Please update your Flash Player to view content.

Ad Astra

Opublikowano: 02 sierpień 2010

Many years ago I got a book “The dancing Wu Li masters” by Gary Zukav. The book was about physics, the subject I had never been interested in so at first I was not excited at all. Still being a book worm I opened it and started reading. And I loved it.

 

The book was not for professionals - the things described there were quite easy to understand and it was digestible for a mere mortal like me. For the first time in my life I could understand Einstein's Relativity Theories, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Bohr's atom, Schrödinger's Cat, or Quantum Mechanics’ basic theories and, what is more, I found it extremely interesting. On the other hand, I was already interested in cosmology, mysticism, paranormal, altered states of consciousness, and I was surprised to see how much today’s physic is related to them.

Then I read “Turning point” by Capra and this book also impressed me very much as well as changed my understanding of the world around me. There is increasing awareness that our society is approaching a “turning point”, a shift away from the mechanistic worldview of classical physics. The emergence of modern physics triggered a revolution in thinking which initiated a fundamental paradigm shift in our understanding of the nature of matter and its relation to the human mind and heralded the emergence of new forms of cultural integration. The proposed "deep science", which integrates spiritual modes of knowing with scientific empiricism, can produce a more balanced, ecological vision of the cosmos. The book was written by Fritjof Capra more than twenty years ago, but it lost nothing of its meaning as the process of changing the attitudes is very slow.

There were even more books of similar fields of interest, i.e. Ken Wilber “Theory of everything”, which was not so easy to understand (though I liked his theory of holons and the first chart of the book where the writer talks about the differences between males and females in a humorous way) but it also referred to physics and its relation with spirituality. Wilber’s map of reality embraces the entire mental-physical “Kosmos,” not just the particle-physics aspect of it. He links his explanatory schemata to real-world problems and situations, and in doing so presents a convincing case that only an integral approach to personal and societal development will get humanity through the difficult times ahead. 

Therefore, I was already “prepared” for reading something like “What the bleep do we know”. Still, there were a lot of new aspects and new understanding of the same issues. Paraphrasing Will, one of the book’s writers, reading this book was like re-editing the “movie” I had in mind - as new knowledge unfolded, my mind asserted new parts of the book.

I believe the paradigm shift is taking place everywhere, impacting our culture, society and personal. We have to undergo transformations, sometimes dramatic, on our values system, perceptions and ways of relating to each other and to the world. The turning point by Capra is still there, losing nothing of its meaning. We can feel (at least I do and have always done) a certain emptiness behind the things we have been taught and the way we perceive these things. There are numerous things I desire, but beyond the financial success and materialistic world there is something more, and this is the need to understand my place in the universe, find my Tao, the natural order so that to be able to live in harmony with it. The book teaches that not knowing answers to the questions is not a disaster- it is OK not to know. Asking the right questions - what is important. Great questions come from the other side of the Known. And to get there is to change.

A famous film “Matrix” states the same thing as the Buddhist religion or the oldest known scriptures Vedas – the physical world is not what we think it is, but illusion, maya, matrix - call it whatever you like but the sense is the same. The objective world does not exist. The reality is not the way we see it.

The religion issue and the development of science, especially physics is also very interesting. All of us know about the repressions Giordano Bruno, Galileo or Copernicus had to undergo. For its part, Church did everything to shut them down, to prevent the spread of ideas that might threaten its authority. But what the Church dreaded is precisely what happened. As the scientists persevered in the adventure of discovery, sent back dispatches from the frontiers of the unknown and used the growing body of knowledge to create ever-more-powerful technologies, the charm of the scientific enterprise drew increasing support. Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, Newton and many others believed that the world was like a machine, operating in three-dimensional space, with events taking place in time. They represented the mechanistic approach; still they believed that the God was the master architect and builder of the world. It was only later generations of scientists, focused entirely on the world machine, who found they had no need for God or spirituality. Set free of the constraints of the religious dogma, the scientists reacted with a vengeance, proclaiming everything unseen and non-measurable to be fantasy and delusion. Many became as dogmatic as the Church authorities, declaring with self-righteous certainty that we are strictly little machines running around in a predictable machine universe governed by immutable laws. Is it ever possible to reconcile both sides? The separation of mind and body that Descartes made into a fundamental rule of science, and which scientific discovery believed for hundreds years, has caused endless problems. By viewing the world outside our minds as nothing but lifeless matter, operating according to predictable, mechanical laws and devoid of any spiritual or animate quality, it divided us from the living nature that sustains us. And it provided humanity with a perfect excuse to exploit all "natural resources" for our own selfish and immediate purposes, with no concern for other living beings or for the future of the planet.

