One of the first drawings of a magnetic field, by René Descartes, 1644. It illustrated his theory that magnetism was caused by the circulation of tiny helical particles, ‘threaded parts,’ through threaded pores in magnets.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field]
Few of us- if anyone- do realize that what we consider reality and what reality is (by itself) are two different things. To begin with, reality is a notion, a description of all the things which constitute the word. But this is what we consider reality- an idea whom in order to grasp we need to strip of any other accompanying object.
This is similar to the way our own thought works. If we would like to concentrate on ‘pure thought,’ we will have to free our thoughts from any obstacle or object which may preoccupy us. But by doing so, we may finally end up not with emptiness, but with a new object- that of our ‘purest thought.’ Thus, in a sense, thought becomes some kind of an object on its own, some form of reality per se.
So where reality can truly be found? When we hold, for example, a cup of coffee, where is the cup of coffee located? Perhaps we might say that, initially, it was lying on the table. Then we picked it up, and brought it to our mouth. And this is the great- and yet so unnoticed- mystery of synchronicity (or simultaneity if you would like). Because as soon as we get hold of the object (in this example a cup of coffee) at the same moment the object is grasped in our thoughts. In fact the object (the mere cup of coffee) had already been a representation- an idea- in our thoughts, thus a purely immaterial, or psychic, content.
So where, again, objects are really located? If all things do exist as virtual representations within our minds- or, let’s say, as energetic contents in some other dimensions of space and time- how come we perceive and experience them? The only way to explain this is to assume- and also try to conceive- that in fact we live in such a virtual space, while the aspect that we can not only perceive but also touch the objects has to be a matter of co-ordination, or synchronism, between the perceived content and the tangible object.
But since all objects can be treated as manifestations or materializations of corresponding intangible events, and as all these events can only be perceived by our thought- or, more generally, consciousness- then it must be consciousness the common ground, or the ‘ultimate field,’ where all the events are located. However we should not, egocentrically, treat our own consciousness as the whole of Consciousness which may exist. Instead we should feel and treat ourselves as parts of a Universal Consciousness which has the power to produce all kinds of phenomena.
Such an idea of Consciousness loosely corresponds to Jung’s idea about the Collective Unconscious. We may go right ahead and say that ‘unconsciousness’ becomes consciousness by awareness. Thus awareness is a process by which consciousness becomes familiar with the contents of its own existence. Such a self-referential procedure- or infinite loop, as we may call it- is not so strange an idea: Such loops, for example, are the virtual particles in physics, the same ones which produce their ‘real’ counterparts (the material particles). Also in logic all arguments are self-referential, since they always go back to the same- pre-established- axiomatic conditions. In our case, the ‘loop’ is Consciousness which ‘turns back’ and ‘takes a look-’ in a Mirror- its own Reflection.
The importance of such a retrospective procedure can be understood by using another example from modern physics- namely the participatory principle, or the so-called observer effect. The observer, or experimenter, affects the objects he/she observes, or which he/she experiments with, so that the experiment cannot have any meaning without the observer who participates. This is not just because he/she does some things to the object- or because he/she imposes his/her own will on Nature- but because Nature intrinsically behaves this way. Therefore instead of imaging two separate parts, or objects- the observer and the observed object- interacting with each other, we had better regard both objects as interconnected parts of the same procedure. In fact since both these objects (the idea the observer has about both the object he/she observes and his/her own self) are representations in the observer’s mind, we may simply say that it is Consciousness which observes its own contents- thus becoming aware of its own existence.
This is the fundamental way or procedure by which reality is being built. Interactions of virtual particles in physics may explain the appearance of matter in the universe but they cannot explain the appearance of Consciousness (in the form of intelligent beings). Chemical reactions are not sufficient to explain feelings, in the same way that oscillating particles cannot describe intelligent thought. The reason is simple- it is thought which had figured out such assumptions about matter; therefore matter as we know it was created as a product of thought. On the other hand, if thought realizes matter and energy as a set of properties or procedures then all these properties or processes can only be understood- furthermore experienced- as properties of thought.
Therefore reality is nothing more than the experience- the manifestation- of Consciousness. But Consciousness is the Form. We might draw some distinction between the ‘Form’ and the ‘Intelligent Form’ (Consciousness), but this would be pointless- the Form is intelligent because Consciousness is the ultimate expression of the Form. A possible procedure by which the primordial Form gains awareness and knowledge will be illustrated in this essay. For the moment we may underline the fact that intelligence- even expressed as the physical notion of information- is a universal property of nature. This is also why the subject (the observer) cannot be separated from the object (what is observed). Ultimately the observer observes his/her own self, thus becoming aware of its own existence.
This is why a theory of the Form is practically a theory of Consciousness. However, such a theory is not just a ‘physical theory,’ but also a ‘theory of the mind.’ Modern physics, although successful in describing a multitude of physical processes, tends to treat the things it studies as inanimate, governed by a set of mathematical rules and properties. As a consequence the experimenter has been systematically left out of his/her experiment. However what he/she experiments with, or what he/she observes, are impressions in his/her own mind, therefore psychic contents, objects which he/she assumes that they must have a physical existence in outer space. Still, this is an assumption- whatever we may touch or treat as real, no matter how strongly it may be manifested and materialized, it is always, and it has always been, a purely psychic content embedded in Consciousness.
