented are, I believe, consistent and rational.

Unless we feel them we will not believe in them, irrespective of the efficacy, rationality or validity of the ideas. In view of the fact that our emotions (feelings) largely follow our beliefs, it becomes particularly important to gain a truer understanding of our reality.

The realization that we feel in response to how we think is vitally important if we seek to come to terms with the idea that the universe and everything within it is a self-organising system.

In view of the foregoing, it is not surprising that many people prefer to build a credible understanding of how things work before they will allow themselves the courage to explore the spiritual (unknowable). In Western societies it is generally necessary for our rational-thinking ego awareness to develop before we can expect our physical and emotional senses to tune into new spheres of experience. Our emotions (via urges, inklings, leanings, gut feelings, yearnings) may motivate us to explore new experiences, but if our conscious reasoning mind is not able to make some sense of the ensuring experiences then we invariably witness stress and dis-ease within the individual. For example, without a philosophical framework which teaches us that living is inherently safe, we will not be spontaneous and free to be ourselves.

Without a congruent philosophical framework, we can expect to observe (as we do) people attempting to squeeze their intuitive emotional experiences into illogical, unreasonable outmoded cultural frameworks. In particular, I refer here to the subject of superstition. Superstition develops when the conscious-reasoning mind cannot translate intuitive feelings into a viable rational understanding. The rise of fundamentalist religious cults throughout the world is due in part to people’s burgeoning intuitive awareness not being able to be squeezed into outmoded cultural and scientific frameworksi. With quantum physics having shown reality to be fundamentally nonlocal, the cat has been well and truly, and irreversibly, let out of the box, so to speak:

Only by recognizing that reality is innately nonlocal (infinitely interconnected) can we begin to make sense of feelings such as intuition and precognition.

As covered in the previous chapter, many sense there is “something in the air” and that something is the realization that reality is nonlocal (infinitely interconnected). We must recognize that through intuitive, precognitive, nonlocal senses everyone is already (subconsciously) aware of these developments in physics and of what will be made of them in the future. Great change is coming and deep down, people intuitively feel it.

To better prepare and engage this change, it behoves us to come to a fuller understanding of how reality actually functions. Otherwise, superstitious irrational fundamentalist cultures will grow in relevance and influence with subsequent adverse effects upon all of us.

From my observations of the present state of the world, I believe the need for a more congruent rational understanding of how reality works to be a profoundly important one. We still observe large numbers of people who routinely behave poorly towards others. We observe that they invariably use religion or some other cultural framework to justify their actions. Even in extreme cases of genocide the perpetrators invariably find justification for their actions. The leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot under whose command up to 2 million Cambodians were tortured and murdered said after his arrest that “My conscience is clear.”1

Throughout history, as indeed within present cultures, we observe that morality and ethics have been largely driven by the prevailing cultural beliefs. For example, slavery, which is generally considered in modern times to be unjust, immoral and a denial of basic human rights was widely practised throughout nearly all cultures for much of recorded history. What we find objectionable and immoral today was often considered normal and just in previous generations.

Conversely what we (generally) find acceptable in modern society, such as homosexuality was often illegal and considered immoral by our forebears.

In many of the group discussions I have attended I invariably find that the course of discussion is driven by deeply held beliefs and feelings. Feelings which are, once again, from my experience, based on flawed beliefs. It is my experience that a great deal of energy is wasted by people who subscribe to beliefs which are incongruent with the deeper aspects of our shared reality. The shifting sands of morality and ethics will continue to shift and change in accord with the changes in cultural awareness and technological development. I believe that any concerted, productive discussion on morals and ethics needs to be preceded by an in-depth understanding of how reality actually works. Otherwise we will continue to observe people such as Pol Pot finding justification for any number of violations against the integrity and well-being of others.

Another reason that one might have difficulty relating to the ideas in this book is that the words I have used are normally associated with human behavior. For example, I suggested that chairs are somehow “choosing” to be chairs, but the word “choice” has many connotations associated with human intelligence. Perhaps if I used words such as “field,” or “energy” we might then get a better feel for the ideas. For example, we might prefer to say that chairs have a certain energy about them, or they are surrounded by a certain field. But by using such words we can skirt the central issue which is that atoms and molecules and other bits of inanimate matter do in fact have some form of limited volition (as indicated by quantum theory).

1. 1. “Sayings of the Year,” Sydney Morning Herald, December 27, 1997, page 14 News Review.

A separate angst

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Despite the reasonable expectation mentioned earlier that the universe is somehow self-aware, the idea can remain so utterly foreign to many of us1 simply because we have never learned to expect that it might indeed be “self-aware.” It follows that if the universe is as suggested by the physicists, then our lack of awareness of such is because we have not yet developed our awareness and understanding sufficiently to recognize it.