As science dug even deeper into its dead universe, it stumbled upon and unlocked, a mystery. In the early years of the 20-th century, the stranglehold of materialism was being cracked open by scientists like Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger and other founders of quantum theory, who told the world: Probe deeply into the matter, and it disappears and dissolves into unfathomable energy. If we follow Galileo and describe it mathematically, it turns out it is not a material universe at all. The physical universe is essentially non-physical, and may arise from a field that is even more subtle than the energy itself, a field that looks more like information, intelligence or consciousness than like matter.

Can the prayer heal? Some people say that yes, it can. Can we affect the physical world with our mind? Yes, I believe so. There are hundreds of books written on that subject- the books like The Amazing Laws of Cosmic Mind, The Cosmic Power Within You by Joseph Murphy  or Quantum-Touch, Broken Bones Healed and Other Stories by Richard Gordon. Practically every day, the new scientific information is appearing that cannot be explained using the classical Newtonian model. Relativity theory, quantum mechanics, the influence of thoughts and emotions on our bodies, so-called "anomalies" like ESO, mental healing, remote viewing, out-of-body experiences- all these point to the need for a different model, a new paradigm that would include all these phenomena in a more comprehensible theory of how the world works.

spirit and matter. Two sides of the same coin. First the Church, and then the new priesthood - the Science. Can these be ever reconciled? We are at the bottom of the paradigm rabbit hole. On the left is the life where we are conscious beings determining our path, and on the right is just ones and zeroes that somehow create the illusion of you.

What is the reality? When I was at primary school I was taught that there are some sounds people cannot hear and light frequencies we cannot see. It was shocking for me because being a child I believed my teachers and at the same time, I could not imagine that there is something beyond my perception. And then I asked myself an important question? What if my senses do not work properly? What happens if I perceive the world in a distorted way, how can I ever check it?  How can other people know and how we can be sure that we can see and hear the same things? Is it possible that our communication, feelings, tastes, whatsoever is an illusion. It is like "The Truman Show" film - the real life one day turns out to be artificial. One day it turns out you do not have real parents, wife or friends- the actors are playing their roles but you believe their words because there is nothing else you can hear. Everything you can see does not really exist naturally- it was created for fun by someone you have never seen and never understood his motivation. The main hero of "The Truman Show" was strong enough to fight against the rest of the world, but only because he was sure there is something beyond it and this unknown can be reached. I remember a scene from the film "What the bleep?" When the girl turns her head the world behind her disappears - when she starts looking the world is there again. But how can we reach the unknown in this case. What is the world really like, beyond our limitations? The animals, for example, can see it differently - whose sight is better? Or there are more than one just one world- there are many of them existing simultaneously, like freshly washed sheets hanging one by one, so close but never touching each other. Of course, such questions are terrifying and we, people, do not like terrifying things. Still, there is a need inside us, the need to know the truth and to understand. Jeffrey Satinover said, that there is essentially nothing to matter whatsoever - it is completely insubstantial so the very word "matter" has no applied meaning. The most solid thing you could say about this insubstantial matter is that it is more like a thought, a concentrated bit of information. The bottom line, at least as far as science has gone up till now, is this: We create

the world we perceive.

Thousands of years ago the Indian philosophers knew there was something going on beyond the realm of senses. They taught and still teach that the world of appearances, the world we see with our senses, is maya, illusion, something that is more powerful and more fundamental, more "real" even though it is completely intangible. As so many spiritual texts suggest, there is a "higher reality" that is more fundamental than the material universe is, and it has something to do with consciousness. That is precisely what quantum physics is revealing. It suggests that at the core of the physical world there is a completely non-physical realm, whether we call it information, probability waves or consciousness. According to NASA astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell the universe is intelligent. It is proceeding in a direction and we 

have something to do with this direction.

