The ‘war in heaven between Michael and his angels and the
dragon and his angels’ is a war at the level of consciousness and Knowledge; a
War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; a war between the non-dualistic
consciousness Created by God and the dualistic consciousness of the “self” (or
the “ego”—symbolized by the “beast of the sea”), and the ‘thinker’ (symbolized
by the “beast of the earth”); a war between the Knowledge received through
Revelation and the knowledge (images and thoughts) of the dualistic
consciousness.
The Knowledge of Revelation consists of the Knowledge
Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man”, the Revelation of the Memory
of Creation, the Revelation of the Memory of ‘the Fall’ into the dualistic
consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’, and the revelation of the
memories of previous lives.
The knowledge of the “self” consists of sensations and
perceptions of, as well as behaviors within the space-time physical reality;
memories and images of those sensations, perceptions and behaviors; and
emotions associated with the formation, expansion and shattering of the images
of the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of the “self” (referred to by Jewish
mystics as the ‘shattering of the vessels’); whereas the knowledge of the
‘thinker’ consists of logic, the scientific method and other repeatable and
verifiable evidence-based descriptions of the space-time reality.
Knowledge conveyed by the “Vision of Knowledge”, the “Tree
of Life”, the “Night Journey” and the Revelation of “the resurrection”, because
it is both non-spatial and non-temporal—that is, does not originate in either the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, the
postulation of the thought of the ‘thinker’, or sensations and perceptions of
the space-time reality—shattersthe
images of the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of the “self”, while stopping the ‘time’of the
consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (thus, the significance of the phrase in Chapter
12, verse 9 of the Book of Daniel “At
the time of the End…”; and the phrase in Chapter 10, verse 7 of the Revelation of John “Time will be no
longer…”; mistranslated in the Jerusalem Bible as “The time of waiting
is over…”).
In other words, the confrontation between the Knowledge
conveyed by Revelation and the dualistic consciousness is an annihilating conflict; as signified by
the opening of the Sixth Seal, which symbolizes the annihilation of the
‘fallen’ consciousness, prior to the opening of the Seventh Seal, which
symbolizes the receiving of the Vision of the “Son of man” itself.
And, because it “knows that its time is short”—or “its days
are numbered” (with numbers specifically
mentioned in both the Book of Daniel and
the Revelation of John, the ‘fallen’,
dualistic consciousness of the “self”denies
Revealed Knowledge on the basis of images of ‘spatiality’, which it considers
evidentiary (the Sadduceean perspective); whereas the ‘fallen’, dualistic
consciousness of the ‘thinker’ contradicts
Revealed Knowledge on the basis of the thoughts of the ‘thinker’ (the
Pharisaical perspective), whose goal is nothing more than self-preservation of
the dualistic consciousness against annihilation.
For example, in response to descriptions of the revelation
of the memories of previous lives conveyed by the non-dualistic
consciousness—that is, notconsisting
of images of the “self”—(Chapter26,
verse 19 of the Book of Isaiah Chapter
27, verses 52-53 of the Gospel of Matthew
and Chapter 20, verses 34-36 of the Gospel
of Luke) the consciousness of the “self” projects images of ‘spatiality’, solelyfor reasons of self-preservation, consisting of images of
dead bodies arising from the grave; whereas, such images, being ephemeral and
transitory—and, thus, inherently unreliable and unstable—the consciousness of
the ‘thinker’ then expropriates metaphysical philosophy for the purpose of
preserving those images and that ‘spatiality’ of consciousness by means of
doctrine.
Being unable to form an effective image of the consciousness
Created by God—the formation of images being crucialto the preservation of the consciousness of the “self”—and
the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ being incapable of apprehending the
Knowledge conveyed by that consciousness—the most common response of the
‘fallen’ consciousness is simply to deny the Message altogether; and to focus,
instead, upon the messenger, resulting in the projection of images of evil and
accusations of evil based upon images whose only goal is to preserve that ‘fallen’ consciousness atany cost; images and accusations of
evil which are merely a prelude to violence.
It is that reaction, multiplied hundreds of millions of
times, that will result in the “time of trouble” Prophesied by Daniel.
Michael (Chapter 12:1 of the Book of Daniel, Sura 2:98 of the Quran, Column XVII of the
Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light) for:
I. Jungian Psychology, Animal Telepathy & the
“Science of Consciousness”
[In conformity with requirements set out by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions {and with no expectation that it will be quickly or widely recognized as being “crazy enough to have a chance of being correct” (Niels Bohr)}, the following essay postulates the existence of a non-spatial—and, thus, species non-specific—3rd dimension of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; a dimension of consciousness within the context of which the current paradigm of the (‘classical’) “science of consciousness” is to be understood as a ‘special case’ (focusing exclusively upon the consciousness of the ‘thinker’) of a more all-inclusive description of consciousness based upon the acknowledgement of three rather than only one dimension of consciousness; a description of consciousness which extends the range of applicability of the ‘classical’ “science of consciousness” to Jungian psychology and, for example, animal presentiment and telepathy.]
The original goal of classical physics was to establish the fundamental laws for describing the structure and contents of the space-time physical reality, rather than merely to maintain and preserve the paradigm of classical physics itself as the reigning paradigm for the determination of all physical theory. And it was for this reason that the classical physicists of the early-to-mid 20th century—who, interestingly enough, placed much more importance upon the development of an all-inclusive physical theory than upon merely the preservation of classical physics—widely, but not immediately, acknowledged the validity of both the Michelson-Morley experiment and the discoveries of Einstein and Heisenberg.
In other words, in order that the original goal of classical physics be achieved at all, it was eventually found to be necessary to set aside classical physics itself in favor of a much more inclusive physical theory with a much wider range of applicability; a physical theory including classical physics, relativity theory and quantum mechanics.
Similarly, the ultimate goal of science is to achieve an all-inclusive description of both the physical reality and the totality of human (and animal) consciousness and experience, rather than merely to maintain and preserve the scientific method as the unassailable and reigning paradigm for the complete and accurate description of the physical-conscious reality.
In other words, just as it eventually became necessary to acknowledge both relativity theory and quantum mechanics in order to more closely achieve the original goal of classical physics to establish a complete physical theory, it may very well also be necessary to set aside the entire paradigm (and the fundamental rules) of the scientific methoditself in order to actually achieve, not merely in theory but in reality, the ultimate goal of science; that is, an all-inclusive understanding of both the physical and the conscious reality which includes information which is as different from, and outside the paradigm and conceptual boundaries of the scientific method as relativity theory and quantum mechanics are different from and beyond the frame of reference of classical physics. (In other words, it is, perhaps, the very assumptions, pre-conceptions and psychological-conceptual structures of the scientific method itself—for example, the uni-directionality of time in a forward direction, and the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness itself to only the “self”, the ‘thinker’, and the members of the human species—which are now providing the main stumbling blocks to revolutionary developments in both theoretical physics and the understanding of both human and animal consciousness.)
Thus, the existence of, in particular, the “science of consciousness” within the framework of the scientific method necessarily raises an important question crucial not only to the very development of the “science of consciousness” itself; but, also, to the very future of the scientific method as the reigning paradigm for the most complete and accurate description of both the physical and the conscious reality:
What, precisely, is the ultimate goal of any (‘classical’) “science of consciousness”?
Is that goal merely to arrive at an understanding of consciousness from strictly within the framework of the scientific method itself—that is, to maintain and preserve the status of the scientific method as the only paradigm capable of providing a complete and accurate understanding of both human and animal consciousness and experience? Or is its purpose, instead, to actually acquire a much deeper understanding of consciousness than that which can be provided by the scientific method; that is, an understanding which also includes information from outside of a rigidly scientific paradigm, but which is just as important to the understanding of the entirety of human and animal consciousness and experience as was the inclusion of relativity theory and quantum mechanics in the development of a much more inclusive physical theory?