The degree to which we remain separate from the world, is the degree to which we lean towards or consciously identify with being “particle orientated.” The particle nature is the quality of being “separate from” other things, people, events and feelings. The particle-physical nature, as shown in the TOA in the next chapter, is about definition, exclusiveness, objectivity, separateness, boundaries, measurement etc. Its about quantifying objects, things, particles and events—in short, it’s all about the discrete, measurable bits and pieces of space and time (events).

The wave nature, on the other hand is about the emotional gaps between things—the subjective, indefinable emotional relationships between objects, people and events. The wave nature is about how we connect with others and the world around us. The wave nature is an inclusive, open, unlimited interrelatedness. The wave nature is not able to be quantified or measured. Try for example putting a “measure” on friendships and observe how long those friendships remain intact. Such things as friendships and relationships are matters of the heart and cannot be quantified. Quantification, definition and measurement are aspects of “separateness.” In the table of One and All, I have correlated “separateness” with science, objectivity and definition. As already mentioned in Chapter Three, science is the objective discipline of measurement and is not in any way able to meaningfully deal with subjective feelings and emotions. It is simply not possible to define that which is indefinable. As soon as the indefinable is defined, it is no longer indefinable. This is why sciences such as psychiatry and psychology are largely ineffective for they are sciences applied to a subjective realm, which by definition is beyond the reach of objective science. Whenever you attempt to limit or define that which is subjective and unlimited, you end up with something which is objective, quantified and limited.

In the film “Dead Poets Society” we saw a powerful portrayal of this realization when Mr Keats (played by Robin Williams) ordered his students to rip out sections of a text book which taught we can measure and quantify a poem. He then knelt down and with his students in a hushed huddle around him, urged them to feel the juiciness and mystery of life, not its metric, measurable qualities. Poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge said that “the best art internalizes the external, and externalizes the internal.” Science also needs to marry the External-Known (Intellect) and the Internal-Unknowable (Emotions) if it is to gain a deeper relevancy.

When we overly identify with the particle nature, we downplay our wave nature. For example, usually the more logical and intellectual one is (refer the table of One and All, lines 14 and 60 resp.), the less intuitive and emotional the person. The more you use, or are able to abuse an object, person or event, generally the less you relate to it.

A strong identification with the particle nature often leads to an almost complete disregard for the well-being of others and is the reason behind the countless atrocities inflicted upon man by man throughout the ages.

People, in such circumstances are seen as things, objects to be mistreated, abused or disposed of at will. As indicated earlier, almost universally throughout the animal kingdom and human society, males have been the aggressors. As author Francis Fukuyama noted:

The angst in modern society is largely due to the over-identification with the particle (objective-factual-known) nature of existence while discounting the spiritual (infinite, mysterious, unknowable). As covered earlier, the spiritual (Mysterious-Uncertain-Unknowable) is a vital component to be welcomed and “mastered” if one is to find happiness.

1. 1. I need to include a footnote here that the “us” I refer to is meant as a general reference to those who were raised within modern “Western” technological cultures. It should be recognized that it generally excludes those who have been raised within native cultures, most of who maintain a sense of “oneness” with the world around them. In Australian aboriginal culture, trees and rocks, for example, are treated like people with abilities to communicate with, and relate to, their environment.
2. 2. The Weekend Australian, News Ltd, Sydney, September 19, 1998 page 23, Focus Section. {Edited excerpt of an essay by Francis Fukuyama in the September Issue of Foreign Affairs journal}.

Limited ego, unlimited unconscious

This section 'Limited ego, unlimited unconscious' analyses and tables the polarities of individuality and the deeper 'spiritual' connectedness, and potentials of the human psyche.

For more details, please refer to course materials.

There is no script

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

Personnel departments and consultancies almost invariably attempt to categorize and define people according to certain personality traits which are then matched to the required traits of a particular position. To some extent, definition of skills, competencies and character is important for effective placement of people. But present attempts to write more effective computer programs or questionnaires to help determine character are misguided.

From the beginning

This section 'From the beginning' begins to tie together the seemingly unrelated aspect of quantum mechanics, intuition, responsibility, mind and the deeper nature of consciousness.

See course materials for more details.

Downward causation

This section 'Downward Causation' analyses the role of upwards and downwards causation - that of the role and influence of individuality (upwards causation) within a group, and 'downwards causation' - the role and influence of the group (peer-group pressure) upon individuality, and choice.

Free will and fate is analysed from a holistic, systems perspective.

Please refer to course materials for more details.

Our push-pull reality

This section 'Our push-pull reality' further analyses and Tables (Tables 5.8 and 5.9) the nature of imagination, freedom, ego, choice, boundaries, past and future and how they all inter-relate and affect each other.

Please refer course materials for more details.