The 18-th century philosopher Emmauel Kant pointed out that human beings can never truly know the nature of reality as it is. Our investigations can only provide answers to the questions we ask, which are based on the capabilities and limitations of our minds. Everything we perceive in the natural world (whether with our senses or through science) comes from the filter of our consciousness, and is determined, at least to some extent, by the mind's own structures. Thus, what we see are "phenomena", that is the interactions between the mind and whatever is "really out there". We don't see reality; we only see our construction of reality, built up by the neurons of our brains. The "thing-in-itself" is forever hidden from us. To put it another way, science gives only model of the world, not the world itself.
What is the truth about perception then? It is a complex and many-faceted process that begins when our sensory neurons pick up information from the environment and sent it, in the form of electrical impulses, to the brain. Our sensory inputs are limited as it has already been said above, nevertheless, the amount of information that comes pouring in from the five senses is staggering- somewhere on the order of 400 billion bits per second. Obviously, we don't consciously receive and process anything near that amount- researchers say openly about two thousand get through to our consciousness. So as the brain gets to work "trying to create for us a story of the world" as Dr. Newberg puts it, "it has to get rid of a lot of extra data". The issues of relations between emotions and perception is also important as, according to some scientists, it is not only what we believe is real, but also how we feel about what our senses are picking up, that determines how and if we are going to perceive it. Four hundred bits a second. Even once we throw out the stuff that is "unreal" (Martians) and the stuff that is irrelevant" (smell of shampoo), there is still a lot of bits left. Emotions give them weighting or importance. They are a hard-wired shortcut to perception. They also provide us with a unique capability to not see what we simply don't want to see (?!). Does it have anything to do with the fact that I have an amazing ability to forget the unpleasant situations and the names of faces of the people associated with these situations- just don’t remember). When I open my eyes and look around, it is not the world I see, but the world my belief system allows me to see, and the world that my emotions care about seeing or not seeing. I believe everyone experienced (at least once in his/her life) a strange felling described as "I could not believe my eyes", which usually takes us aback though we can see hundreds of wonderful things every day (wonderful but predictable).

Quantum physics is described as the "known that meets the unknown". Classical Newtonian physics was based on observations of the solid, everyday objects of ordinary experience, from falling apple to orbiting planets. Its laws were repeatedly tested, proven and extended over several hundred years. They were well understood and did a great job of predicting physical behavior- as seen in the triumph of the Industrial revolution. But in the late 19-th century, when physics began developing the tools to investigate the very tiny realms of matter, they discovered something very puzzling: Newtonian physics did not work! It could neither explain nor predict the results researchers were finding. Over the next hundred years, an entirely new scientific description has grown up to explain the world of the very small. Known as quantum mechanics or quantum physics (or simply quantum theory), this new knowledge does not replace Newtonian physics, which still works quite well to explain large, macroscopic objects. Rather, the new physics has been invented to go where Newtonian physics could not go: to the subatomic world. "The universe is very strange", says Dr. Stuart Hameroff. "There seem to be two sets of laws that govern the universe. In our everyday, classical world, meaning at roughly our size and time scales, thongs are describes by Newton's laws of motion set down hundreds and hundreds of years ago... However, when we get down to a small scale, to the level of atoms, a different set of laws takes over. These are quantum laws".

Quantum theory is mind-boggling. Particles can be in two or more places at once. The same "object" may appear to be a particle, locatable in one place, or a wave spread over space and time. Atoms, the supposedly solid building blocks of the physic universe, were mostly made up of empty space. Not only is there “space” between particles but as scientists probed more deeply into the atom, they found that the subatomic particles are not solid either. Scientists also found that when the electrons move form orbit to orbit through the nucleus, they do not move through the space the ordinary objects move – rather, they move instantaneously (a quantum jump). No-one can determine exactly where the electrons would appear, or when they would jump. “Reality as we experience it is constantly being  created freshly at every moment, out of this pool of possibilities, which one is the one that is going to happen is determined by nothing that is a part of physical universe. There is no process that makes it happen”.