Now, to begin with, it must be acknowledged that both the scientific method and the “science of consciousness” originate in the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, and the assumption that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is both the fundamental datum of human experience and the ‘inertial frame of reference’ for the complete and accurate description of both the entire physical and conscious reality; a consciousness and an assumption which, in turn, are based upon the metaphysical duality and the philosophy of Descartes. And it is on this basis that the findings of, especially, Jung and the other archetypal psychologists with regards to the consciousness of the “self” (see, for example, the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes) are, to this day, widely trivialized, disregarded and ignored (but no less so than the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis and Parapsychology) as being ‘unscientific’; and, thus, utterly and completely irrelevant to any emergent “science of consciousness”.
In other words, it was only natural that, from its very inception from within the conceptual framework of Cartesian philosophy and the scientific method, the “science of consciousness” deny, trivialize and ignore the reality of the consciousness of the “self” (and its obvious relevance to the understanding of human consciousness, if not the establishing of, specifically, a “science” of consciousness) and focus, instead, almost exclusively on the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; the real question now being whether the scientists of consciousness will continue to “circle the wagons” (by focusing exclusively on the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and its scientific descriptions of, exclusively, human consciousness), or whether the information with regards to the consciousness of the “self” will, instead, be acknowledged, considered, and incorporated within a more inclusive ‘science’ of consciousness as being no less crucial to the development of a much more complete understanding of consciousness than can occur within the frame of reference of, exclusively, the (‘classical’) “science of consciousness” and the (human) consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.
But there is, in fact, a much more serious problem (than even acknowledging the reality of the consciousness of the “self”) which must be encountered by any “science of consciousness” which seriously purports to describe the entirety of both human and animal consciousness; even a ‘science’ of consciousness which has become more complete (even if less ‘scientific’ or ‘classical’) by acknowledging, also, the reality of the consciousness of the “self”. And that has to do with those findings of Reverse Speech Analysis and Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics (in the context of, literally, decades of research demonstrating the validity of pre-cognition, extra-sensory perception and/or clairvoyance in humans as well as animals; see, for example:
which clearly demonstrate the existence of information which, although of immediate relevance to the understanding of consciousness, not only flies in the face of both the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method and the “science of consciousness”; but, also, threatens the very existence of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ itself which is based upon the assumption of both the uni-directionality of time and the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness to only the “self”, the ‘thinker’, and the members of the human species.
And what I have observed over the past few years is that the fundamental goal of those presently involved in the “science of consciousness” is certainly not to develop any all-inclusive understanding of human (to say nothing of animal) consciousness; but, rather, to merely preserve the scientific method itself (and, not coincidentally, to prevent their own consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ from collapsing into psychosis); which necessarily requires the trivialization of the reality of not only the consciousness of the “self” (which, of course, is the consciousness that experiences psychosis in the first place); but, also, a non-spatial (or 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space)—and, thus, species non-specific—time-independent consciousness; the existence of which is made necessary by the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis, Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics and Parapsychology.
In other words, the only description of consciousness which is, in any way, seriously capable of actually achieving the ultimate goal of the “science of consciousness” in the description of both human and animal consciousness is a description of consciousness which is based upon the acknowledgement that there are not merely one or two; but, in fact, three dimensions of consciousness:
1) the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—symbolized by the “fig leaves” in Genesis 3:7 (see, also, Saying #37 in the Gospel of Thomas), and by the Third Seal (6:5-6) and the “beast of the earth” in Revelations 13:11 and Sura 27:82 of the Quran;
2) the consciousness of the “self”—symbolized by the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 3:3-6, and by the Second Seal (6:3-4) and the “beast of the sea” in Revelations 13:1 (which, together with the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, comprise the dualistic or ‘fallen’ consciousness); and,
3) a non-dualistic, 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space—and, thus, species non-specific—time-independent, “observing consciousness” Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27)—represented by the “Tree of Life” in Genesis 3:24 which symbolizes the Vision of the “Son of man”/the “Vision of Knowledge”/the “Night Journey” of Mohammed; and by the First Seal in Revelations 6:1-2.
II. 3-Dimensional Consciousness, 3-Dimensional Geometry
Depending upon the way in which the physicist designs the experiment, an electron sometimes has the properties of a particle and sometimes has the properties of a wave; and, for that reason, is sometimes referred to as a ‘wavicle’.
But, in fact, there is no such thing as a ‘wavicle’. There is merely a ‘something’ which has the properties of both a particle and a wave. And to say that there is a ‘wavicle’ is to say that there is a shape in plane geometry called a ‘squircle’, and which sometimes has the properties of a square and sometimes has the properties of a circle.
Now, with regards to the paradigm of the “three dimensions of consciousness”, some enterprising ‘scientist’ of consciousness may very well acknowledge that there are, in fact, three dimensions of consciousness; but then insist, nevertheless, that there must be a necessarily consciousness of the ‘thinker’-based ‘theory’ or ‘science’ of consciousness which can accomplish an explanatory and all-inclusive ‘grand unification’—in violation of ‘Einstein’s Razor’, I would argue—of even these three dimensions of consciousness.
But that would be to say that there is a shape in solid geometry called a ‘cupheramid’, and which has the properties of a cube (representing the consciousness of the ‘thinker’), a sphere (representing the consciousness of the “self”), and a pyramid (representing the “observing consciousness”).
Furthermore, if an attempt is made to visualize a mathematical point, it is generally visualized as the tiniest sphere possible—rather than, for example, the tiniest pyramid, or tetrahedron, or octahedron possible. And, if that ‘spherical’ mathematical point represents the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, the consciousness of the “self” would be represented by the sphere itself, the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ would be represented by the ‘cubing of that sphere’—that is, the ‘squaring of that circle’ in 3 dimensions (the 3-dimensional Cartesian co-ordinate system; 2 dimensions of which are represented by the background of the following dance:
the black color of the dancers costumes representing the color of the Third Seal of the Revelation of John and representing the consciousness of the ‘thinker’) by adding a fourth dimension of time (notice the increasing tempo of the dance)—whereas the “observing consciousness” would be represented by a pyramid, the mathematical (‘spherical’) point at the top of the pyramid representing the ‘movement’ of self-reflection that gives rise to the “self”.
Thus, the symbols of the Eastern esoteric traditions by which the genital chakra is represented by a square (the consciousness of the ‘thinker’), the heart chakra is represented by a circle (the consciousness of the “self”), and the forehead chakra is represented by an upward pointing triangle (the “observing consciousness”).
And, thus, the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and the scientific method can be represented by a square; the consciousness of the “self” and Jungian psychology can be represented by a circle; and the “observing consciousness” and the paradigm of the “three dimensions of consciousness” can be represented by a triangle.
carefully, you will observe that, near the beginning of the dance, the base of the triangle (which, in three dimensions, is a pyramid) which represents a square and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—and, within that triangle, the dancers turn in counter-clockwise (indicating time-reversal) circles (which, in three dimensions, would be spheres), representing the consciousness of the “self”—is closest to the audience; whereas, with the arrival of Michael Flatley, the triangle is inverted, with the point of the triangle (or pyramid) being closest to the audience (and only Michael Flatley turns counter-clockwise, and only once, representing the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, or the ‘pirouette’ of consciousness, as is alluded to in the following song:
And, furthermore, the intersection of the upward pointing and downward pointing triangles is also represented in the Star of David.
III. Static Vs. Dynamic Consciousness
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is said to have originated in a thought experiment—or, more accurately, a visualization experiment (the term “thought” experiment itself is evidence of the insistence of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ that it is the only source of information about the physical-conscious reality)—of what a beam of light would look like to an observer who is moving at the speed of light. Similarly, after studying the nature of the carbon-carbon bonds for several years, Kekulé is said to have received a dream (the accounts vary) of six snakes in the form of a circle, each with the tail of the next snake in its mouth; from which he intuited the structure of the benzene ring. And, in each of these instances, a scientific discovery was made on the basis of information which originated from outside the frame of reference of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ itself.