Such a realization was hopefully made by modern quantum theory. Not only is the observer intrinsically connected with what he/she observes, but also all physical systems (including observers) are considered indivisible. In other, more rigorous, terms we say that the wave-function of the system is infinite (it covers all space even if it may diminish with distance) and collapses simultaneously everywhere. All particles in physics are represented by wave-functions; thus the old notion of the ‘point-particle’ has lost any meaning.
Such a non-local aspect of physical systems, together with the dimensionality of even the most microscopic entities, constitute two of the basic assumptions in the theory of the Form. But the advantage of treating the objects as ‘Form-like’ instead of ‘particle-like’ is that objects may also have some shape (instead of being composed of ‘little identical spheres’). While the basic ingredients of physical objects are particles, the fundamental constituents of the Form are archetypes. While particles express properties such as mass and charge, archetypes express actions, or functions. Consequently archetypes can also be related to psychic properties (what we commonly relate to feelings). Thus we find here a bridge between the world of matter and the world of the spirit.
Another thing I would like to say here is that archetypes are not the ‘psychic counterparts’ of ‘atoms.’ Instead atoms can be seen as localized expressions of archetypes. In other words, if we give to the archetypes, a shape, together with some function, then what we commonly perceive as atoms will be parts of the overall entity, the archetype. This also explains how particles seem to interact with each other instantaneously (what is called quantum entanglement in physics). Particles are parts of the field whose shape guides their behavior (without them having to directly interact with each other). But in our case the ‘field,’ which in physics is expressed by a ‘wave-function,’ is a collection of archetypes whose shape serves a function or action, while it is the action which guides the behavior of both material and animate objects.
Examples and metaphors will be given in the essay which follows. Although the Form is a notion which stems from antiquity (recall for example Plato’s world of Ideas), it can be thought of as an ‘extant entity,’ which can be described not only as a probabilistic wave-function but also as an almost living creature- a plasma of our imagination which we may touch anytime. My purpose in not to name, or make sketches of, different such creatures or plasmas (a spider-like Form or archetype, to give an example) but to point out the universality and uniformity of the world we live in. There are no physical phenomena which exist independently of psychic phenomena, and there is no place in the universe where information has been lost or is absent- black holes evaporate, while the vacuum always vibrates. It is not therefore the Universe a ‘Bubble,’ the product of a ‘pointless’ Big Bang, which started from ‘nowhere,’ and has been ‘expanding in emptiness’ ever since. On the contrary, it is the Form which covers all space and time, whose individual ‘infinite points,’ or ‘singularities,’ are archetypes, whose actions in turn intertwine the fabric of reality- the galaxies, the stars, the planets, the physical landscapes, all tangible things and living beings as we know them.
Contents
1. Why the Form?
2. Aspects of Jungian psychology
2.1 Duplication of cases
2.2 J.B.Rhine’s experiments
2.3 The I Ching
2.4 The scarab-beetle
2.5 The iceberg model
2.6 Jung-Pauli diagrams
2.7 A table of comparison
3. Aspects of astrology
3.1 Planets as symbols
3.2 An astrological experiment
3.3 Mythology of archetypes
3.4 Relativistic astrology
4. Aspects of modern physics
4.1 Kepler and archetypes
4.2 What is probability?
4.3 Bell’s inequalities
4.4 The wave-function Ψ
4.5 The uncertainty principle
4.6 Quantum entanglement
4.7 The participatory principle
4.8 A fish called ‘Quanta’
5. Aspects of morphogenesis
5.1 Unconscious inference
5.2 The problem of vision
5.3 Perceptual fields
5.4 Morphogenetic fields
5.5 Exo-biological memory
5.6 The vacuum and the collective unconscious
5.7 Formative causation
5.8 The spider archetype
5.9 Human aura
5.10 The ‘weight’ of the human soul
6. Aspects of the Form
6.1 Aspects of archetypes
6.2 Platonic solids
6.3 Aspects of analogy
6.4 Harmony of the world
6.5 Energetic forms
6.6 Planetary spheres
6.7 UFOs
7. Aspects of the soul
7.1 Wheel of emotions
7.2 The face of Medusa
7.3 The meaning of anticipation
7.4 Psychic vectors
7.5 The Vitruvian Man
7.6 The anthropic principle
7.7 The aspect of time
7.8 Synesthesia
8. Aspects of a unified theory
8.1 Infinite loops
8.2 Spontaneous generation
8.3 Psychic black holes
8.4 The fabric of space-time
8.5 The meaning of simultaneity
8.6 The holographic principle
8.7 The mirror
8.8 The human condition
8.9 Free association and psychic simultaneity
9. Aspects of consciousness
9.1 The problem of free will
9.2 Emergence of consciousness
9.3 Principle of analogy
9.4 Backward causality
9.5 Spontaneous symmetry breaking
9.6 Basic notions
9.7 Superception
No comments:
Post a Comment