In 1964 John Bohr created a theory that in effect said that the idea of something being local or existing in one place is incorrect. Everything is non-local; the particles are intimately linked on some level that is beyond time and space. Time and space, the most basic features of the world in which we live, are somehow superceded in the quantum world by the notion of everything touching all the time.

When faced with the experimental evidence that the process of observing appears to influence what is being observed, science was forced to drop four centuries of assumptions and grapple with a revolutionary idea – we are involved in reality. Although the nature and extent of this influence is still being hotly debated, it is clear that, as Fritjof Capra puts it, “The crucial feature of quantum theory is that the observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an atomic phenomenon, but it is necessary even to bring about these properties”. The observer affects the observed. Fritjof Capra concludes:”The electron does not have objective properties independent of my mind”. All of this serves to blur the once-sharp distinction between the “world out there” and the subjective observer, which seems to merge or dance together in discovering – or is it creating? – the world. Dancing Wu-li masters? It appears that our consciousness may help to create "reality" and the scientist cannot help but influence the outcome of experiments on sub-atomic particles. We cannot believe any longer that the universe islike a giant machine, with the implication that we are something more than organic robots or automatons. We are a part of it, but the part which can also decide about its further development, influence the direction of its development and change its future.

Unlike 100 years ago, science is no longer waging an all out assault upon religion. In fact science is beginning to support some of the fundamental tenants of most religions and is laying a groundwork for a new spirituality (the writers of the book occasionally note the similarity between science and religion, especially Zen).The most ancient spiritual and metaphysical traditions have long held the view that “conscious is the ground of all being”. So what is consciousness?

I believe that Mark, one of the book’s authors, put it brilliantly. He said that most of us take for granted the word and the idea of consciousness. There is the sense when we look at our bodies - there is something that drives them and animates them. We are it. This is our sense of “self”. This is the experience which is beyond the language, which is maybe why nobody has successfully described what consciousness is using words. Still, we know very little about it. One of the reasons is that consciousness doesn’t fit in the Newtonian paradigm - it is not made of measurable stuff. Many scientific thinkers are arguing strongly for the inclusion of consciousness within the new framework of science. If physical laws cannot explain the existence of consciousness, it means that that physic is not a true theory of everything. Buddha said that the mind is everything and what we think, we become. Is that true? How can we prove such a thing that mind is ever matter? What is the evidence? In his book, Dr Masaru Emoto features stunning photographs showing frozen water crystals after they have been subjected to non-physical stimuli. The results are stunning - the music clearly affected the size and shape of the crystals. The signs on the bottles affected the crystals as well though the words did not create a measurable physic action. The water with positive messages formed beautiful crystals while the water with the negative messages became ugly and malformed. Taking into account the fact that water unites all the humanity, the results of the experiment cannot be overestimated.

All the roads trekked in the previous discussion lead to the same eternal question: Do I create my reality or I am a leaf in the wind?  What is more, there is a myriad of nuances and the same amount of questions. And these questions in turn tie into the concepts of karma, transcendent self, frequency specific resonances, attitudes, personal responsibility, victimization and power.

Science says our five senses can only measure a very little fraction of our universe. We think we can see everything - but we only see what can be seen by our eyes and interpreted by our brain, and that is a very little fraction of the light spectrum. Of course we have found that some light cant be seen by our eyes and have found ways to measure this as well, black light, gamma rays so on. But science so far has not found any final answer to anything.

We cannot deny that intention seems to push around events on the microscopic level, the supposed randomness of quantum events could be altered, and the focus of our minds could bring about a different physical state.

But where are the limits of the rule that mind is over matter or as some scientists say mind = matter, or even consciousness = reality? We agree upon the statement that everything is interdependent, but to what extent can we really decide? In countless small ways we create our lives every day- we decide what to wear, what time to get up, how to treat the people we meet. Then on the larger scale, the whole trajectory of our lives is generated by our choices - which college to choose, what career, etc. But the questions remained.