The origin of the three dimensions of consciousness paradigm, however—which, however, does not claim to be a scientific theory in the first place; but, rather, a direct observation of the reality of consciousness (and, thus, non-Popper-falsifiable)—was neither a “visualization experiment” nor a dream; but, instead, consisted of a vision I received; which, only later, was understood as signifying the opening of the sixth (or crown) chakra (which occurred precisely 2 ½ days prior to the opening of the Sixth Seal, as described in Chapter 6:12-17 of the Revelation of John); the relevance to the understanding of consciousness which is as follows:
Among those who are attempting to formulate an all-inclusive, ‘unified’ “science of consciousness” or over-all ‘theory’ of consciousness, there now appear to be two principal perspectives; each of which, I would argue, consists of a description of consciousness as a static rather than a dynamic entity: 1) the perspective of the “scientists of consciousness”, which occurs from within the framework of the scientific method, and in accordance with the conceptual structures and requirements of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; and, 2) the Reichian-Jungian perspective on consciousness, which stresses the importance of including, also, the not-precisely-scientific data with regards to the ‘unconscious’, the ‘archetypes of the unconscious’, and the consciousness of the “self” in any balanced and complete understanding of consciousness.
I would argue, however, that consciousness is, instead, a dynamic process rather than a static entity; a process which cannot be adequately explained by either or both of these static descriptions of consciousness, but which involves the rapid oscillation between three dimensions of consciousness: a 3-dimensional ‘curved-spatiality’ of consciousness referred to as a consciousness of the “self”; an extension of that ‘curved-spatiality’ of consciousness through time, constituting a consciousness of the ‘thinker’; and a 2-dimensional, ‘flat’-space “observing consciousness” which exists both ‘outside of’ and ‘prior to’ the ‘curved-spatiality’ consciousness of the “self”, and that consciousness extended in time by the consciousness of the ‘thinker’.
This dynamic view of consciousness can, perhaps, be best visualized by the rapid oscillation in a 3-dimensional space of a geometric figure consisting of a cube, a sphere and a pyramid; each of which is, simultaneously, rotating in all directions: the cube representing the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, the sphere representing the consciousness of the “self”, and the pyramid representing the “observing consciousness”—all of which is a partial description of the vision I received on November 28, 1974.
IV. Self-Reflection As the Origin of Consciousness
The implications and significance of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection can be understood only if there is a very careful observation of the origin and over-all movement of consciousness, however that is defined, itself:
Assume that you are at a concert listening to Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. You are completely immersed into and absorbed by the beauty of the music, to the point that you have completely lost all awareness of any “self”; and there is, in fact, no experiencer which can be at all separated from that experience. In other words, the ‘experience’ and the ‘experiencer’ still consist of a unified entity of ‘not yet experiencer’ and ‘not yet experience’.
In the very next instant, the time of which cannot be either predicted or explained—nor is this an ‘action’ which can be performed intentionally, since it is merely a reflex—you instantly become aware of yourself as being at the concert and listening to the music; something which you experience as being quite pleasurable. There is, somehow, a ‘pirouette’ of consciousness itself, or a ‘movement’ of self-reflection by which you become aware of yourself as an experiencer experiencing an experience; a realization which, however, is then immediately consumed by the pleasure of the experience itself, causing the “self” to be, once again, consumed in that pleasure. In other words, although the ‘movement’ of self-reflection has made it possible for you to acknowledge and experience the pleasure of the music; that very pleasure causes you to forget that, immediately prior to the experience of the pleasure of that music, there had to have occurred a differentiation of that ‘not yet experiencer’ and ‘not yet experience’ into an experiencer and an experience. And this is the very first instance of pleasure taking precedence over knowledge; specifically, the knowledge of what precisely occurs with the ‘movement’ of self-reflection itself. In other words, the experience of pleasure always leads to a forgetfulness of the fact that there is a ‘spatiality’ of consciousness —that is, the “self”—which exists immediately prior to the experience of pleasure.
Now, there are a number of things that need to be understood with regards to the observation of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection.
First of all, that ‘movement’ cannot be observed by the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ because, in fact, the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ does not yet exist; there having been no (even ‘unconscious’) postulation of the thought of either a ‘thinker’, or a “self”, or an “I”; the experiencer not yet having been differentiated from the experience.
Secondly, however, this ‘movement’ of self-reflection also cannot be observed by the consciousness of the “self” either; and for precisely the same reason. That is, not even the consciousness of the “self” yet exists to observe the ‘movement’ of self-reflection; because, as already stated, there has not yet been any differentiation into an experiencer and an experience. Translation: the “self” cannot observe its own creation for the same reason that you cannot observe your own birth.
In other words, that the ‘movement’ of self-reflection can be observed at all necessarily means that there is an “observing consciousness” ‘prior to’ and ‘outside of’ the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ to observe that ‘movement’. But, at the same time, it must also be acknowledged that this ‘movement’ of self-reflection cannot be observed as it is occurring, but only after the fact. In other words, the first piece of knowledge that is acquired by the observation of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection is that it has already occurred—and that, in each and every instance in which it occurs, it is recognized as occurring only after it has occurred—leaving, as its only vestige, the knowledge that it has occurred rather than the actual observing of that ‘movement’ as it occurs. That is, the “observing consciousness” itself is consumed by the knowledge that the ‘movement’ of self-reflection has already occurred.
But this knowledge (by the “observing consciousness”) that the ‘movement’ of self-reflection has already occurred is merely one element of the knowledge of what that ‘movement’ signifies.
What must be understood here is that this ‘movement’ of self-reflection, in fact, creates the consciousness of the “self” itself; a consciousness of a “self” which ‘performs’ the ‘movement’ of self-reflection itself. In other words, uni-directional time has not yet been created. Thus, in fact, the ‘movement’ of self-reflection must occur in bi-directional time, creating (reflexively) the “self” which ‘performs’ the ‘movement’ of self-reflection… which creates the “self” which performs the ‘movement’ of self-reflection creating the “self” which ‘performs’ that ‘movement’ etc.
And, once that “self” has been created by the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, there is additional knowledge about the implications and significance of the origin of that consciousness of the “self”.
Observing the “self” very carefully, it can then be seen that the ‘movement’ of self-reflection creates both a separation from the space-time reality itself as well as a localized ‘spatiality’ of consciousness consisting of a “self”/“not self” (more easily visualized as a sphere; with the “self” inside of that sphere and the “not self” outside of that sphere). In other words, there is a ‘spatiality’ of consciousness which can be differentiated from the physical reality (hence, the origin of the metaphysical duality—that is, the separation of matter from consciousness) which is then considered the “not self” (and not conscious) as well as other “selves”, which are also considered by the “self” as being part of the “not self”. In other words, the ‘spatiality’ of my consciousness of a “self”—which to you, however, is part of your “not self”—exists over here; while the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of your “self” exists over there and is part of my “not self”.
But, at the same time, it must also be acknowledged that this ‘movement’ of self-reflection is a reflex rather than an intentional behavior, there being, as yet, no “self” to have any intention. And, since all behaviors consisting of a reflex originate in neurology, the function of which is to preserve the existence and pleasure of the organism while avoiding annihilation, pain, and threats of annihilation and pain, the neurological origin of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection is in the desire for biological self-preservation and pleasure, and the fear of annihilation and pain. In other words, similar to the way in which the “self”/“not self” emerges instantaneously out of the 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space and into the 3-dimensional ‘curved’ space by means of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection; so, too, desire and fear also emerge instantaneously into that 3-dimensional ‘curved’ space; a desire and fear which is then associated with not merely biological preservation and pleasure; but, also, with the preservation and pleasure of the “self”/“not self” which has been created by the ‘movement’ of self-reflection in the first place. Thus, the ‘movement’ of self-reflection is the source of all dualities: “self”/“not self”, pleasure/pain, etc. etc….as well as “good” and “evil”; “good” being associated with the preservation and pleasure of the “self”; “evil” being associated with the annihilation of the “self” as well as anything which is painful to the “self”.
The next step in the progression of consciousness, then, is in the postulation of the thought of the “self”, or the ‘thinker’, or the “I” for the purpose of maintaining the existence of the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of the “self” over time (and which, thus, is the origin of uni-directional time); in which case all of the thoughts and beliefs of the ‘thinker’ perform the function of preserving the consciousness of the “self” from collapsing into psychosis. Thus, anyone who threatens the validity of the thoughts or beliefs of the ‘thinker’ is categorized as “evil”; while anyone who validates the thoughts or beliefs of the ‘thinker’—and, thus, prevents the “self” from collapsing into psychosis—is categorized as “good”.