When I was a child I asked myself - what if I could be a magician and anything I wished would come true. I thought it would be wonderful but now, many years later I realize how childish and naive were my desires. Now I believe my wishes were not the best one for myself, let's forget the rest of the world. Maybe the lack of immediate gratification in creating our own reality could be to protect us from ourselves. Then, the question arises - who am I?  How can I perceive myself properly if I cannot assess what is good and bad for me. Do I know myself so well, that I can be fully responsible for all my deeds, and all my thoughts and all my feelings? Paraphrasing Kant, besides the starry sky, the inner world of a human being is a constant source of amazement.

A man is a complex creature - there are ego/true self, personality/divinity, mortal body/ immortal soul, but in essence it all means that there are many levels from which you are creating. The idea of karma is simple- you are hit by John because in your previous life you hit John, whoever he was then. I believe this is too naive. Rather we should believe that everything in our life is nothing but reflections of our signature vibrations (our thoughts, feelings, actions). It is not only our actions that matter, it is also vibrations (such as thoughts, feelings, desires) that never came into physical world. This creates a new understanding of creation and new understanding for responsibility. For such a situation means responsibility - you can no longer say that something terrible happened to you and you had nothing in common with it. Instead of asking the universe to prove that you create reality so that you can sit on the fence and accept or reject what happens, you take it as a given that your life and its happenings are created by you, so therefore you look for meaning in them. "People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are", said the famous British playwriter Bernard Shaw. "I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them, they make them". How can it work? How do those happy and unhappy "coincidences" occur that are often the harbingers of a new world?

Who is running the computer that can keep all of this straight for 6 billion humans? One of the theories is that an individual's consciousness is constantly scanning the future, maybe even going into the future to "taste" certain situation, and then focusing, or collapsing that chosen possibility into reality. The "how" gets handled by the immensely interactive super intelligent universe that automatically responds to consciousness because that is what it is.

Your pool of created reality lies in front of you. Smeared across the landscape of time, those possibilities await "the movement of consciousness" to bring the actual event into experience. But let's say you are a bit more proactive - a landscape activist who is not willing to sit back and let the weeds of the universe to happen to you, but rather seed the landscape of possibilities with your conscious creations.

How can we know that our individual aims are aligned with cosmic aims? How can we know that we are proceeding our Tao road and not leading ourselves astray? By feeling the harmony of the universe? But how can we be sure that such a feeling is not an illusion? And what about practical impact of knowing that we are creating our time? To what extend our responsibility stretch? Can we feel responsible for all the evil in the world, in our country, region or neighborhood? If we are creating on many different levels, how it can be applied in practice? Which creation process is more conscious and which is better? How can we restrain the dark side or ourselves, our Id, if we agree it is our shadow, undeniable but still very difficult if not impossible to rule. If we ourselves are responsible for anything that happens to us, what about helping others? Does it make any sense since we know they are responsible for their own pitiful situation? What about hope, the basic feeling? Can we state that we are unhappy because our best friend died in a car crash?  Is consciousness so perfect that we should rely on its choices? Is it in full agreement with the notion of free will? Even more unanswered questions.

Is consciousness merely a product of a brain? Where does the consciousness happen? Can it be experienced without the body (i.e. out-of-body and near-death experiences).There are three buckets: materialism (consciousnesses a product of a brain activity, does not have any reality of its own), dualism (consciousness and matter are two utterly different and separated substances) and idealism (consciousness is the fundamental reality, everything is connected and related). In the third view, the problem of the relationship of consciousness and the body dissolves, they are already and always related and connected, in fact they are just two aspects of the same "thing".

But what are the mechanisms by which consciousness loses its pure abstractness, becomes thought, perception and feeling, and appears electrical or chemical activity in the brain? Is memory really a brain? A number of scientists are currently looking into the proposition that memories are not actually stored in the brain. It has been found that if you remove part of the brain where a memory appeared to be located, the memory still persist. Where is it stored? At "Akashic records" (as Steinberg put it in his famous book)? The brain might just serve as an instrument to pull the memories out of universe . It might be the local storage, the local disk for the cosmic hard drive where all memories are stored.