Thus, without the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, it is crucial to understand that there would be no consciousness at all; while, at the same time, that ‘movement’ is the source of both all dualities and the “self”/“not self”; while, on the other hand, the observation of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection demonstrates the existence of that third dimension of consciousness itself, which I refer to as the “observing consciousness”.
Observing the ‘movement’ of self-reflection again, then, it becomes clear that the ‘pirouette’ of consciousness referred to as the ‘movement’ of self-reflection itself can, perhaps, be more accurately understood as an instantaneous jump from the 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space consciousness of the “observing consciousness” into the 3-dimensional ‘curved’ space consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ being created by simply the postulation of the thought of the ‘thinker’ in the same way that the “self” is created by the ‘movement’ of self-reflection.
And, finally, anyone who is capable of reading, following, and understanding the above explanation is, during that time, directly experiencing the “observing consciousness”, whereas the inability to follow and understand this explanation signifies that the reader is operating, instead, in either the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ or the consciousness of the “self”.
V. Memories of Previous Lives & the 3-Dimensional Consciousness
The receiving of the memories of previous lives is one of those aspects or experiences of consciousness which is of no interest whatsoever to the ‘classical’ scientists of consciousness (yet, for some unknown reason, they still claim to be pursuing an ‘all-inclusive explanation’ of consciousness); especially insofar as it poses a direct and lethal threat to the unsupported assumption and (often-unarticulated) dogma of the “science of consciousness” (and the scientific method in general) that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is, in fact, the sole and ultimate determiner of the absolute and objective truth about the physical-conscious reality; one of those ‘absolute’ and ‘objective’ ‘truths’ being, for example, that people live only one life (after all, the vast majority of people have had no memories of previous lives at all; thus, almost necessitating, from a scientific perspective, that such memories simply be ignored altogether as being nothing more than ‘anomalous’ or ‘anecdotal’). And, similarly, those with a Reichian or Jungian perspective on consciousness typically acknowledge little relevance or significance of the memories of previous lives to what Jung has referred to as the “individuation process”.
With the realization that there are, in fact, 2 additional dimensions of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, however, the receiving of memories of previous lives is readily understood to be merely additional evidence in support of the existence of that 3rd dimension of consciousness; a non-temporal, time-independent dimension of consciousness which exists ‘outside’ of, and both prior and subsequent to the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and the consciousness of “self” in any one life. And, within the paradigm of the 3 dimensions of consciousness, it can be understood that the receiving of memories of previous lives conveys information from previous “selves” as well as ‘thinkers’.
Efforts to establish the scientific validity of the memories of previous lives are concerned primarily if not exclusively with memories of the consciousness of a ‘thinker’ with regards to those previous lives insofar as it is only memories of the consciousness of a ‘thinker’ which are capable of being validated independently and scientifically. And in this genre I would place such books as Soul Survivor; Old Souls; Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation; Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy and any other book or study which attempts to validate the reality of previous lives.
In addition to these scientifically-verifiable instances demonstrating the reality of previous lives, however, there are also other memories—that is, memories not primarily of a ‘thinker’, but of a “self”—which are not capable of independent validation insofar as they consist primarily of immediate sensations, perceptions and emotions (in other words, the experiences of a “self”) rather than the thoughts of a ‘thinker’.
In the monotheistic Revelations, for example, one of the elements of the Revelation of the “resurrection” includes the revelation of the memories of previous lives; memories which, however, focus either exclusively or primarily upon memories not of a ‘thinker’ but of a “self”; memories which would include, for example, not fluency in the language that was spoken in that previous life, nor memories of what people looked like in those previous lives; but, rather, for example, memories of other “selves” with whom that person had experienced close personal relationships in those previous lives, thus providing sufficient knowledge to enable him or her to recognize the identities of those people in both their past and their present lives; none of which, of course, however true it is, can be scientifically validated.
VI. Non-Dualistic/Dualistic Consciousness in the Gospel of Thomas
The fundamental assumption of the ‘classical’ “scientists of consciousness”, although it is not always plainly, loudly, or consistently articulated (but merely taken for granted as a ‘given’), is that the scientific method is, for all practical purposes, the “only game in town”; that is, the only available, viable and genuinely serious paradigm for the objective, accurate and complete explanation or description of the reality of human consciousness.
On the other hand, those adhering to a Reichian or Jungian perspective on consciousness insist that no explanation of human consciousness can be at all complete without, in addition, an understanding of the ‘unconscious’ or the consciousness of the “self”. And, with the inclusion of this psycho-analytical perspective on consciousness, it is widely, if not universally considered (by Western civilization, at least) that virtually all conscious reality has been brought well within the framework of the current understandings; in a way similar to the way in which classical physics was once considered to be a complete explanation of the physical reality.
But, in addition to the findings of the parapsychologists and Reverse Speech Analysis, there are a number of statements in the Gospel of Thomas which very seriously and specifically challenge this assumption; and which clearly demonstrate not only the existence of another dimension of consciousness altogether unknown to, and absolutely and completely beyond the frame of reference of both the scientific method and the archetypal psychologists (and thus, beyond, respectively, both the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and the consciousness of the “self”); but, also, that such a third dimension of consciousness constituted a quite crucial element of the Teaching of Jesus; something which, however, is also altogether unknown to, and absolutely and completely beyond the frame of reference of Christian theology; which, similar to the “science of consciousness”, relies primarily, if not exclusively upon the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; the function of which is to preserve the consciousness of the “self” over time.
The following statements of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, then:
From Saying #11: “On the day that you were one you became two.”
From Saying #19: “Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being.”
From Saying #22: “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same…then will you enter [the kingdom].”
From Saying #61: “I am he who exists from the undivided.”
From Saying #85: “Adam came into being from a great power and a great wealth, but he did not become worthy of you. For, had he been worthy [he would] not [have experienced] death…”
From Saying #106: “ When you make the two one you will become the ‘Son of man’.”
can be summarized as follows:
1) Man was Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) with a non-dualistic consciousness which ‘came into being’ before the dualistic consciousness (of the “self” and the ‘thinker’) ‘came into being’;
2) It is not merely possible but necessary to regain the experience of that non-dualistic dimension of consciousness (beyond the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’) in which all dualities are resolved;
3) The emergence of—that is, ‘the Fall’ into--the dualistic consciousness from the non-dualistic consciousness is what is referred to in the Gospel of Thomas as ‘death’; and,
4) The term “Son of man” itself—and its referent: the Vision of the “Son of man”—is to be understood as a manifestation or expression of the non-dualistic consciousness with which man was Created by God.
And, in the context of this affirmation by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas of the existence of a non-dualistic, third dimension of consciousness prior to the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’, it can clearly be observed that both the “scientists of consciousness” as well as the Reichian and Jungian analysts have very sharply restricted their understanding of human consciousness to an examination of, exclusively, the dualistic or ‘fallen’ consciousness (of, respectively, the ‘thinker’ or the “self”); completely ignoring, however, both the Teaching of Jesus about the non-dualistic consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’, as well as the teachings of the Eastern esoteric traditions with regards to the (“uncreated”—that is, without any reliance upon God) non-dualistic “observing consciousness”; at least a part of which—specifically, that the dualistic consciousness of the ‘thinker’ constitutes (if not the origin, at least) an intensification of duality, conflict and violence—for example, is to be found in the teachings of J. Krishnamurti.
Thus, as far as I have been able to determine, all current efforts to develop a new a new understanding of consciousness are and have been focused exclusively on the development of a new “science” of consciousness—or on the achievement of a rigidly “scientific” revolution in the understanding of consciousness—not only to the specific and categorical denial, however, that there is a third, non-dualistic dimension of consciousness; but also, until recently, involving the relentless censorship and exclusion of any non-dualistic perspective on consciousness as even being at all relevant to the conversation.
And the major source of this resistance to acknowledging the existence, relevance and importance of the third, non-dualistic dimension of consciousness is the ‘classical’ “scientists of consciousness”—that is, the perspective on consciousness of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (which also, by the way, ignores the relevance and importance of the consciousness of the “self” to an over-all understanding of human consciousness); symbolized in the fractal Prophecy of Chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel as the “king of the South”, and in the fractal Prophecy of Chapter 13 of the Revelation of John as the “beast of the earth”.
Jungian Psychology, Animal Telepathy & the “Science of Consciousness”
The following article, under the above title, was published in today’s Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS) on-line discussion group:
[Moderator(s): In conformity with requirements set out by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [and with no expectation it will be quickly or widely recognized as being “crazy enough to have a chance of being correct” (Niels Bohr)], the following essay postulates the existence of a non-spatial—and, thus, species non-specific—3rd dimension of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; a dimension of consciousness within the context of which the current paradigm of the (‘classical’) “science of consciousness” is to be understood as a ‘special case’ (focusing exclusively upon the consciousness of the ‘thinker’) of a more all-inclusive description of consciousness based upon the acknowledgement of three rather than only one dimension of consciousness; a description of consciousness which extends the range of applicability of the ‘classical’ “science of consciousness” to Jungian psychology and, for example, animal presentiment and telepathy.]
The original goal of classical physics was to establish the fundamental laws for describing the structure and contents of the space-time physical reality, rather than merely to maintain and preserve the paradigm of classical physics itself as the reigning paradigm for the determination of all physical theory. And it was for this reason that the classical physicists of the early-to-mid 20th century—who, interestingly enough, placed more importance upon the development of an all-inclusive physical theory than upon merely the preservation of classical physics—widely, but not immediately, acknowledged the validity of both the Michelson-Morley experiment and the discoveries of Einstein and Heisenberg.
In other words, in order that the original goal of classical physics be achieved at all, it was eventually found to be necessary to set aside classical physics itself in favor of a more inclusive physical theory with a wider range of applicability; a physical theory including classical physics, relativity theory and quantum mechanics.
Similarly, the ultimate goal of science is to achieve an all-inclusive description of both the physical reality and the totality of human (and animal) consciousness and experience, rather than merely to maintain and preserve the scientific method as the unassailable and reigning paradigm for the complete and accurate description of the physical-conscious reality.
In other words, just as it eventually became necessary to acknowledge both relativity theory and quantum mechanics in order to more closely achieve the original goal of classical physics to establish a complete physical theory, it may very well also be necessary to set aside the entire paradigm (and the fundamental rules) of the scientific methoditself in order to actually achieve, not merely in theory but in reality, the ultimate goal of science; that is, an all-inclusive understanding of both the physical and the conscious reality which includes information which is as different from, and outside the paradigm and conceptual boundaries of the scientific method (and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’), as relativity theory and quantum mechanics are different from and beyond the frame of reference of classical physics. (In other words, it is, perhaps, the very assumptions, pre-conceptions and psychological-conceptual structures of the scientific method itself—for example, the uni-directionality of time in a forward direction; the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness itself to only the “self”, the ‘thinker’, and the members of the human species; and the singular, excessive and exclusive reliance upon the certainty, reproducibility, predictability and reliability of experimental results as necessary for the unambiguous description of scientific reality—which are now providing the main stumbling blocks to revolutionary developments in both theoretical physics and the understanding of both human and animal consciousness.)
Thus, the existence of, in particular, the “science of consciousness” within the framework of the scientific method necessarily raises an important question crucial not only to the future development of the “science of consciousness”; but, also, to the very future of the scientific method itself as the reigning paradigm for the most complete and accurate description of both the physical and the conscious reality:
What, precisely, is the ultimate goal of a “science of consciousness”?
Is that goal merely to arrive at an understanding of consciousness from strictly within the framework of the scientific method itself—that is, to maintain and preserve the status of the scientific method as the only paradigm capable of providing a complete and accurate understanding of both human and animal consciousness and experience? Or is its purpose, instead, to actually acquire a deeper understanding of consciousness than that which can be provided from within the confines of the scientific method; that is, an understanding which also includes information from outside of a rigidly scientific paradigm, but which is just as important to the understanding of the entirety of human and animal consciousness and experience as was the inclusion of relativity theory and quantum mechanics in the development of a more inclusive physical theory?
Now, to begin with, it must be acknowledged that both the scientific method and the “science of consciousness” originate in the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, and the assumption that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is both the fundamental datum of human experience and the ‘inertial frame of reference’ for the complete and accurate description of both the entire physical and conscious reality; a consciousness and an assumption which, in turn, are based upon the metaphysical duality and the philosophy of Descartes. And it is on this basis that the findings of, especially, Jung and the other archetypal psychologists with regards to the consciousness of the “self” (see, for example, the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes) are, to this day, widely trivialized, disregarded and ignored (but no less so than the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis and Parapsychology) as being ‘unscientific’; and, thus, utterly and completely irrelevant to any emergent “science of consciousness”.
In other words, it was only natural that, from its very inception from within the conceptual framework of Cartesian philosophy and the scientific method, the “science of consciousness” would deny, trivialize and ignore the reality of the “mutually exclusive in a complementary way” (Quantum Physics and Ordinary Language, Bergstein) consciousness of the “self” (and its obvious relevance to the understanding of human consciousness, as well as its possible validity in the establishing of, specifically, a “science” of consciousness) and focus, instead, upon exclusively the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; the real question now being whether the scientists of consciousness will continue to “circle the wagons” (by focusing exclusively on the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and its scientific descriptions of, exclusively, human consciousness), or whether the information with regards to both the consciousness of the “self” and animal consciousness will, instead, be acknowledged, considered, and incorporated within a more inclusive ‘science’ of consciousness beyond both the ‘classical’ “science of consciousness” and the human consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.
But there is, in fact, a much more serious problem (than even acknowledging the reality of the consciousness of the “self”) which must be encountered by any “science of consciousness” which seriously purports to describe the entirety of both human and animal consciousness; even a ‘science’ of consciousness which has become more complete (even if less ‘scientific’ or ‘classical’) by acknowledging, also, the reality of the consciousness of the “self”. And that has to do with those ‘Johnny-come-lately’ findings of Reverse Speech Analysis and Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics [in the context of decades of research demonstrating the validity of presentiment, pre-cognition, extra-sensory perception and/or clairvoyance in humans (The Power of Premonitions, Dossey and Extraordinary Knowing, Mayer) as well as animals; see, for example:
which clearly demonstrate the existence of information which, although of immediate relevance to the understanding of consciousness, not only flies in the face of both the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method and the “science of consciousness”; but, also, threatens the very existence of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ itself which is based upon the assumption of both the uni-directionality of time and the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness to only the “self”, the ‘thinker’, and the members of the human species.
And what I have observed over the past few years is that the fundamental goal of those presently involved in the “science of consciousness” is certainly not to develop any all-inclusive understanding of human (to say nothing of animal) consciousness; but, rather, merely to preserve the scientific method itself (and, not coincidentally, to prevent their own consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ from collapsing into psychosis); which necessarily requires the trivialization of the reality of not only the consciousness of the “self” (which, of course, is the consciousness that experiences psychosis in the first place); but, also, a non-spatial (or 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space)—and, thus, species non-specific—time-independent consciousness; the existence of which is made necessary by the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis, Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics and Parapsychology.
In other words, the only description of consciousness which is, in any way, seriously capable of actually achieving the ultimate goal of the “science of consciousness” in the description of both human and animal consciousness is a description of consciousness which is based upon the acknowledgement that there are not merely one or two; but, in fact, three dimensions of consciousness:
1) the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—symbolized by the “fig leaves” in Genesis 3:7 (see, also, Saying #37 in the Gospel of Thomas), and by the Third Seal (6:5-6) and the “beast of the earth” in Revelations 13:11 and Sura 27:82 of the Quran;
2) the consciousness of the “self”—symbolized by the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 3:3-6, and by the Second Seal (6:3-4) and the “beast of the sea” in Revelations 13:1 (which, together with the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, comprise the dualistic or ‘fallen’ consciousness); and,
3) a non-dualistic, 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space (and, thus, species non-specific), time-independent, “observing consciousness” Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27)— symbolized by the First Seal in Revelations 6:1-2, and represented by the “Tree of Life” in Genesis 3:24, which symbolizes the Vision of the “Son of man”/the “Vision of Knowledge”/the “Night Journey” of Mohammed.