And how does this "three-pound grey cauliflower "work? It has been calculated that there are more possible connections in one human brain than there are atoms in the entire universe. Traditional models compare the brain to a telephone switchboard or a supercomputer. But the brain is not machine like at all, it is a very alive, plastic and flexible organ, capable of learning, understanding and dynamically rewiring itself on our demands. The study of brain is an immensely fascinating and that is a great fun to explore. There are so many amazing facts about the brain, i.e. it is at least 1000 times faster than the fastest computer in the world, the brain contains as many neurons as there are stars in the Milky Way- about 100 billion, the brain is always "on" it never turns off or even rest throughout our entire life. Everyone has their own collection of experiences and skills, represented in the neuronets in their brains (whether we grew up in a single-parent family, or we were raised with many other children, whether we went to college, etc.) All those experiences shape, neurologically, the fabric of what is taking place in our perception and in our world. The brain learns in two major ways. The first way is through factual, intellectual data that we master or memorize. The more you go over the material, the more firmly established it will be in your memory - because the neutral networks become stronger. The second and more powerful way the brain learns is through experience (reading a book on how to ride a bicycle will never be as good as riding the bicycle).Reexamining core ideas and beliefs is life-changing, by reexamining you can go through all the links and find buried assumptions that are triggering our reactions through the process called Associative Memory. With more possible neural connections than atoms in the universe, the brain has a big problem: how to find a memory and how to find it quickly? Here emotions can help. Emotions evaluate the situation quickly, in fact, without you even thinking about it, and send the chemical messengers off to fight or flight, smile or frown (the downside with associative memory is that because we perceive reality, and treat new experiences based on our stored mental/neuronal database of the past, it is difficult to see what is really out there  in the moment. Instead, the tendency is to just reference experiences from the past).

Just like all the cells of the body come together and interrelate with each other to produce a functioning organism, so the neuronets all interrelate or associate, to produce that entity that we think of as our personality. All the emotions, memories, concepts and attitudes are encoded neurologically and interconnected, the result being what has been variously called the ego, the son of man, the lower self, the human, the personality.

Though it was once believed that by adolescence the brain was pretty well wired for life, more recent research has confirmed that the brain is not only plastic and malleable, even into old age, but that it also creates new cells. While previously the nervous system was seen as a rigid thing that did not have much capacity for change, the present views are that within our nervous system, within our entire physiology,  the potential is tremendous. We are much more unlimited than anyone has ever realized. We are meant to, designed to engineered to evolve in creativity and intelligence throughout life -  but to do that you have to access the innate capability of the brain, and the tools, the key, to really develop the brain holistically is to experience the holistic reality, the meditative state, so-called spiritual experience, the experience of the unified field at the source of thought.

The major fact that distinguishes human beings from all other species is our large frontal lobe, and the ratio of that frontal lobe to the rest of the brain. The frontal lobe is an area of the brain that enables us to focus attention and to concentrate. It is central to decision-making and to holding a firm intention. It enables us to draw information from our environment and our storehouse of memories, process it, and make decisions or choices different from the decisions and choices we have made in the past. But many choices are far from free. Much of our behaviour consists of conditioned, learned or automatic responses to stimuli. A second way of making choices occurs when we consciously separate ourselves from the environment and its stimuli, stand back from our habitual or biological behavior and become the observer. And with this power of observation we can see that by our choices we can actually alter, restrain or change what we see "out there". Dr Dispenza says that we have not mastered the skill of observation and we may be so addicted to the external world and so addicted to the stimulus and response in the external world that the brain is beginning to work out of response instead of out of creation. If we are given the proper knowledge and proper understanding and given the proper instruction, we should begin to see measurable feedback in our life.