Crucial to the development of any legitimate “science of consciousness”—or, for that matter, any description of the modes of human consciousness which purports to be in any way “scientific”—is not only a clear understanding of the way in which the scientific method defines the “observer” —the origin of which can be found in a close reading of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy; but, also, a serious consideration of whether both the “I” as defined by Descartes, and the “observer” as defined by the scientific method—that is, by classical physics, the Special Theory of Relativity, and quantum physics (but not, strangely enough, as implied in Wilhelm Reich’s Character Analysis);is, in fact and precisely, the purported-to-be ‘inertial frame of reference’ (The Evolution of Physics, Einstein and Infeld) for the establishing of a scientific description of the physical reality and human consciousness in the first place.
The origin of the “observer” as defined by the scientific method can be traced directly to the Cartesian “I think, therefore, I am”; which establishes the “I which thinks” as, beyond doubt, the ‘inertial frame of reference’ for the description of both human consciousness and the space-time reality. Under intense scrutiny, however, it is revealed that Descartes’ restriction of the definition of human consciousness to, exclusively, the “I which thinks” demonstrates, in fact, a severely deficient understanding of the variety and modes of human consciousness itself; the ultimate consequence of which is to introduce fatal inaccuracies into both the scientific method’s definition of the “observer” as well as science’s overall understanding of the full potential of human consciousness.
In his “First Meditation”, Descartes decides to ‘attack all of the principles upon which his former opinions were founded’ and to doubt ‘both the truth and the falsity (which, clearly, is at least the intimation of not a trivial violation of Occam's Razor) of everything that he has previously believed’, the ultimate result of which is to establish the “I which thinks” as not only the now widely-recognized fundamental unit of human consciousness; but, also, the conceptual foundation of Western philosophy and science. But to assert that the “I which thinks” is the only mode of human consciousness is, in the first place, to ignore the critically important opening paragraph of the “Second Meditation”:
“Yesterday’s Meditation has filled my mind with so many doubts that it is no longer in my power to forget them. Nor do I yet see how I will be able to resolve them; I feel as though I were suddenly thrown into deep water, being so disconcerted that I can neither plant my feet on the bottom nor swim on the surface.” (Italics added)
What must be acknowledged on the basis of these statements by Descartes, however—such an acknowledgement is, in fact, inescapable—is that, in addition to the “I which thinks”, there is also an “I” which ‘feels as though it were suddenly thrown into deep water…’ ; or, more accurately, an “I” which fears. (The fact that Descartes is able to acknowledge only that he ‘feels as though he were suddenly thrown into deep water’ is, in and of itself, an indication of at least an ‘unconscious’ denial of the reality of fear. In other words, Descartes merely acknowledges the feeling itself rather than directly naming the feeling as, specifically, fear.) And the simple fact of the matter is that the existence of the “I which feels (or fears)” is no less certain than the existence of the “I which thinks”--and, thus, Descartes could just as easily have said “I feel (or I fear), therefore, I am”--although Descartes clearly does not acknowledge the “I which feels” as being of the same ‘ontological value’ as the “I which thinks”. (In fact, thought itself is the manifestation of Descartes’ fear; or, as Krishnamurti says: “Thought is fear.”) But this is merely the beginning of the problem in Descartes’ progressively more serious limitations on the understanding of both the modes and the range of human consciousness.
While Descartes at least tacitly acknowledges the existence of the “I which feels” by stating, specifically, “I feel…”; he does not, however, acknowledge at the beginning of the “Second Meditation” (although this does occur later in the “Second Meditation”, after the establishing of thought as the foundation of the spatialized consciousness), even tacitly, the existence of an “I which doubts”. That is, instead of saying, specifically, “I doubt…” (although this is stated later), he specifically asserts that ‘his mind is filled with doubts…’ And the importance of this statement in revealing additional modes or characteristics of human consciousness beyond Descartes’ awareness cannot be over-stated.
To say that ‘my mind is filled with doubts’ is, in the first place, to postulate not only a ‘mind’ as, specifically, a spatially-localized consciousness—and this even prior to the postulation of a similarly spatialized consciousness referred to as the ‘thinker’—but, also, a ‘mindspace’ that can be ‘filled’ with doubts; thus attributing a quality of ‘thingness’ or spatiality to doubts themselves. At the same time, however, it must also be recognized that these doubts do not originate from ‘within’ that spatialized consciousness or ‘mind’; but, in some fashion, are to be understood as originating from beyond the boundary of that spatialized consciousness. And this leads to, initially, a number of further complications; but, then, a number of surprising discoveries with regards to the definition of both the “I” and the “observer”.
Although Descartes clearly does not acknowledge, much less attribute an ontological equivalence to the “I which feels” in comparison to the “I which thinks” —or else the foundational statement of Western science and philosophy would have been, pointedly, “I think and feel--or, more accurately, “I think and fear--therefore, I am”—[the absence of which, of course, has resulted in a widespread belief in physics as one of the “hard sciences”, whereas psychiatrists, on the other hand, should be ‘drummed out’ of the scientific establishment altogether (perhaps because they deal significantly and directly with the reality of fear itself)]; he also, only belatedly, acknowledges the existence of an “I which doubts”. Rather, doubts themselves are initially considered to be, in some way, not only non-spatial—inasmuch as they originate only from beyond the spatialized consciousness of the “I which thinks”; but, also, spatial—inasmuch as they are understood as ‘filling the mind’. But, just as the thought of the ‘thinker’ itself as a spatialized consciousness is held in the ‘mind’ of that ‘thinker’; so, too, Descartes’ attribution of spatiality to doubts themselves implies that, in terms of spatiality, doubts are similar to thoughts; that is, they must be held in the ‘mind’ of the ‘doubter’. In other words, Descartes’ initial avoidance of the term “I doubt” implies the existence of precisely an “I which doubts” (as he later implied) to counter-balance the “I which thinks”. And, thus, there are now three “I”s whose existence can be inferred from the Meditations on First Philosophy: An “I” which thinks, an “I” which feels (or fears), and an “I” which doubts (perhaps suggesting the underlying consciousness for the widespread belief among Christians that the Creator is a ‘Trinity’).
But, before it is concluded that the foundational concept of Western science and philosophy should then be: “I think, I feel, and I doubt, therefore, I am” (while acknowledging that the term “I feel” should be understand as, instead, “I fear” ); it is important, first, to examine not only Descartes’ understanding of doubt; but, also, how a more precise understanding of doubt demonstrates yet another mode or dimension of human consciousness beyond Descartes’ awareness.
To say that there is an “I which thinks”, an “I which feels” and an “I which doubts” is not precisely accurate inasmuch as both the “I which thinks” and the “I which feels”, in contrast to the “I which doubts”, have an independent existence. In other words, the “I” of both “I think” and “I feel” is not precisely equivalent to the “I” of “I doubt”. Rather, the “I which doubts” has merely a derivative existence dependent upon either the “I which thinks” and/or the “I which feels”. In other words, the very existence of the “I which doubts” derives from the function of doubt as an annihilator of not only thought (and feeling, although that requires a separate investigation); but a very specific thought: the thought of the “thinker”. Thus, doubt itself, as understood by Descartes, constitutes an existential threat to the “thinker” itself (and is the origin of the “malevolent demon” which Descartes imagines in his “First Meditation” as attempting to utterly deny his existence), which is the reason why, undeniably, Descartes experienced and expressed such severe psychological stress at the beginning of the “Second Meditation”. At the same time, however, doubt is not merely the annihilator of thought (and feeling); its very non-spatiality demonstrates the ultimate reality of a specifically non-spatial mode of human consciousness which, in the final analysis, requires a radical revision in the scientific method’s concept of the “observer”. (Even more of an existential threat to the “thinker”, however, is the ‘non-temporality’ of doubt. That is, whereas thoughts exist only ephemerally in time and space; doubt has a quality of the ‘eternal’, as well as a quality of death about it. In other words, the utter absence of thought has existed long before thought and will continue to exist long after the annihilation of thought.)
Summarizing the observations thus far, then, it has been observed that, in contradiction of Descartes’ exclusive focus on the “I which thinks” as the spatially-localized and fundamental unit of human consciousness; there are—contrariwise, in fact, and from a rigorously scientific perspective—three, at least initially, non-spatial modes of human consciousness: thought, feeling, and the annihilation of both thought and feeling through doubt. In other words, from a rigorously scientific perspective, there is neither a ‘thinker’, a ‘feeler’, nor a ‘doubter’. Rather, in accordance with Occam's Razor, there are only non-spatial modes of human consciousness consisting merely of thoughts, feelings (the principal feeling being fear), and ‘doubts’ (that is, while thoughts and feelings can reasonably be considered to be ‘things’ which, in some way, have ‘mass’; doubts are more similar to ‘anti-things’ not having any ‘mass’, but consisting of, in effect, the annihilation of such ‘things’ as thoughts and feelings).
But this very observation of thought, feeling, and the annihilation of thought and feeling through doubt requires, in and of itself, the existence of another mode of consciousness. And that mode of consciousness is the “observing consciousness”—a consciousness which, similar to doubt, is non-spatial and exists ‘prior’, ‘subsequent’, ‘apart from’ and completely ‘other than’ not only thought and feeling; but, also, the direct annihilation of thought and feeling through doubt. Thus, there is, in fact, neither any philosophical nor scientific support for the conclusion that human consciousness is a spatial entity. Nor, of course, is there any “observer”, but merely a mode of consciousness described as the “observing consciousness”--a mode of consciousness Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man” and the Revelation of the “resurrection”, implied in Character Analysis, touched upon by Jungian analysts, and of which the “observer” of classical physics, the “observer” (moving at the speed of light) of the Special Theory of Relativity, and the “observer” of quantum physics, ‘entangled in the observation’ (Quantum Physics and Ordinary Language, T. Bergstein), are, in confirmation of the observations in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, merely ‘special cases’.
Meditation II
On the Temporal Dimension of the Spatialized Consciousness
The statements of Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy clearly demonstrate that the “I which thinks” is a consciousness which is localized in space; that is, a spatialized consciousness typically referred to as a “self”. But, in addition, there is also a temporal dimension to that consciousness by virtue of the fact that, in actuality, it not only thinks itself into existence on the basis of reflection as a psychological reflex; it also depends upon reflection/thought for its continued existence. (As observed by Descartes in his “Second Meditation”:
Thinking is another attribute of the soul; and here I discover what properly belongs to myself. This alone is inseparable from me. I am--I exist: this is certain; but how often? As often as I think; for perhaps it would even happen, if I should wholly cease to think, that I should at the same time altogether cease to be. )
And, from these statements, it is to be understood that any purported ‘certainty’ to the existence of the spatialized consciousness is, in fact, merely ephemeral. Rather, the temporal dimension of such a spatialized consciousness is, in reality, quite short: The spatialized consciousness does not exist at all prior to reflection; it originates only with reflection; and it can be brought to an end as a result of either active doubt or, ultimately, the rapid, unexpected, traumatic, and complete annihilation of the the ability of self-reflection itself. (And, as Freud observed, the fear of death is the origin of what he referred to as the “ego”.) But there is an even more serious—in fact, a fatal—problem with the placing of spatial as well as temporal limitations on human consciousness: its flagrant contradiction of the Revelations in Genesis.
According to Genesis 1:27:
God Created man in the image of Himself, in the image of God He Created him, male and female He Created them.
And, according to the philosophers and theologians of the Middle Ages—as well as many hundreds of millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims today—the Creator mentioned in Genesis is typically referred to as a “Supreme Being”; the widely-accepted image of which is as a Consciousness which is infinite in both time and space.
Thus, for Genesis to say that “God Created man in the image of Himself” signifies that God Created man with a ‘similar' consciousness, a consciousness unbounded in time and space; in other words, an “observing consciousness”--an “observing consciousness” which clearly, however, is not identical to the infinite Consciousness of the Creator; infinite Knowledge being a characteristic of that infinite Consciousness. Thus, the temporally- and spatially-localized consciousness described by Descartes; which, in essence, creates itselfby reflecting upon itself and thinking itself into existence is, pointedly and emphatically, not the consciousness with which man was Created by God. In fact, by creating itself, the temporally- and spatially-localized consciousness is, in effect, the manifestation of the assertion that man is, in effect, equivalent to God (and, of course, that “man is higher than the Law”--from the Prophecy of August, 1979; which was sent to hundreds of media officials and thousands of religious ‘authorities’ in the United States; and to journalists and religious ‘authorities’ at, primarily, The Jerusalem Post). In other words, the loss of the non-spatial, non-temporal consciousness--and its replacement by a consciousness localized in space and time which derives from self-reflection/the thought of the ‘thinker’--is, in fact, what is typically referred to by theologians as “the Fall”. Thus, in fact, there has not occurred an ‘evolution’ in human consciousness; but, rather, a devolution of human consciousness from the non-spatial and non-temporal consciousness, with which man was Created, to the consciousness limited in time and space at the foundation of Western philosophy, science and religion.
To repeat: the self-reflecting consciousness of the “I think, therefore, I am”—the human consciousness localized in time and space, the human consciousness as described by Freud and other psychiatrists and psychologists—is not the human consciousness as it was Created by God. Rather, that consciousness was created by itself in opposition and as a reflexive response to the non-spatial, non-temporal “observing consciousness” Created by God. And, thus, all Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians are advised to forget about any Revelations subsequent to Genesis 1:27. That is, if they contradict Genesis 1:27 by their belief in a human consciousness which is localized in time and space, all subsequent interpretations of the Revelations in the Torah, the Prophets, Daniel, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospels, the Nag Hammadi Codices and the Koran can only, and must necessarily be in error. (That is, more specifically, a choice must be made between human consciousness as it is defined by, pointedly, the ‘secular humanism’ of not only Descartes; but surprisingly, and in fact, countless numbers of even Fundamentalist Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians; and human consciousness as it is described in the Revelations received from the Creator.)In addition, however, the non-spatiality and non-temporality of the “observing consciousness” of humans is not to be considered as an infinite consciousness. Rather, the human “observing consciousness” must be differentiated from the, in fact, infinite Consciousness/Knowledge of the Creator.
Meditation III
The Modes of Human Consciousness Reconsidered
Going backwards through time, the modes of human consciousness are manifested in the three “I” countries of the Middle East: “I think” (the relevant iteration of which is Israel), “I feel” (the relevant iteration of which is Iraq), and “I doubt” (the relevant iteration of which is Iran); “I doubt” being understood, more accurately, and as described at some length in the Meditations, as “I annihilate (not by means of ‘things’, but by means of ‘anti-things’) all thought, all sense perceptions, all biological sensations and all feelings (emotions)” (and, thus, to Western civilization, Iran is the “malevolent demon” of the “First Meditation” of Descartes).
Prior to the emergence of the “I which thinks”, the “I which feels” and the “I which doubts”, however, is a consciousness which is in the act of spatializing itself through self-reflection. And, prior to the consciousness which reflects upon itself as a spatialized consciousness is a non-spatial and non-temporal consciousness which is described as, by definition, unable to reflect upon itself because it has not yet reflected upon itself (that is, neither time nor space begins until the occurrence of this self-reflection). This is the consciousness symbolized in the Revelation of John as the “dragon”.