Is was also Dr Dispenza who said that emotions are the chemistry to reinforce an experience neurologically and that we remember things that are more emotional. What exactly are emotions? Are they some mystical property of experience that is indefinable, or are they something much more concrete and tangible? Everything we feel, every emotion, produces a specific chemical or collection of chemicals, that matches up with it. Every emotion has a chemical (MOE) associated with it, and it is the absorption of this chemical in our body by the cells that gives rise to the feeling of that emotion. The hookup of these MOEs to what we perceive and experience is very direct. From an evolution perspective, this makes sense. We pay attention to what is important, and what is important, or what has the most meaning to us, is chemically conveyed, and quickly, to the body by these molecules of emotion. An again , we should realize that we cannot see  and appraise the world  objectively as our emotions as well as experiences will significantly influence our perception.

Can emotions be addictive? Does it happen (in my case, yes, it certainly does) that we have destructive emotional states, the same emotional situations happen over and over again, that we promise that we will never do something again and three hours later we are doing that? These are emotional addictions. It is common knowledge that addictions have serious long-term effects on the body. The thrill seeker who pushes himself further and further into extreme bungee jumping, the politician running for higher and higher offices, not out of the desire to serve but on a quest for more power. If you begin to look for these scenarios with people you know, or especially in your own life, you will see examples everywhere. Additions are hard to break - that is what makes them addictions. And the way these emotions got to be an addiction is through continually trying to recreate an initial experience. The first experience of sex, or sympathy or power is not an addiction. It is chasing it high over and over that becomes the addiction. Dr Dispenza reveals a terrible truth about us - we are so addicted to stress that we cannot quit the job even though it does not serve us. The same is about relationship. We cannot make choices because the stimulus and response are producing the chemistry that clouds our choices. AA programmes can serve as positive examples of the solution to the addictions. But as alcoholics have to keep on saying "I am an alcoholic", it means they are forever locked in that type of personality. So it is never over - the addiction has never been owned and retired. The way out is like that: we must pursue knowledge without  any interference of addictions and then our bodies will experience in new ways, in new chemistry, new elsewhere of thoughts.

 Addiction to emotion has a synonym - it is attachment to desire. This is one of those instances where science has crossed paths with the great spiritual teachings and rediscovered the same phenomena. According to the Buddhist traditions, it is the attachment that keeps us forever on the wheel of life, death and rebirth, going round and round , over and over. Desire and passion fuel evolution and change. If analyzing a given desire, it is important to do two things:  not  to judge and be honest. Great example is that of someone who is running for a public office. They desire power, but people often feel guilty about so boldly stating their true desire that they go into a song and dance about helping the citizens, whereas they really want to experience the feeling of power. One of the book's authors, Will, then gives more examples of how desires are being produced by media - they create the desire for goods and the emptiness that makes you buy these goods. He compares the situation to this of the ancient Roman coliseum.

Again we come back to the same question - who chooses? Which "I"? The personality or the transcendental self? It is often that voice coming from the transcendental side, that crazy desire for wisdom, that makes a transformation no one would ever be able to guess. That is why it is so important  not to judge desires, but to look closely at the desires before choosing.  So who chooses? Are we taking advantage of that quantum randomness that lets us choose something new or we are the mechanistic machine that performs everything based on

preexisting (old) conditions?  

Which world do we live in: the living, organic, alive, interconnected universe, or the windup toy soldier, tick-tock, divided one? In the old thinking  we cannot change anything because we do not play any significant roles in the reality around us - it exists beyond our will moving its own way. In the new thinking, mathematics can give us something - the possibilities that all this movement can assume, but not the experience that people may have in their consciousness. People can choose that experience and literally, create their own reality.

There have been much of going on and on about the scientific paradigm and how it has determined attitudes and the way we look at the world."Paradigm shift" is much bandied about the phrase that envisions a wonderful new world in which the old basic assumptions of the Newtonian worldwide are gone. In fact , the modus operandi  that kicked off the Newtonian spirit/science split was not the science but the Church. Humans are relentlessly pushing onward. The religion says that we have the truth already right from day one, therefore, it can never change, and this way religion has become more and more irrelevant to the evolution of the human thought. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is the notion that "Jesus will save me", which means that I have no hope of doing it myself, being a sinner born in sin. If someone can always save you, then you never really have to take responsibility for anything, which is the classic victim mentality. But we should not say that religion is bad, especially after going on and on about how good and bad do not exist. For a while some religions may have a true divine source, but in time they are administered and devolved by humans. The way out is not attacking religions but evolving into the next generation, the next version of humanity. The problem with religions is that they got stuck and dug their heels in about what it is the truth. The separation of science and spirit is truly artificial and not based on any reality. These two worlds are two sides of the same coin, and the coin is humanity flipping over reality. Maybe these two branches of human thought separated just so science could focus  on matter and make discoveries and improve the quality of our lives. Certainly the dogmatism that is often pointed to in religion is equaled on the scientific side. It is like the varied religious forms themselves, simply a bubbling up of the underlying consciousness field of humanity.

The changes in paradigm take part in many different disciplines. For example, in the field of psychology Carl Jung, one of the founders of modern psychology, posited "the collective unconscious". It was from the collective unconscious that certain ideas or archetypes arise, eventually making their way into our conscious behavior. Jung noted how these archetypes seemed to be universal among humans, and give rise to similar concepts, dreams and other phenomena in  human psychology. Many techniques and therapies were developed based on this idea that have been used successfully by Jungian therapists for decades."Social consciousness" is nor a phrase that just describes a certain herd instinct, but that herd instinct is itself as real as any other real thing and this is a sociological idea.
Changes are taking place in biology, ecology, politics, economics - all are revolutionized by the concept that something non-physical- the mind, consciousness - has a real effect on the physical. What about the ultimate coherence in our minds? Is this we unconsciously strive for? There have been times on this planet when humanity got together for a greater good, and the feeling of goodwill that was generated was overwhelming - Apollo 13 crisis, when people all over the world prayed for the safe return of the astronauts, or the tsunami in 2004, when there was a splash of sympathy among the people of all races and religions. In those few times when people acted globally to help humanity the fact of the globe coherence resulted in the feelings and actions out of this world. Such a coherence confirms that fact that we are all connected, we are all entangled. Paraphrasing William Tiller, what we do to another person, we do to some aspect of ourselves (sounds like the Bible). If there is something in our lives we do not like, we cannot stay indifferent and separate ourselves from this unpleasant side of reality because we are co-creators of that. Being co-creators of our future we are responsible for it and we should do our best to contribute to it. We have been taught for hundreds of years that we are outside of our universe, that we are alone, and that we are separate. Such a view of separateness brought about most destructive attitudes and thinking, created aggressiveness, greed and cruelty. A fragmented world reflects a fragmental understanding of the universe. But the view is wrong - we are not separate and we are not alone. There are then absolutely new ethics and morals.

People often think there is a secret formula, the Graal vessel, that will bring an enlightment and immediate solution. Such thinking seems to be so naive when faced with thousands of years of debates, discussions, fights and arguments. Science tells us that nothing is impossible, but people have to make choice for themselves. Most people are happy with their livers - watching TV and having a 9 to 5 job. They may not feel happy but they are hypnotized into thinking that that is normal. The person who has another urge inside of them that they are clearly interested in something else, all they need is a little bit of knowledge, and if they accept that knowledge as a possibility and if they embrace that knowledge over and over again, they will begin to apply that knowledge. For some people it can take five minutes but for the others it would be an enormous effort to act against everything they know and everything attached to their present lives, all their agreements and all their relationships.

So what the bleep do we know? The crazy ideas: the world is essentially empty, all we perceive is maya-illusion, we are all fundamentally connected, we are one. What shall we do with this knowledge? Shall we start a journey of transformation? What can we and will we become? We end the same way we started - with the questions. But the questions though sound the same are asked form a different level different level of understanding, perception and consciousness. By asking them and looking for answers we are moving forward. If there is knowledge we are without - we will find it, if it is an experience that is missing - we will create it. Let it be so.

 

Janina Janik

Lubisz nas?

Dom Dwóch Kultur

dom dwóch kultur

visegrad_find

 

Polecamy

Regionalna Telewizja Opolskie

 

Visit opolskie

4 pory roku

Masz pomysł, jak ciekawie pokazać kulturę, pasje i ludzi pogranicza? Chciałbyś pomóc w realizacji materiałów video? Napisz do nas!

Szlachetna Paczka

 

 

 

 

 

| + -