And prior to the non-spatialized consciousness which is unable to reflect upon itself is a non-spatialized consciousness capable of reflecting upon itself, and with the knowledge of itself as a non-spatial, non-temporal “observing consciousness” (See also, “Details of the Manifestation of the Fractal Prophecies of Daniel” in regards to the “kings of the East”), which is symbolized in Chapter 12 of the Revelation of John and Chapter 12 of Daniel with the Hebrew term “Mi cha el”—which, translated, means “Who is like God?”
Meditation IV
Revelational, Symbolic Representations of the Non-Spatial Modes of Human Consciousness
Having observed that the four fundamental modes of human consciousness—that is, thought, feeling, doubt and observation—are, in essence, non-spatial [although they can, of course, be illusionally and delusionally ‘spatialized’ on the basis of the concepts of a ‘thinker’, a ‘feeler’, a ‘doubter’ and an ‘observer’ (thus, the “observer” of classical physics, but not the “observer” of either the Special Theory of Relativity nor quantum physics)]—it then becomes instructive to note that these modes of human consciousness are, in fact, symbolically represented as, respectively, the “beast of the earth”, the “beast of the sea” (see the beginning of the “Second Meditation” of Descartes), the “dragon”, and by “Michael” as well as the “rider on the white horse” in the Revelation of John. And the first two of these modes of consciousness are also symbolized in Daniel Chapter 11 as, respectively, the “king of the South” and the “king of the North”.
At the same time, it should also be understood that the Revelations in the Revelation of John and Chapters 11 & 12 of Daniel consist, also, of fractal symbolic representations of events in the space-time reality--a conclusion which follows necessarily from the non-spatiality of human consciousness.
Meditation V
The Revelations in the Torah, the Prophets, Daniel, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospels, the Nag Hammadi Codices, and the Koran not only demonstrate and validate the conclusion of a rigorously scientific investigation that there is, in fact, a non-spatial, non-temporal “observing consciousness”—which, however, is not the Infinite Consciousness/Knowledge of the Creator; but, also, express certain knowledge with regards to both the Moral Truths and the Doctrinal Truths that have been Revealed through that consciousness.
Western philosophy, theology and science (physics, biology and psychology, for example), on the other hand, proceed from the assumption that human consciousness is, on the contrary, localized in both time and space; the ultimate consequence of which is the creation of a media, a political system, a legal system, an economic system, a medical system, a religious system (the ultimate consequence of Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology is a mutually-annihilating conflict between Judaeo-Christian civilization and Islamic civilization) and, not surprisingly, a military system firmly dedicated to the propagation and perpetuation of the spatialization of consciousness, duality, conflict, violence, extreme violence, and self-annihilating violence (suicide bombers and nuclear weapons, for example); the most likely consequence of which is, all things remaining the same, the utter annihilation of human civilization itself.
However, there are not only philosophical, religious, scientific and military implications of the non-spatiality of human consciousness; there are also economic implications of the destruction of the spatialized consciousness—some of which are described metaphorically in Chapter 18 of the Revelation of John, especially verses 9-24—and its replacement by the widespread awareness that human consciousness is, on the contrary, non-spatial and non-temporal.
Meditation VI**
A Brief Overview of the Modes of Human Consciousness
The Vision of the “Son of man” [received by, among others, Hagar (Genesis 16:13), Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jesus, Mary (The Gospel of Mary in the Nag Hammadi Codices)--and, interestingly enough, Mary, not the mother of Jesus, was also Hagar ‘raised from the dead’-- John and Mohammed]; and the Revelation of the “resurrection” (including the Revelation of the Memory of Creation--Genesis 2:7--and the revelation of the memories of previous lives--Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2, etc.) Reveal and establish the existence of a mode of consciousness—hereinafter referred to as either the “observing consciousness” (Krishnamurti) or the consciousness of the knowledge of Truth—which is both ‘prior’ and ‘subsequent’ to, ‘apart’ from, and completely ‘other’ than the normal waking consciousness localized in space, limited in time to the biological life of a particular human organism, described by Western psychology, and originating in the Cartesian “I think, therefore I am”; or, more deeply, generally (and ‘classically’), the image or ‘geometric metaphor’ which underlies the common assumption of the existence of a “self” (which is considered to be ‘inside’ or ‘internal’) as opposed to a “not self” (which is considered to be ‘outside’ or ‘external’). [The previous sentence is best read without taking a breath.]
And the knowledge Revealed and manifested through this mode of consciousness asserts that, just as the reality of an electron is perceived/understood as either a particle or a wave; so, too, there are, generally or ‘classically’ speaking, two fundamentally different modes of human consciousness: 1) one for the perceiving/understanding of the ‘external’ reality; that is, the (primarily) linear consciousness, which is fundamentally dualistic—and whose principal focus is on the intellectual understanding of the ‘external’ space-time reality—consisting of the normal waking consciousness; and, 2) one for the perceiving/understanding of the ‘internal’ reality; which, in its extreme form, includes the (not exactly linear) chaotic consciousness described as psychosis, but which results from the rapid, traumatic, and complete collapse and annihilation of the structures (i.e., spatialization and temporalization), images, memories, thoughts and beliefs of the normal waking consciousness.
But this knowledge also asserts, upon initial examination, that there is a third mode of human consciousness—tantalizing clues to the reality of which can be found in the appreciation of nature (cats more than dogs, for example), music and art, satire, ‘archetypal dreams’ [archetypal or Jungian psychology of the ‘unconscious’ is, in fact, a branch of psychology midway between the “ego” psychology of Freud and a psychology originating in and focusing upon a description of the “observing consciousness” itself (according to Freud, there is an ‘area’ or a ‘compartment’ of human consciousness, both spatial terms, referred to as the ‘unconscious’, which is said to be “fundamentally unknowable”. In other words Freudian psychology and secular humanism in general categorically deny that there can be a time-reversal from the spatialized consciousness to the non-spatial/non-temporal consciousness with which man was Created; thus, inserting a “malignant demon” with “the flame of a flashing sword to guard the way to the tree of life”--see Genesis 3:24)], and even the ‘thought experiment’ at the foundation of the Special Theory of Relativity. And this mode of consciousness is an “observing consciousness” which is ‘prior’, ‘subsequent’, ‘apart’ from and completely ‘other’ than both of these common perceptual modes of human consciousness. And an important perception and understanding of this mode of consciousness is of the very origin of both the structures, images, memories, thoughts and beliefs of the linear, waking consciousness directed toward the ‘external’ space-time reality, as well as the images of the ‘non-linear’ consciousness described as psychosis—and whose existence is often not intuited, if at all, until only after the rapid, traumatic and complete collapse of the structures and the annihilation of the normal waking consciousness itself. (That is, more specifically, neither the normal waking consciousness directed toward the ‘external’ space-time reality—in other words, human consciousness as generally described and accepted as a scientific theory by Western psychology—nor the ‘non-linear’ consciousness described by Western psychology as psychosis and directed toward the ‘internal’ reality constitutes the end point of what is generally referred to as the ‘evolution’ of human consciousness.)
And, while the emergence of the ‘linear’, normal waking consciousness out of the ‘non-linear’ consciousness directed toward the ‘internal’ reality (as described by Western psychologists since Freud, for example) is crucial for the establishing of both an initial and ordered relationship between the individual and the space-time reality, as well as a rudimentary social organization beginning with the relationship between the child and its parents; the persistence of the image and the insistence upon the thought that the normal waking consciousness as described by the scientific method is, in absolute fact, the end point in the ‘evolution’ of human consciousness—that is, will forever be capable of not only determining with absolute certainty both all scientific truth and all Revealed Truth; but, also, differentiating with absolute certainty truth and Truth from falsehood and Falsehood—constitutes, ultimately, a lethal threat to the very survival of human civilization itself.
On the contrary, it is only with the emergence and widespread realization of the existence of the reality of an “observing consciousness”—as well as an acceptance of the Knowledge Revealed through that consciousness, and as manifested in, for example, the Torah, the Prophets, Daniel, the Gospels, the Revelation of John and the Koran—(which emerges, most often, against the background of the annihilation of the normal waking consciousness itself) that the full potential of human consciousness can be realized and there can be any serious hope at all for the future of human civilization.
*This is a clarified and expanded version of an essay which was originally published in my book:
