Spirituality In Politics

  • Home
  • Intro
  • Articles Index
    • Introductory
      • 1. Metaphysics in a Spiritual Society
      • 2. The Spirit of Guidance
      • 3. Divination
      • 4. Raynor C. Johnson: The Imprisoned Splendour
    • Articles 2: Headline Policies for a Spiritual Society
      • Education
        • The Importance of Fairy Tales
        • The Importance of Fairy Tales, Part 2 – Fairy Tales and Feminists
        • Fairy Tales and Feminism – the Story of Psyche
        • Fairy Tales and Feminism — the Story of Psyche, Interpretation
        • Save Our Fairy Tales — Concluding Remarks
    • ARTICLES 3: MORE DETAILED IDEAS
      • Politics from a Taoist Perspective – Arguing for the Centre
      • Politics from the Centre — Is that the only way forward?
      • Changing the World – Spirituality or Socialism?
      • The Superorganism – a Challenge to Materialist Science
      • Is the Earth a Superorganism?
      • Humanity as Part of the Superorganism
    • Articles 4 The Role of the Citizen
      • The Role of the Citizen in a Spiritual Society
      • Reflections on Eastern and Western Spirituality
    • The Superorganism Question and the European Union
    • A Vision for a Spiritual United Kingdom Outside the European Union
    • Consciousness
      • Is the Self an Illusion – Series Introduction
        • Is the Self an Illusion? – Neuroscience, Gurdjieff and Buddhism
        • Is the Self an Illusion? – The Opposing Viewpoint
        • Is the Self an Illusion? — Yes and No
        • Is the Self an Illusion? — Summary and Conclusions
      • The Hidden, Deeper Self - Introduction
        • The Hidden, Deeper Self - Freudian Slips
        • The Hidden, Deeper Self - Dreams
        • The Hidden, Deeper Self – Synchronicity
        • The Hidden, Deeper Self - Automatic Writing
        • The Hidden, Deeper Self – Divination
    • Why Christianity Must Change or Die – Introduction
      • Christianity Must Change or Die — Gnosticism and Carl Jung
      • Significant Moments in Church History – Introduction
        • Number 1, The Council of Nicaea, 325AD
        • Number 2 – The Anathema Against Origen, 553 A.D.
          • Reincarnation and Christianity
    • Was Jesus Divine? – Introduction
      • Was Jesus Divine, the Son of God? – 1. The Adoptionist Problem
      • 2. The Jewish Messiah
      • 3. The Eschatological Prophet
      • 4. Shakespeare’s Heretical Play
      • 5. The Resurrection of Jesus – part 1
      • Was Jesus Divine, the Son of God? - Summary and Conclusions so far
      • 6. Was Jesus Married?
      • 7. Was Jesus Married? — part 2
      • 8. Was Jesus Married? — part 3
  • Blog Introduction
    • Blog Index
    • Religion and Spirituality
    • Politics
    • Science
    • Mythology
    • Miscellaneous
  • Contact

Quantum Physics and Spirituality — part 7, David Bohm

14th August 2021

    “To the memory of David Bohm, whose intellectual honesty in facing the difficult philosophical issues of quantum theory has been deeply inspiring”. (Norman Friedman, echoed by me)

=====================================================================================

    This is the latest in a series about the relationship between the quantum physics revolution and a spiritual worldview. For a guide to what has preceded, see under Religion and Spirituality on the Blog Index Page (click here). It is believed by many that this relationship is real, and highly significant in that it paves the way for a reunification of science and religion. However, in the previous article I discussed Ken Wilber’s claim that there is no such relationship. This new article can be read in isolation, especially if you’re interested in David Bohm, but it will make most sense if you’ve read this preceding article.

    In Quantum Questions Wilber, without mentioning Bohm by name, said: “Today we hear of the supposed relation between modern physics and Eastern mysticism… the implicate order, the holographic paradigm…” This is an obvious reference to Bohm’s theories, and Wilber then says that any similarities “where they are not purely accidental, are trivial when compared with the vast and profound differences between them”. It is therefore ironic that a few years later Norman Friedman wrote Bridging Science and Spirit, with the subtitle Common Elements in David Bohm’s Physics, The Perennial Philosophy and Seth¹, choosing Wilber as his spokesperson for the Perennial Philosophy, and making observations about the numerous similarities between their viewpoints. Wilber, having devoted a whole book to explaining that there is no connection between quantum physics and mysticism, is now apparently going to have it explained to him how he has got this wrong! (The Seth material is not relevant to my theme here, so please research this for yourselves if interested — search for Seth/Jane Roberts.)

    In my estimation Bohm is the most spiritual of the quantum physicists, and makes the most explicit statements in relation to a spiritual worldview. Below I’ll explore that by following Friedman’s exposition. Before that, here are some of his preliminary remarks.

    His book opens with a foreword by Fred Alan Wolf. This is also ironic, since he is another passionate advocate of the relationship between quantum physics and spirituality, who Wilber would think is mistaken, along with Fritjof Capra, the principal target of his complaints in Quantum Questions. Wolf is very complimentary about Friedman’s book, and says that he is a big fan of David Bohm. He reaffirms Wilber’s viewpoint that mystics, unlike physicists, experience the hidden reality directly, but rejects his claim that physics can have nothing to say about this. He believes that David Bohm’s scientific thinking leads to this underlying reality.

    Friedman does not seem to be aware of Wilber’s book and his low opinion of Capra. In his preface he is complimentary about the latter, and answers Wilber’s principal objection, saying “Capra is uniquely qualified to comment on these connections because of his research in high-energy physics and his mastery of meditation techniques. His insights are necessarily general because of the differences in approach between the mystic and the physicist, and because the mystical experience is by nature ineffable” (p16).

    I’ll turn now to Friedman’s account of Bohm’s thinking.

    According to the standard version of quantum physics, particles do not have real existence but have tendencies to exist, and following Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of an electron, which can therefore be predicted only as probabilities. Various physicists, including Bohm, have felt uncomfortable with this model, and “have proposed various solutions in their search for a mathematical construct that will bring determinism back into physics” (p33). (Einstein also disliked the probabilistic model, but could not find an alternative.) This quest to find something beyond and deeper than the probabilistic aspect of events is called the search for Hidden Variables, and Bohm is the physicist most associated with it.

    The majority of physicists have rejected Hidden Variables theory, and have therefore retained the probabilistic version, even though it is somewhat mind-boggling. Thus Carlo Rovelli has written recently: “The price to be paid for taking this theory seriously is to accept the idea that an entire physical reality exists that is in principle inaccessible to us… Is it worth assuming the existence of an unobservable world… only to assuage our fear of indeterminacy?². However, what Rovelli dislikes — the existence of a world unobservable to physicists — is precisely the position of Ken Wilber, the eight physicists he quoted extensively in Quantum Questions in support of his views, and also the physicists he criticises — Fritjof Capra, and by implication Fred Alan Wolf (all as quoted in the previous article). As Friedman says: “The basic operations of our three-dimensional world are manifestations of something going on outside our perceived space. The events of our world require an underlying dimension or process. This hidden arena is not definable in mechanistic terms”.

    We should not therefore rush to reject Hidden Variables because physicists like Rovelli are uncomfortable with the idea. It’s worth noting that he makes the mistake of calling the unobservable world an ‘entire physical reality’, when of course it is not physical, rather non-material; since the very beginnings of quantum physics the reality of substance has been denied.

    According to (John) Bell’s theorem, which I believe is not seriously disputed, any hidden variable theory must involve non-locality, otherwise information transfer would have to occur at speeds faster than light, which is believed to be impossible according to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Therefore, as Friedman says, “to accommodate both special relativity and his own nonlocal view of reality, Bell postulates the existence of another (or ‘deeper’) level than our universe. The instantaneous interconnectedness of quantum particles must be accomplished outside our three-dimensional universe” (p35).

    This appears to be the starting point for Bohm’s thinking. He “has suggested a field that does not inhabit space-time, a transcendental realm in which all places and all times are merged” (p35). Ken Wilber should take note that, contrary to what he says, this transcendental realm is inferred directly from the accepted conclusions of quantum physics, not “trivial” speculations.

    The first issue to be addressed is the collapse of the wave function. According to the original Copenhagen interpretation, “the quantum field specifies the probability of finding a particle at a given position in space if one happens to be looking; the particle is a manifestation of the field when observed. When we look at it, it is a particle. When we are not looking, it is a wave, but a wave that is not real”. This wave function is essentially passive: “It cannot stimulate action from within itself. It requires an agent to make a choice among its probabilities for the three-dimensional world to be formed” (p39).

    Many physicists have assumed that it must be human consciousness that is responsible for collapsing the wave function and creating external reality. Bohm, however, “feels that there is such an agent within all matter that performs this function”. He “became convinced that a hidden variable theory was possible and that quantum theory (i.e. the Copenhagen interpretation) was not the last word”.

    After further reflection on these questions, in 1980 he published Wholeness and the Implicate Order, which presented “a new conception of order in which the nature of reality and consciousness are described as a coherent whole, consisting of an unending process of enfoldment and unfoldment from a hidden level called the implicate order”, which is “the nonmanifest aspect of reality; it is outside space-time”. “This concept, in turn, led to the postulation of a meaning or consciousness throughout nature, which Bohm called ‘soma-significance’ ” (p42). If that doesn’t sound like a spiritual worldview, I don’t know what would.

    I’ll now compare the worldviews of Wilber and Bohm. Let us not forget that the latter arrived at his conclusions based on his study of physics, not because he was already attracted to Eastern religions.

    Wilber’s worldview is derived from what is known as the Great Chain of Being. Various versions of this have different numbers of levels, even up to twenty, but these precise details do not matter; it is the principle that is important. In Quantum Questions he provides a simple hierarchy of five levels — matter, life, mind, soul, and spirit. He says that “each higher level contains functions, capacities, or structures not found on, or explainable solely in terms of, a lower level. The higher level does not violate the principles of the lower, it simply is not exclusively bound to or explainable by them. The higher transcends but includes the lower and not vice versa… And it is this ‘not-vice-versa’ that establishes and constitutes hierarchy” (p16).

    According to Friedman, “Bohm has described a ‘hierarchy’ of levels wherein information from the higher level influences that of the lower level, while the higher level itself is influenced by the next level above it. So, in a sense, we have two aspects at each level, depending on our point of view. Looking downward, we see a more explicated order; looking upward, we see a more implicated order… Each level is capable of organizing levels below into various structures or orders” (p78). Can anyone see any difference between these two viewpoints?

    Bohm postulates an ultimate unlimited, undefinable, unmeasurable ground of everything, an unbroken totality which he calls the holomovement. Wilber says: “On the one hand, then, spirit is the highest of all possible domains; it is the Summit of all realms, the Being beyond all beings. It is the domain that is a subset of no other domain, and thus preserves its radically transcendental nature”. How is this different from Bohm’s holomovement?

    Wilber continues: “On the other hand, since spirit is all-pervading and all-inclusive, since it is the set of all possible sets, the Condition of all conditions and the Nature of all natures, it is not properly thought of as a realm set apart from other realms, but as the Ground of Being of all realms, the pure That of which all manifestation is but a play or modification. And thus spirit preserves its radically immanent nature”. Thus, “at infinity, we have reached a paradoxical limit: spirit is that which transcends everything and includes everything” (p16). For Bohm his term holomovement, as well as being the highest level in isolation, “the infinite-dimensional ground of All That Is”, is also the totality of all levels, “a spectrum, a continuum of consciousness with matter on its lowest rung” (p72). Again, where is the difference?

    Bohm also postulates a hierarchy of implicate orders — obviously analogous to the Great Chain of Being — thus levels of organisation and creativity, “the source from which both our physical and mental worlds are created” (p78). “The second implicate order he calls a source of formative, organizing, and creative activity” (p71). Wilber describes a soul-realm which refers to the level of Platonic Forms, archetypes, and so on. How is this soul-realm different from Bohm’s second implicate order? And yet ‘implicate order’ was one of the “trivial” terms that Wilber mocked in Quantum Questions.

    I suggest therefore that Bohm’s worldview, despite the different terminology, is indistinguishable from that of Wilber (thus Eastern religions, the Perennial Philosophy). And it’s not just Friedman that sees great similarities between them. He reports that “Bohm’s ideas and those of Ken Wilbur have been compared in several publications, including interviews in The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes” (p16). Yet Wilber claimed in Quantum Questions that there was no relationship between the findings of quantum physics and Eastern religions (mysticism). He would seem to be a somewhat lone voice crying in the wilderness.

    As I said above, Bohm appears to be the most spiritual of the quantum physicists. We therefore have to accept that he does not represent the mainstream viewpoint although, unsurprisingly, he is frequently praised and quoted in spiritually oriented literature. Was he a genius who saw more deeply into the great enigma, or was he simply mistaken? As I’m not a physicist, I’m not qualified to judge.

    I’ll leave the last word to Gary Zukav, whose The Dancing Wu Li Masters featured earlier in the series. He says that, even though Eastern religions differ considerably among themselves, “all eastern religions are compatible in a very fundamental way with Bohm’s physics and philosophy… While it would be naïve to overstate the similarities between Bohm’s physics and eastern philosophies, it would be foolish to ignore them”. He then offers three quotes, saying that, if taken out of context, “there is no absolute way of knowing whether these statements were made by Professor Bohm or a Tibetan Buddhist”. They were in fact taken from physics lectures given by Bohm.

    In similar vein to what I just said, Zukav notes that “Bohm’s theories are received with some scepticism by most professional physicists”. However, “they would find an immediately sympathetic reception among the thousands of people in our culture who have turned their backs on science in their own quest for the ultimate nature of reality”. (I have to confess that I would count myself as one of that group.) “If Bohm’s physics, or one similar to it, should become the main thrust of physics in the future, the dances of East and West could blend in exquisite harmony”³.

======================================================================================

Footnotes:

1. Living Lake Books, 1990 and 1994

2. Helgoland, Allen Lane, 2021, p56

3. Fontana/Collins, 1979, p327

· Religion and Spirituality, Science

Quantum Physics and Spirituality — Part 5, Gary Zukav and Michael Talbot

14th August 2021

    This is the latest in a series which explores the links between the quantum physics revolution and the worldview of spirituality. For a guide to what has preceded, see under Religion and Spirituality on the Blog Index Page (click here). 

================================================================================================

    This theme of a connection between quantum physics and spirituality/mysticism was obviously very tempting because, according to Ken Wilber, writing in 1984, “literally dozens of books” had appeared in the previous decade claiming to describe this relationship. It would be pointless to go through them all — I’m not even aware of all of them — so here I’m going to focus on just two authors, Gary Zukav and his cult classic The Dancing Wu Li Masters¹, and the less well known Michael Talbot. I won’t go into great detail, since they are saying broadly the same things as the previous two authors.

    At the beginning of his book, Zukav describes a chance meeting with the T’ai Chi Master Al Chung-liang Huang at Esalen Institute in California, while he was there attending a physics conference. Huang said: “When I studied physics in Taiwan, we called it Wu Li. It means ‘Patterns of Organic Energy’ ”. Zukav says that “everyone at the table was taken at once by this image. Mental lights flashed on, one by one, as the idea penetrated. ‘Wu Li’ was more than poetic. It was the best definition of physics that the conference could produce” (p31). This is interesting, given that it wasn’t a physicist who pointed it out.

    Zukav goes on to explain that Chinese is a very difficult language, since the same ideogram can have several different meanings. “ ‘Wu’ can mean either ‘matter’ or ‘energy’ ”. How could the Chinese have intuited this before Einstein? ‘Li’ can mean ‘universal order’ or ‘universal law’ or ‘organic patterns’, hence the interpretation of ‘Wu Li’ (physics) as ‘patterns of organic energy’. Here is a profound intuition of the relationship between the laws of physics and the true nature of ‘matter’, and again we are confronted with the mystery of how ancient peoples had such a profound understanding of nature before the advent of modern science. As Zukav says, “this is remarkable since it reflects a world view which the founders of western science (Galileo and Newton) simply did not comprehend, but toward which virtually every physical theory of import in the twentieth century is pointing” (p32).

    Zukav, as well as providing a clear history and interpretation of the quantum physics revolution, reiterates some familiar themes:

  1. that the basic building blocks of matter are non-material.
  2. that there is an “invisible universe underlying, embedded in, and forming the fabric of everything around us” (p45). This is reminiscent of Fred Alan Wolf’s statement, quoted in the earlier article: “We only know that there is something other than space-time but we don’t know what it is, because beyond space-time is nonphysical, unmeasurable. But what is beyond space-time is within everything”².
  3. that there may be no such thing as inorganic matter: “When we talk of physics as patterns of organic energy, the word that catches our attention is ‘organic’. Organic means living. Most people think that physics is about things that are not living, such as pendulums and billiard balls. This is a common point of view, even among physicists” (p70). However, “the distinction between organic and inorganic is a conceptual prejudice. It becomes even harder to maintain as we advance into quantum mechanics. Something is organic, according to our definition, if it can respond to processed information. The astounding discovery awaiting newcomers to physics is that… subatomic ‘particles’ constantly appear to be making decisions!” (p72). Having discussed the matter further, he concludes: “The philosophical implication of quantum mechanics is that all of the things in our universe (including us) that appear to exist independently are actually parts of one all-encompassing organic pattern, and that no parts of that pattern are ever really separate from it or from each other”. Such a conclusion comes as no surprise to students of Eastern religions.
  4. that “for the first time, scientists attempting to formulate a consistent physics were forced by their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought” (p63). As Zukav points out, this was something that Einstein could not accept. It had, however, been insisted on by Capra in The Tao of Physics.
  5. that, while classical physics assumes that there is an external world which exists apart from us, quantum physicists believe that, to some extent, we create external reality. They seriously ponder questions like, ‘Did we create the particles that we are experimenting with?’ 

    The last point explains why physicists have become so interested in the role of consciousness in physics. As Zukav points out, “when we study nature there is no way around the fact that nature is studying itself“. Physics has become a branch of psychology, or perhaps the other way round”. Having quoted Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, he says that, if they are correct, then “physics is the study of the structure of consciousness” (p56). We spiritually oriented people would say that, given that nothing exists except consciousness, what else is there that physics could study?

    Turning now to Michael Talbot, I don’t intend to summarise his books in the same way, as he is going over material familiar from those I’ve already looked at. I mention him, rather than anyone else, because of his personal appeal to me, and in case Medium readers are unaware of him, and would like to investigate this fascinating topic further.

    He was not a professional physicist, rather a student of physics. He does seem to have a very good understanding of the issues, however. His main book is Mysticism and the New Physics³, but he has a special interest in the idea of the holographic universe, which is one of the main features of the connection between quantum physics and the spiritual worldview. He has written another book with that title⁴. This connects him strongly with the physicist David Bohm, who will be the subject of a later article in the series.

    According to the back cover of the first book mentioned, he grew up in a haunted house, which led to a lifelong involvement with the paranormal, a subject I find especially interesting. He is therefore very open-minded about the weirdness of the universe. Fred Alan Wolf describes him as “one of the cleverest writers around today… his eclectic mind ranges far into the deepest and often most controversial mysteries of modern science”⁵.

    Instead of summarising his book, I’ll quote the publisher’s blurb from the back cover, since this contains all the main points that I’m trying to address in this series:

    “The new physics, the physics of quantum theory, tells us what the mystics have been proclaiming for centuries — reality is an illusion. According to the new physics, consciousness plays a role in the so-called physical universe. Since the time of Newton, physics has always tried to maintain a strictly empirical approach. This has demanded a dispassionate observer and a concentration on objective reality as a single observable ‘something’, a priori to the consciousness. But the findings of the new physics show us that we cannot observe the physical world for it is an illusion, and we are participating within a spectrum of all possible realities. It is at this point that mysticism and the new physics meet, a meeting place examined in this book which explores the idea that the implications of this confluence are that all of our notions about the absoluteness of the physical universe are wrong. According to the author, we are experiencing the first pangs of a radical change in our view of reality. Slowly and painfully we are realizing the obvious – our concepts are based upon a most intriguing maya. Our constructs need amending. The very epistemological foundations of our environment and ourselves must shift as our prejudices are attacked. How the omnijective nature of reality will change Western civilization remains to be seen. The only certainty is that the changes will be stupendous”.

    Whether or not there will be stupendous changes will of course depend on how quickly the population of the world takes on board these implications. According to climate change theorists, time may be running out.

    Having made the case with these four authors that there is a strong connection between the quantum physics revolution and the Eastern religions, in the next article this story will take a strange turn.

==========================================================================================

Footnotes:

1. Fontana, 1979

2. Space-Time and Beyond, 1975, my copy Bantam 1983, p56

3. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981

4. The Holographic Universe, 1991, my copy HarperCollins, 1996

5. as 4, back cover.

· Religion and Spirituality, Science

Quantum Physics and Spirituality — part 4, Fritjof Capra

14th August 2021

    This is part 4 of a series which explores the links between the quantum physics revolution and the worldview of spirituality. In the first article (click here) I outlined why I think the quantum physics revolution is so important for the future of humanity; it appears to be the catalyst for the reunification of science and religion that we so urgently need. In the second article (click here) I outlined the ensuing history of this idea — the significant figures and books. In the rest of the series, I intend to summarise and review them one by one, in order to explore in more depth these ideas. In the previous article (click here) I looked at Fred Alan Wolf’s Space-Time and Beyond, which I believe was the first to make the relevant comparisons. It was followed soon afterwards by Fritjof Capra’s highly influential book The Tao of Physics¹, which is my topic here.

    The most significant difference between them is that Wolf outlines a general spiritual worldview that he believes follows on from the discoveries of quantum physics, whereas Capra makes specific comparisons with Eastern religions, having chapters on Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Zen. He says that “Eastern mysticism provides a consistent and beautiful philosophical framework which can accommodate our most advanced theories of the physical world” (p13). This is important because “the awareness of the profound harmony between the world view of modern physics and the views of Eastern mysticism now appears as an integral part of a much larger cultural transformation, leading to the emergence of a new vision of reality that will require fundamental change in our thoughts, perceptions and values” (p16).

    It is an interesting question how these ancient sages acquired such a detailed understanding without, we assume, the benefit of modern technology, how they managed to be thousands of years ahead of Western science. Capra believes that it must have been through spiritual, meditative practices. Since he wrote his book, however, there have been many researchers who believe that in ancient times there were civilisations with highly advanced technologies. It is possible therefore that the scientific/spiritual understanding of the Eastern religions was some kind of legacy from these earlier civilisations.

    Here are some of the relevant breakthroughs of quantum physics mentioned by Capra. Firstly, “the experience of all phenomena as manifestations of a basic oneness” (p362). The assumption of classical physics that the world can ultimately be understood through a process of reductionism is no longer tenable. There are no fundamental building blocks since the parts can no longer be well defined, rather “the properties of the parts can only be fully understood through the dynamics of the whole” (p361).

    Secondly, we do not inhabit a mechanical universe, rather a network of relations. It was previously believed “that there were fundamental structures, and then there were forces and mechanisms through which these interacted, which gave rise to processes”. Now process is primary; “every structure we observe is a manifestation of an underlying process” (p362). Putting these two together, Capra says that the universe is “an interconnected, dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interdependent and have to be understood as patterns of a cosmic process” (p363).

    Thirdly, as is well known, quantum physics identified the importance of the role of the observer/experimenter in the whole process of science; “we can never speak about nature without, at the same time, speaking about ourselves” (p363). There has therefore been a shift from objective to epistemic science; it is no longer possible to believe in objective scientific description, independent of the human observer.

    As Capra points out, none of these ‘discoveries’ would come as a surprise to any student of Eastern mysticism, thus:

  • the basis of all Hinduism is the idea “that the multitude of things and events around us are but different manifestations of the same ultimate reality” (p99), a basic oneness called Brahman. This is “a Void which has an infinite creative potential”, and “can easily be compared to the quantum field of subatomic physics. Like the quantum field, it gives birth to an infinite variety of forms which it sustains and, eventually, reabsorbs” (p234).
  • the universe is thus perceived to be a complex cosmic web. The Buddhist text, the Avatamsaka Sutra provides a “description of the world as a perfect network of mutual relations where all things and events interact with each other in an infinitely complicated way” (p151).
  • “In Eastern mysticism, this universal interwovenness always includes the human observer and his or her consciousness” (p152). Eastern mystical traditions “have always regarded consciousness as an integral part of the universe” (p332).

    It is important to note that there are different interpretations of the consistent results of quantum experiments, so that we cannot talk about one unified quantum theory. Capra is heavily influenced by:

  • S-matrix theory, which “comes very close to Eastern thought, not only in its ultimate conclusion, but also in its general view of matter. It describes the world of subatomic particles as a dynamic network of events and emphasizes change and transformation rather than fundamental structures or entities” (p307)
  • the bootstrap theory of Geoffrey Chew.

    The latter is somewhat controversial. Capra believes that this theory is profound, yet it is “so foreign to our traditional scientific ways of thinking that it is pursued only by a small minority of physicists” (p365). He describes it thus:

  • Chew’s “bootstrap theory of particles unifies quantum mechanics and relativity theory into a theory that represents a radical break with the entire Western approach to fundamental science” (p360).
  • “The bootstrap hypothesis not only denies the existence of fundamental constituents of matter, but accepts no fundamental entities whatsoever — no fundamental laws, equations or principles — and thus abandons another idea which has been an essential part of natural science for hundreds of years… A very different attitude has now been developed. Physicists have come to see that all their theories of natural phenomena, including the laws they describe, are creations of the human mind; properties of our conceptual map of reality, rather than of reality itself” (p317).

    The radical nature of this theory might therefore lead one to doubt Capra’s conclusions². As he points out, however, it is completely consistent with the ancient Eastern philosophies:

  • “The world view of the Eastern mystics shares with the bootstrap philosophy of modern physics not only an emphasis on the mutual interrelation and self-consistency of all phenomena, but also the denial of fundamental constituents of matter… There is no room for any fixed fundamental entity” (p322).
  • “The universe is an interconnected whole in which no part is any more fundamental than the other, so that the properties of any one part are determined by those of all the others” (p323)
  • “The experience of interpenetration in the state of enlightenment (as described in the Avatamsaka Sutra), can be seen as a mystical vision of the complete ‘bootstrap situation’, where all phenomena in the universe are harmoniously interrelated” (p324).

     Whether or not Capra is justified in accepting Chew’s theory so enthusiastically, his ideas are exciting for me because he:

  • speculates about “the intriguing possibility of relating subatomic physics to Jungian psychology and, perhaps, even to parapsychology” (p341)

  • says that the bootstrap theory “may lead to the unprecedented possibility of being forced to include the study of human consciousness explicitly in our future theories of matter” (p351)

  • speaks favourably about David Bohm, who I believe is the most important of the quantum physicists from a spiritual perspective. (There will be a separate article about him later in the series.) Capra says that he “has perhaps gone further than anybody else in studying the relations between consciousness and matter in a scientific context” (p352).

  • sees the quantum physics revolution as a significant aspect of the new emerging paradigm which has the potential to save the planet.

    On that last point Capra says: “Before the seventeenth century, the goals of science were wisdom, understanding the natural order, and living in harmony with it. In the seventeenth century this attitude, which one could call an ecological attitude, changed into its opposite. Ever since Bacon the goal of science has been knowledge that can be used to dominate and control nature, and today both science and technology are used predominantly for purposes that are dangerous, harmful, and anti-ecological.

    The change of worldview that is now occurring will have to include a profound change of values; in fact, a complete change of heart — from the intent to dominate and control nature to an attitude of cooperation and nonviolence. Such an attitude is deeply ecological and, not surprisingly, it is the attitude characteristic of spiritual traditions. The Chinese sages of old expressed it beautifully: ‘Those who follow the natural order flow in the current of the Tao’ ” (p368).

    Amen to that!

    Footnotes:

  1. originally published in 1976. Here I’ll be referring to the third edition, Flamingo 1992.
  2. The bootstrap theory has been undergoing something of a revival. See for example this article, including: “The bootstrap languished for decades at the bottom of the physics toolkit. But recently the field has been re-energized as physicists have discovered novel bootstrap techniques that appear to solve many problems. While consistency conditions still aren’t much help for sorting out complicated nuclear particle dynamics, the bootstrap is proving to be a powerful tool for understanding more symmetric, perfect theories that, according to experts, serve as ‘signposts’ or ‘building blocks’ in the space of all possible quantum field theories”.

· Religion and Spirituality, Science

Quantum Physics and Spirituality — Part 3, Fred Alan Wolf

14th August 2021

    In the first article in the series, I outlined why I think the quantum physics revolution is so important for the future of humanity. In the second article I outlined the ensuing history of this idea — the significant figures and books. In the rest of the series, I’ll summarise and review them, beginning with Fred Alan Wolf.

    Some of what follows may appear to be closer to the language of a poet, so let me begin by saying that he is a professional theoretical physicist, and former Professor of Physics. His Space-Time and Beyond¹ appeared in 1975. To my knowledge this was the first book which focused on the parallels between the newfound worldview of quantum physics and what ancient religions had been saying for centuries. He says: “The wisdom of thousands of years of mystical experience is walking hand in hand with the emerging knowledge of our sciences”.

    I don’t wish to mislead readers by overstating the case, so I’ll try to make it as clear as possible where Wolf is coming from. He is somewhat contradictory, for on the one hand he says: “The thoughts presented are supported by recent scientific theory. All are referenced to papers and commentary”. However, on the same page he is here more reserved: “Many of the scientific theories presented herein are quite speculative”. Other interpretations may make more sense in the future, but “this is now” (p 15). He later describes himself as a visionary rather than a conservative physicist, and says that visionary physics “is an art form based upon scientific fact and extrapolation from fact into areas of human thought and endeavor that would not normally be included in physics. Visionary physics is the kind of physics done by physicists on the back of envelopes over a cup of coffee. It is ‘shoptalk’ on concepts. It is always a risky business” (p 125). We should therefore not rush to accept some of his ideas as established science; they are nevertheless exciting from a spiritual point of view.

    As I noted in the previous article, even though Wolf is a physicist, this is not a normal academic book. It is divided into two parts. The first (up to p 121) is full of cartoons and pithy aphorisms, so that it almost seems to be aimed at children. Wolf then provides a scientific commentary (p 125 onward). (Page numbers below will therefore indicate which section the quote comes from.) Here are some of his most significant statements around four topics.

1.  “We only know that there is something other than space-time but we don’t know what it is, because beyond space-time is nonphysical, unmeasurable. But what is beyond space-time is within everything” (p56).

    Thus the material universe is not all that there is, but is generated into existence from a non-material level. Everything within the material universe is a product of this non-material level.

    So what is matter made of? “ ‘Matter’ may be nothing but gravitationally trapped light (energy). The chair is not solid but a fantastic interplay of vibrating, spinning rings of light in the turbulent sea of space” (p 46). This echoes Genesis 1.3 where God’s first command is “Let there be light”, which we can assume is therefore the basic building material of the lower levels. Or in Wolf’s words: “The incomprehensible unaware oneness beyond space-time (i. e. God) becomes aware of itself, creating light. Light chases itself in gravitational collapse!” (p 47).

    Or, “is it (matter) pure consciousness?” (p 56). “All of space-time is constructed by consciousness” (foreword). It doesn’t seem to matter whether matter is made of light or consciousness, however, because “we have come to know that consciousness and energy (light) are one”. “Could consciousness itself be pure energy? Perhaps the many forms of energy are similar to the many forms of consciousness… Perhaps all of the different forms in the universe are just different forms of consciousness manifesting as observers and things observed” (p 161).

    Thus matter is ‘made of’ consciousness, and “you and I are ripples in the turbulent sea of space” (p 35).

2. However, the ‘I’ that we perceive ourselves to be is not our true self. “Consciousness is the totality beyond space-time — what may in essence be the real ‘I’… What we perceive as ourselves is only the localized projection of the totality of our true selves” (foreword). This is in agreement with the core of Hinduism, as stated in the Chāndogya Upanishad: “This finest essence — the whole universe has it as its Self: That is the Real: That is the Self: That you are, Śvetaketu!”²

    Or in different words, “perhaps the universe is a gigantic space-time hologram made up of interfering quantum waves” (p 144). Again the hologram idea links to this spiritual notion of each individual human as a microcosm of the universe. Going even further, Wolf states: “The whole of the universe, all knowledge is contained within each individual and each thing. Know a grain of sand completely and you know the universe in its entirety” (p 44). He is here obviously thinking of the lines of the mystical poet William Blake in Auguries of Innocence: “To see a World in a Grain of Sand, And a Heaven in a Wild Flower. Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand, And Eternity in an hour”.

    “You cannot be aware of what is beyond space-time but you can walk in this dream in contact with the higher consciousness that is the real you” (p119). Since “the real ‘I’ is beyond space-time”, “there is no death, only a change of awareness, a change of cosmic address” (p 108). This sounds remarkably like the immortality of the soul, or at least the immortality of consciousness.

3. The universe is a single, unified whole: “Every part of your universe is directly connected to every other part” (p 33). Since “there is no real boundary between living and nonliving things”, “the whole universe is alive, and… there is really only a one unbroken whole” (p 138). According to Wolf, therefore the universe is a living organism, which is a return to the ancient worldview of animism.

4. “Perhaps the universe is just one big dance. If quantum waves are the basis for all matter and consciousness, then it is reasonable to say that rhythm is necessary. For all waves must have periodic or rhythmic movement” (p162). The Hindus have for thousands of years been calling the universe “the dance of Shiva”.

    So there is much speculation (visionary physics), and use of the word ‘perhaps’. Wolf claims, however, that “the thoughts presented are supported by recent scientific theory”. They are presumably therefore not groundless fantasies, but are to some extent based in the realms of intuition and imagination, both of which are necessary ingredients if science is to progress.

    Similar ideas reoccur in the writings of Fritjof Capra, Gary Zukav, and Michael Talbot; they will be the subjects of the next articles in the series.

Footnotes:

1. originally 1975, my copy Bantam 1983

2. in Hindu Scriptures, Dominic Goodall (ed.), Phoenix Giant, 1996, p 140

· Religion and Spirituality, Science

Quantum Physics and Spirituality — Part 2, the History

1st April 2021

    In the first article in this series, I outlined why I think the quantum physics revolution is so important for the future of humanity. I concluded it by providing some quotes from the early pioneers who, in their search for the ultimate building-blocks of matter, discovered that they don’t actually exist, that matter is in fact immaterial. Here I’ll outline the ensuing history of this idea. Since it is obviously going to take a long time to work through and review all this material, my purpose here is simply to make readers aware of this history, in case anyone would like to do some research of their own into this fascinating topic.

    The story is in two parts, with a dividing line in 1985. Relevant figures and books, in approximate chronological order, are:

  • Fred Alan Wolf, Space-Time and Beyond, 1975. This is an early attempt to draw parallels between quantum physics and the viewpoint of ancient religions. Even though the author is a physicist, this is not exactly an academic book. It almost seems to be aimed at children, full as it is with cartoons and pithy aphorisms. It is nevertheless a useful compendium of the ideas about the nature of reality from a quantum viewpoint. In a later book he wrote: “Quantum Mechanics, perhaps more clearly than any religion, points to the unity of the world”¹.
  • Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (1976). This is the first detailed exploration of the perceived relationship between the new science and the Ancient Wisdom.
  • Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: an Overview of the New Physics (1979). A non-scientist describes twentieth century physics (both relativity and quantum) for the general public. The back cover, presumably written by the publisher, describes the book as “an absorbing guide to the mind-stretching mysteries of the new physics (which) points out striking parallels with modern psychology and eastern mysticism”.
  • Michael Talbot, Mysticism and the New Physics (1981). The back cover states: “The new physics, the physics of quantum theory, tells us what the mystics have been proclaiming for centuries”.

    Other significant books from this early period, more scientific and referring not quite so specifically to mysticism, were:

  • David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980). He was the most spiritual of these later quantum physicists. This is his most significant book, which explores the idea of the material world emerging from other levels of reality, in agreement with spiritual traditions.
  • Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (1983). He is more restrained than some of these others. He sees himself as a conventional physicist, not wishing to rush to adopt mystical ideas, rather to expand the frontiers of science. He is nevertheless very open-minded about the problems of materialist science. The back cover says that he explains “how the recent far-reaching discoveries of the new physics are revolutionizing our view of the world and, in particular, throwing light on many of the questions formerly posed by religion”. The book discusses the creation of the universe, and contains chapters on Mind and Soul, the Self, the Quantum Factor, Time, the Fundamental Structure of Matter, and the Physicist’s Conception of Nature. He later wrote The Mind of God (1992).

    At this point the story takes a strange twist. In 1985 Ken Wilber, Perennial Philosophist and prolific writer on spiritual matters, entered the debate with Quantum Questions². He says: “In the past decade there have appeared literally dozens of books (I must have missed some!), by physicists, philosophers, psychologists, and theologians, purporting to describe or explain the extraordinary relationship between modern physics, the hardest of sciences, and mysticism, the tenderest of religions. Physics and mysticism are fast approaching a remarkably common worldview, some say…”(p 3). Wilber wishes to challenge and put a brake on this tendency, and in this book quotes what the early physicists actually said. He claims that “these pioneering physicists did not believe that physics and mysticism share similar worldviews… (but) they nevertheless all became mystics”, and wonders why this is so (P ix).

    I’m not sure how much influence this book had, but in the following period this tendency to compare quantum physics to mystical ideas seemed to change course, or at least be less explicit. Ironically, however, when in 1990 Norman Friedman wrote Bridging Science and Spirit, he chose Wilber as the spokesperson for the spiritual viewpoint, and David Bohm for quantum physics, concluding that they were saying essentially the same thing. The foreword was by Fred Alan Wolf (see above), who said: “The gap of understanding separating the two seemingly irreconcilable viewpoints of spirituality and science can be bridged… These two approaches aim toward the very same truths”.

    In this later period, two trends are worth noting. Firstly, some physicists from a quantum viewpoint are critical of Darwinian evolutionary theory. (It is therefore reasonable to ask whether evolutionary biologists have taken on board the implications of quantum physics, the most successful scientific theory of all time.) Examples would be:

  • Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint
  • Danah Zohar, The Quantum Self
  • Amit Goswami, Creative Evolution
  • Also worth mentioning is the former Darwinian biologist Bruce Lipton, who completely changed his views following his discovery of quantum physics. He tells his story in The Biology of Belief.

    Secondly, following the quantum revolution, physicists suddenly became very interested in the nature of consciousness. This was a general preoccupation, but some of the more important examples are:

  • Danah Zohar’s The Quantum Self. In one of her later chapters she dares to bring God into the discussion about the implications of quantum physics.
  • Fred Alan Wolf’s Mind and the New Physics
  • Roger Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind and Shadows of the Mind
  • Amit Goswami’s The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World.

    Despite this apparent consensus in favour of a connection between spirituality and quantum physics, a small minority of physicists remain unconvinced, impervious to all these arguments. The most strident of the opponents, as far as I am aware, is the late Victor Stenger, author of The Unconscious Quantum, clearly a provocative title given the idealist tendencies of the majority of quantum physicists. He is also the author of God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (no comment.)

    Also noteworthy is Jim Al-Khalili, physics professor and populariser of science for BBC TV and radio. He is a physicist who does research into quantum biology; he nevertheless describes himself as an atheist and in 2013 become president of the British Humanist Association. I assume he hasn’t read much of the above literature!

    The latest development, at the time of writing, is that Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist and populariser of science, has a new book out called Helgoland in which he attempts to explain quantum physics to the general public. I haven’t read it yet, but I heard him being interviewed on the radio for an hour last week. Two points stood out. Firstly, he would appear to be returning to what Fritjof Capra started, pointing out the connection with Eastern religions, since he has a chapter on the Buddhist teacher Nagarjuna. (I understand from a review that he also reflects on Hinduism.)

    Secondly, he is making the controversial claim that quantum entanglement (action-at-a-distance) is not real, but illusory (one review does say that he is putting his own interpretation of quantum physics centre stage). That will be an interesting read.

==================================================================================

Footnotes:

1. Taking the Quantum Leap, Harper and Row, 1989, p249

2. Shambhala, 1985

· Religion and Spirituality, Science

Quantum Physics and Spirituality - Introduction

1st April 2021

    I believe that quantum physics is the most significant cultural development of the last hundred years, not just for science, but for society and civilisation in general, and this for two reasons. It is at the vanguard of a new scientific paradigm, an emerging worldview that can potentially rescue humanity from the follies of scientific materialism. At the same time it is rediscovering and connecting with the ideas and the worldview of ancient peoples before the advent of the philosophical and scientific movement known as the Enlightenment. It is thus the foundation stone of a reunification of science and religion, a tool in the battle against atheism and secularism, which is a necessary way forward for humanity. These are, of course, not original ideas of mine; they are prevalent in much scientific literature of the last fifty years, which is where I found them.

    I recently gave a Zoom talk on these themes, which included positive references to several quantum physicists. I was surprised therefore when I received a comment afterwards via email, criticising me for praising quantum physics in this way. My correspondent wrote: “On the one hand you warn about the physicalist, reductionist science paradigm, yet you quote many quantum scientists. I started out as a physicist specializing in theoretical, nuclear and astrophysics, but always had difficulty with quantum mechanics. Being doubtful of theoretical physics (as you point out what is genuine science and what is metaphysical presumption), my career has been in practical materials science”. My critic then lists some of the appalling technology that, in his estimation, quantum physics has brought us.

    I responded, asking for some clarification, specifically on the point that he seemed to be including quantum physics as part of the physicalist paradigm. In his reply he said that he was indeed saying “that quantum mechanics is part of the physicalist paradigm. This paradigm has been developing during the centuries of the modern era; QM is an extension of the physicalist paradigm, modifying it but does not break out from it. Most of QM thinking is abstract, theoretical and disconnected from any experience of nature, and while thinking in this space we lose sight of the scale and proportion to which it refers. I remind myself that QM is the mechanics of the very small, at the level of the atom and deals in idealized concepts and relations, and it is so easy to assume erroneously that these ideas apply to all realms; quantum in this context means small amount”. (All italics mine, in order to highlight the points with which I take issue.)

    I was very surprised by these comments, since my correspondent is highly intelligent, involved in and deeply knowledgeable about spiritual matters. I had always thought that the main problems preventing the new paradigm inspired by quantum physics from breaking through were, firstly, that its implications have not been sufficiently appreciated and incorporated by the other sciences, specifically evolutionary biology, and secondly that its implications have not sufficiently penetrated the consciousness of the general public. I had not considered the possibility that it could be rejected in principle in this way. I therefore thought it would be worthwhile to do a series of articles on the relationship between the quantum physics revolution, the new scientific paradigm, and their connection with the spiritual traditions of the past, hopefully to make these connections as clear as possible. In this introduction, I’ll begin by responding to these criticisms, leaving the most important until last:

    1. With regard to the technology developed from quantum thinking¹, any new knowledge can be used for both good and evil purposes. One obvious example would be that, as soon as humans developed powered flight, it was used to drop bombs. Also, the study of chemistry and biology increases our knowledge of life and the universe, allows advances in medicine, but humans can also use the knowledge to create chemical and biological weapons. So I would argue that knowledge is neutral, and that the underlying scientific theories cannot be held responsible for human behaviour.

    2. On the nature of the theory, my correspondent describes quantum mechanics as “ abstract, theoretical and disconnected from any experience of nature” and purely mind without emotion. We can easily agree that the maths and the equations are abstruse, and incomprehensible to anyone other than specialists, also that the theory is abstract. (It is not so clear that it is disconnected from nature, as I will discuss in point 3.) Quantum physics has been described as the most successful scientific theory of all time. By this is meant that its experimental results have been precisely confirmed many times over. There is, however, no general agreement about what it all means, i.e. the philosophical implications; there are various interpretations of the theory. Nevertheless, there is a certain consistency in many of the statements made by quantum physicists when, getting away from all the maths and equations, they write for the general public about what they think the experimental results of this obscure science imply.

    3. My correspondent believes that the quantum realms (the micro-level) are distinct from, and apparently unrelated to, everyday reality (the macro-level) where classical physics applies. He says that “we lose sight of the scale and proportion to which (quantum mechanics) refers. I remind myself that QM is the mechanics of the very small, at the level of the atom… and it is so easy to assume erroneously that these ideas apply to all realms”.

    He says ‘erroneously’, but the very least that could be said is that this is a minority viewpoint; I’m struggling to think of any physicist who makes such a bold claim. On the contrary, according to scientist/philosopher Bernardo Kastrup: “The scientific consensus today is that classical, macroscopic physics arises as the compound result of fundamental microscopic (quantum) laws, only the latter being metaphysically real”. On that point he quotes physicist Erich Joos: “Simply to assume, or rather postulate, that quantum theory is only a theory of micro-objects… leads to the endlessly discussed paradoxes of quantum theory. These paradoxes only arise because this particular approach is conceptually inconsistent… In addition, micro- and macro-objects are so strongly dynamically coupled that we do not even know where the boundary between the two supposed realms could possibly be found. For these reasons it seems obvious that there is no boundary”. “Whichever interpretation (of quantum mechanics) one prefers, the classical world has been ruled out”².

    4. Most surprising therefore was my correspondent’s belief that quantum physics is an extension of the physicalist paradigm, “modifying it but does not break out from it… QM is the mechanics of the very small, at the level of the atom”. I’ve never heard such a claim before and, to say the least, it is somewhat unusual. One can understand such a statement insofar as quantum physics was the continuation of the search for the ultimate building-blocks of matter. However, it went beyond the level of the atom to the sub-atomic realm. The word quantum may mean literally ‘very small’, but that is not what the early quantum physics revolution discovered. What they found was not the very small, rather that the ultimate building blocks of ‘matter’ do not really exist; the quantum ‘small amount’ actually disappeared:

  • Sir James Jeans: “The universe is looking less like a great machine, and more like a great thought”³.
  • Werner Heisenberg: “The smallest units of matter are not physical objects… They are forms, structures, or — in Plato’s sense — Ideas”⁴.
  • Sir Arthur Eddington: “The external world of physics has thus become a world of shadows. In removing our illusions we have removed the substance, for indeed we have seen that substance is one of the greatest of our illusions”⁵.

    This was a return to the viewpoint of the ancient religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, and philosophers, most notably Plato, as expressed in his famous allegory of the cave. Jeans uses this allegory as the epigram for his book. Heisenberg mentions Plato specifically. Eddington was also clearly thinking of Plato’s allegory in his liberal use of the words ‘shadow’ and ‘shadowy’, not just in the quote above.

    Since shadows are non-material, these are decisive statements in favour of the philosophy of Idealism, in agreement with the ancient religions, that mind is the primary reality, and that what appears to be matter is an illusion. The early quantum physicist who made perhaps the clearest statement suggesting this spiritual interpretation was Max Planck: “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter”⁶.

    To sum up, my correspondent had said that quantum mechanics “is an extension of the physicalist paradigm, modifying it but does not break out from it”. He was therefore comparing it to Einstein’s modifying and developing of Newton’s theories to accommodate greater velocities, while remaining a classical theory. This viewpoint seems to be contradicted by the quotes above. As Stanislav Grof says in Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science: “Twentieth century physics have questioned and transcended every postulate of the Newtonian-Cartesian model… (Reality) is entirely different from the seventeenth century model used by mechanistic science… The world of substance was replaced by that of process, event, and relation”⁷.

    In the next article, I’ll outline the history of the debate around quantum physics and spirituality.

Quantum Physics, Wave, Particles

Footnotes:

1. Some of the examples he offers are: nuclear weapons, drone technology, cyber warfare, propaganda, brain washing and indoctrination. It is not relevant to my argument whether or not these are actually developments from quantum theory or not.

2. Decoding Jung’s Metaphysics, iFF Books, 2021, p 49. 

The Joos quotes are taken from ‘The Emergence of Classicality from Quantum Theory’, in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, P. Clayton and P. Davies (editors), OUP, 2006, p 74–76.

3. The Mysterious Universe, Cambridge University Press, 1930, my edition 1947, p 137

4. quoted in Quantum Questions, Ken Wilber, Shambala, 1984, p 51

5. The Nature of the Physical World, J. M. Dent & Sons, 1935, p 10–11

6. from lecture given in Florence (click here)

7. State University of New York Press, 1984, p 10

· Religion and Spirituality, Science

The Magic of Childhood - and ESP

8th March 2021

Children, Moon, Night, Field, Light

    I’ve been interested in parapsychology for many years, since I went on an experimental course which convinced me of the reality of telepathy, clairvoyance etc. So here I’m not going to get into a debate about whether such parapsychological powers are real or not. I’m going to assume that they are real, whatever hardened sceptics might say. Parapsychology is important because such abilities cannot be understood within the dominant materialist paradigm of modern science, and it is therefore part of a new emerging worldview for humanity.

    My purpose in this article is to ask the question, if such powers are in theory available to everyone, why do we not all access them more frequently? There seem to be two possibilities. One is that we have an innate ability, but simply grow out of this as part of the normal process of life. The alternative is that we are educated out of it.

    Evidence which suggests that we may have an innate ability, is that it is believed that telepathy works best in relaxed, meditative states, which are related to an alpha brainwave pattern. It is therefore interesting that “EEG studies of the brains of children under five show that they permanently function in alpha mode — the state of altered consciousness in an adult — rather than the beta mode of ordinary mature consciousness”¹.

    Psychic abilities like telepathy suggest that a person is more than a separate individual, rather part of an interconnected, collective psyche. There is a phase in the life of a baby when this appears to be the case. As Peter Russell says: “The newborn baby is aware of the environment but does not appear to differentiate himself from it. He is not aware of himself as a separate entity. As awareness of physical separateness from the mother begins to grow, so does the awareness of separateness from the rest of the environment. According to most psychologists, a true sense of individuality does not develop until simple language has begun to develop (some, such as Jean Piaget, would claim that full identity of the self is not attained until the age of seven or eight)”².

    That age was also considered significant by Dr. Ernesto Spinelli, who did some experiments which seemed to show that young children had considerable telepathic powers. He found that three-year-olds did best of all, but the apparent ability then declined until the age of eight, when the results were similar to those of adults. His interpretation of his successful results was that telepathic power is a sort of externalised thinking that disappears once the child learns to do his thinking inside his head. This would suggest that the loss of power is part of the normal process of life, as the child begins to understand that he or she is a separate individual.

    Unfortunately other researchers failed to obtain similar results³. Failure to replicate is considered fatal in science. Let’s consider, however, why he might have been successful when others failed. Parapsychologists often say that results are improved when participants have an emotional engagement with the experiment, whereas regular science is conducted in an atmosphere of cool objectivity. Spinelli apparently made his tests appealing to the children, using bright colours, puppets, and thinking caps for the children to wear. 

    There is an interesting book by Cassandra Eason called Psychic Power of Children⁴, which contains several examples of psychic ability in the very young, many of which come under the general heading of clairvoyance, the awareness of events happening at a distance. These stories are, of course, merely anecdotal, and would not qualify as scientific proof. They are nevertheless very interesting. The book opens with the story of her two-and-a-half-year-old son, who suddenly announces during breakfast that his father has just had a motorcycle accident, but that he is all right. This turned out to be true.

    As one might expect, such experiences occur most frequently between close members of the family, and often in relation to death, accidents, or danger — what Eason calls telepathy under stress. Young children can be aware of these, even from a long distance, and make accurate statements about the details. As well as awareness of concurrent accidents or deaths, she also provides examples of apparent premonition of an accident, precognition, even a precognitive dream. The psychic link can also pick up good news; one child became aware of the exact time of the birth of his brother in hospital, even though he was at the family home with a babysitter.

    Moving away from ESP, in this interesting Medium article, Rebecca Romanelli says: “The majority of my dreams were peaceful and magical when young. I traveled to other planets, flew faster than a hummingbird and encountered creatures and beings delivering private messages. I often woke up, still partially existing on another plane, a state I would come to know as a hypnogogic transition. I liked this feeling. The world was familiar, but I was sensing it in an altered, fluid and open way. A space without assumptions and contained with elastic boundaries”. This suggests that she was living in a magical, mythological world, of the type that young children are so attracted to in their waking lives. She also seems to be describing the psychological stage where the ego has not emerged from the collective psyche.

    William Wordsworth understood all this in his famous poem: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood. (What an amazing title that is!) The beginning of stanza 5 spells it out with great clarity:

“Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar. Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home. Heaven lies about us in our infancy! Shades of the prison-house begin to close upon the growing boy”.

    This process of closing down is analysed brilliantly by Alan Watts, the well-known writer on spiritual matters, who calls the pre-ego ‘clouds of glory’ state floodlight consciousness, and the restricted ‘prison-house’ state spotlight consciousness⁵. Also relevant is what is known as the Transmission Model, the idea that the brain is an organ which filters and limits consciousness. I believe this term was coined by William James, but Aldous Huxley popularised it.

    In this context, here are a few more observations:

  • It is interesting that in Plato’s famous allegory of the cave, he talks of “prisoners there since they were children”, not since birth.
  • Maurice Maeterlinck, who wrote about the idea of termite colonies as superorganisms, said: “It is more or less certain that we were formerly much nearer than we are today to this universal soul, with which our subconsciousness still remains in touch. Our intellect has divided us from it, divides us more and more every day”⁶.
  • So-called ‘primitive’ tribes, with a less developed sense of individual identity, seem to have telepathic abilities.

    Wordsworth and these others seem to be suggesting that this loss is an inevitable, even if regrettable, part of life’s process. This may be so, but it also seems true that to some extent we are educated out of the original childhood state. This is the second alternative mentioned above. Spinelli came to a conclusion along those lines: “telepathic powers come from the same source as ordinary thought but that in the young child, this ability has not been suppressed by learning”⁷. It is also true that children can be criticised or punished for making parapsychological statements, and told that they need to ‘grow up’. It is not surprising therefore they might seek to repress their abilities.

    Uri Geller is a controversial figure, some doubting his claimed powers. Nevertheless, researchers frequently say that children are especially proficient at metal-bending. Here is an example. The open-minded biologist Lyall Watson tells this story. “Last year, I was in my home village in Ireland, I was sorting through my things and found a video from a decade back of Uri Geller bending a key in my company. I took this over to a neighbour’s house to show them, because they had asked to see something like it, and we sat and watched it on their television. It was just the sort of thing you’ve seen him do often enough. The difference on this occasion is that I had sitting with me on my knee my neighbour’s youngest daughter, a child of three of whom I’m very fond. We watched it together and afterwards, I simply pulled out my own large steel latch key and gave it to her. ‘You try,’ I said. By implying that this was something that everybody did, I gave her permission to do it. And she did. She simply stroked it like Geller had done and it flopped like limp spaghetti”.

    He goes on to analyse what he thinks is happening: “The problem here is that I’ve seen this happen dozens of times, but I can’t do it. I know it is possible because I’ve seen it done, but there’s part of me that knows it is impossible, part of me that’s tied to my education that says that it can’t happen and as a result, I can’t do it. That little girl didn’t have my problem. No one had told her it was impossible. I had implied everybody did it by showing her someone doing it, and so she did it”⁸. So Watson didn’t manage to escape Wordsworth’s shades of the prison-house. 

    We are faced with some interesting questions. Is the phase of evolving consciousness with loss of psychic powers, shades of the prison-house, essential for the ego’s development and its sense of security, or can it be avoided? Is it in any way damaging to children to remain in contact with the early magical self? Could we in fact retain the sense of magic throughout our lives? Should we be playing ESP games in primary schools, in order to maintain children’s connection with that world? These are questions for professional psychologists, and unfortunately I don’t know the answers.

    As an aside, it is interesting that this whole process is described in the early cards of the major arcana in the Tarot deck, which depict the course of an ideal life from a spiritual point of view. The second card in the series represents the phase in the womb, or possibly the moment just before birth, when the self is still whole, undifferentiated, remaining as close as possible to its source, the soul. And interestingly, this card is called the Magician. Might we say that when we are in close communication with the soul, then magical things like psi are possible, that magic and psi are our natural inheritance? The third card is called the High Priestess, which represents the phase when the baby does not yet experience itself as a separate entity, when it is still immersed in the interconnected, collective psyche. The fourth card is called the Empress, representing the bonding process with the mother, and the gradual realisation of oneself as a separate individual. This is followed by the fifth card called the Emperor, who is a father-figure, an educator, a disciplinarian, the one responsible for teaching children how to adapt to and live in the world. In the Tarot this is seen as a necessary phase, and could easily be the time when children begin to forget their magical beginnings. I suppose it depends on what the father-figure teaches them.

====================================================================================

Footnotes:

1. Lynne McTaggart, The Field, HarperCollins, 2001, p138

2. The Awakening Earth, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982, p102

3. This case is actually quite complicated. Spinelli’s results were criticised by the notorious sceptic Susan Blackmore, who failed to replicate them. Then both their work was criticised by Rick Berger, whose critique was then criticised by Markwick [first name unknown]. So the whole thing is a bit of a nightmare. It’s perhaps better to trust the anecdotal evidence which follows. For details see: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Psi+or+sigh%3F+Evaluation+of+the+spinelli+and+blackmore+experiments+of…-a082066933

4. Foulsham, 1994

5. https://www.alanwatts.org/3-4-11-transformation-of-consciousness-part-3/

6. The Life of the White Ant, (tr. Alfred Sutro), George Allen & Unwin, 1927, p201

7. Eason, as 4, p43

8. Watson told this story in a lecture to the Mystics and Scientists Conference, 1988, as recorded in The Spirit of Science, David Lorimer (ed.), Floris Books, 1998, p186

· Religion and Spirituality

Alchemy, Concluding Thoughts - the Future

21st February 2021

    This is the final article in a series about alchemy. In the first I discussed the career of Sir Isaac Newton, and how his passion for alchemy and its related philosophy influenced and led to his scientific ideas. In the second I addressed the question of how alchemy might be achieved. In the third I made an argument as to why this is important. In the fourth I told the stories of some of those who may have succeeded in the alchemical quest. Here I’ll offer a few final thoughts on this subject, and why it is important.

    I am not advocating that people should take up alchemy. It is somewhat missing the point if one studies and practises alchemy in the hope of getting rich. It is also worth noting that the knowledge acquired, if one succeeds, is considered dangerous, presumably because it can be used for evil purposes. It should not therefore be made generally known to those who cannot be trusted; that is why the secret knowledge has always been closely guarded. 

    What is far more important is what alchemy might mean for the future of science, how thinking alchemically could actually be beneficial.

    The first point to make is that, if the transmutation of other metals into gold is indeed possible, then this is a great victory for esoteric, spiritual science over conventional, materialist science, which considers alchemy ridiculous, and mocks it at every possible opportunity. It would be evidence that the knowledge and wisdom of the ancients was far superior to that of modern science. We might therefore in general take more seriously the ideas of ancient societies, just as Isaac Newton did, and learn from their wisdom.

    The second point is that success in alchemy might require a high degree of spiritual development in the practitioner, that he or she might be capable of conscious psychokinesis. I speculated about this in part 2 of the series, and in part 4 I discussed Mary Anne South and her book A Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery With a Dissertation on the More Celebrated of the Alchemical Philosophers. She was incredibly knowledgeable about the history of alchemy, and she confirms my speculation. As Colin Wilson says: “Again and again, she remarks that the basic secret has to do with ‘concentrating the vitality’ ”. “She leaves us in no possible doubt that she believes that certain alchemists have succeeded in turning lead into gold and manufacturing the Philosopher’s Stone. And, quite simply, she does not believe this is a purely chemical process. She believes — she is actually pretty certain — that at a certain point in the operation, the alchemist has to put something of himself into it. There is a point at which his mind must enter the crucible and effect certain basic changes in the metal”¹. Belief in alchemy might therefore encourage more people to become interested in spiritual ideas and the transformation of consciousness, along the lines of Carl Jung.

    Michael White, author of the biography of Isaac Newton discussed in part 1, explains why alchemy is unacceptable to modern scientists: “It is the element of personal involvement that principally casts doubts upon the relevance and practical use of alchemy as an intellectual process”. “The usefulness of alchemy in extending the frontiers of science is non-existent… Unlike the ancient alchemist, modern physicists do not hide behind a façade of mystical code and they work independently of religious feeling or emotional character”². Apparently, however, it is precisely this element of personal involvement that enables an alchemist to achieve things that conventional science thinks impossible.

    Alchemical success strongly suggests therefore that there are hidden, latent powers in humans, which could actually help science to penetrate some of the mysteries that it currently struggles with. In alchemy we are talking about psychokinesis, the ability of mind to affect matter. Another potentially useful paranormal power would be clairvoyance. One successful example of this was the investigation of the atom by the Theosophists Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, who described the existence of smaller units (i.e subatomic particles, which they called Anu), the most basic state of matter, about thirty years before the arrival of quantum physics.

Fractal, Abstract, Background, Physics

    Paul LaViolette is a very unusual physicist. He is inspired by astrology, the Tarot, and ancient Egyptian mythology, seeing connections between them and the cutting edge of modern scientific thought. That is very brave of him, and we can assume that he is not taken seriously by other scientists. He quotes Besant’s and Leadbeater’s impressive statements about the atomic sub-plane from Occult Chemistry, and comments: “Customarily it has been the practice in physics to base theory upon experimental observation. Observation, however, becomes increasingly fuzzy as the quantum level is approached. Scientists wishing to construct intelligible models of this level find themselves depending to a large extent upon hunches and analogies. Admitting the importance of the intuitive faculties, is there not some advantage to directing the mind to penetrate the barrier of quantum uncertainty and directly ‘see’ what lies below?” “The writings of Besant and Leadbeater provide much food for thought. If indeed the subatomic realm can be accurately observed by means of the psychic faculties, one wonders whether psychically gifted scientists in ancient times may have used similar techniques to gain information about subatomic phenomena and subsequently used such data to construct a sophisticated ether physics”³. One wonders therefore whether psychically gifted scientists in future times might also be capable of significant discoveries through paranormal methods.

    Another field in which alchemical thinking might be useful is medicine. In part 3 I discussed the work of the apparently successful alchemist Albert Riedel (Frater Albertus), also described by Colin Wilson in Mysteries. He makes a distinction between the Great Work — the transmutation of metals — and the Lesser Work — “the extraction of the essence of plants or the vegetable stone”. The lesser work “can be carried out by any competent chemist”. “But the Greater Work is a different matter; ordinary men cannot do it, for it requires some special power in the alchemist himself”, which is why it must remain a secret. This again confirms what I was saying above about the element of personal involvement. He offers, however, a clear and detailed account of the lesser alchemical work with plants, which is said to have great medicinal value. Two figures who seem to have had success in this area are Armand Barbault, as discussed in part 3, and Paracelsus, the Swiss practitioner of alternative medicine.

Homeopathy, Natural Medicine, Medicine

    One obvious connection that one can make is with homeopathy. This, like alchemy, is a target for ridicule among the ‘scientific’ community, on the grounds that a substance is claimed to have healing effects, even though it has been distilled until not a single molecule of the original healing agent remains. This sounds remarkably similar to the lesser alchemical work, the extraction of the essence of plants or the vegetable stone. It is therefore interesting that the alchemist Paracelsus is considered to have laid the foundations of homeopathy. One therefore wonders whether homeopathy, and alternative medicine in general, should be taken more seriously, and not neglected because of the prejudices of scientific materialism.

    In conclusion, one might argue, as I have done here, that the misguided materialist worldview of modern science is holding back progress in medicine, and science in general. Let’s look forward to an era of spiritual, esoteric science, in which paranormal powers might be a useful tool for scientists.

Footnotes:

1. Mysteries, Panther, 1979, p 408, p 409

2. Isaac Newton, The Last Sorcerer, Fourth Estate, 1998, p 129, p 130

3. Beyond the Big Bang, Park Street Press, 1995, p 233, p 237

· Religion and Spirituality

Alchemy - Those Who Might Have Succeeded

21st February 2021

    This is the latest in a series of articles about alchemy. In the first I discussed the career of Sir Isaac Newton, and how his passion for alchemy and its related philosophy influenced and led to his scientific ideas. In the second I addressed the question of how alchemy might be achieved. In the third I made an argument as to why this is important. Here I’ll tell the stories of some of those who have succeeded, so it would appear, in the alchemical quest.

    I’ll begin with Isaac Newton himself. In the introduction to this series (before the three just mentioned), I speculated as to whether he had succeeded in his endeavours, in that he had urged another alchemist Robert Boyle to keep “high silence” about knowledge “that is not to be communicated without immense damage to the world”. Why would he say this, and how would he know, if he did not have access to this knowledge? However, one of Newton’s biographers, Michael White, thinks that it is “an obvious fact that no single alchemist has succeeded throughout history”¹. (By the end of this article I hope you will be questioning whether he has done enough research, as he may have jumped too hastily to this conclusion.) He nevertheless describes Newton as “the self-proclaimed, but deluded, discoverer of the philosopher’s stone” (p5). Unfortunately he does not give the source for this remark, but it suggests that somewhere in his writings Newton declared himself successful. Given that he devoted a major part of his life to the quest, and that he was an undisputed scientific genius, this would perhaps not be surprising.

    That is just a tantalising fragment. There are other examples about whom we have more knowledge. My primary sources for what follows are chapters 8 and 9 of Mysteries by Colin Wilson², and a talk entitled Alchemy: The Science of Spiritual Transformation, given by Tim Wyatt at a conference of Leeds Theosophical Society on June 9th 2019. (I am extremely grateful to him for providing me with a written transcript of the talk.)

    I’ll begin, however, with an anecdote from Michael White’s book (p 104–105), summarised here. Helvetius (real name Johann-Friedrich Schweitzer) was a philosopher and outspoken sceptic of magic and alchemy. After publishing an attack on the alchemist Kenelm Digby, he had an unannounced visit from a stranger “who professed to be a master of the magic arts”. He showed Helvetius three pieces of stone which he said were “fragments of the legendary philosophers’ stone and had the power to transform any base metal into the highest-quality gold”. Helvetius asked him to demonstrate, but he refused, saying that “he would return in three weeks and perform a demonstration of transmutation” in order to persuade him. He kept his promise, and handed Helvetius “a tiny piece of one of the stones, no larger than a mustard seed. When Helvetius suggested that nothing could be done with so small a fragment, the stranger broke it in half, threw one piece into the fire, and handed back the other half, saying that that was enough to make several ounces of gold”.

    Helvetius and his wife “melted down some lead coins and threw the tiny grain of stone into the molten metal. When the crucible had cooled they removed it from the fire, and there, at the base of the container, lay a piece of gold which they later found weighed six ounces. Amazed but still doubtful, they took the nugget to the best goldsmith of the region for his validation. After a brief examination of the metal he declared it to be of the finest quality and offered them fifty florins per ounce for it”.

    News of the story spread. Helvetius knew the philosopher Spinoza who, also a sceptic and doubtful about the story, visited the goldsmith and was convinced, having seen the gold himself.

    Colin Wilson also mentions this story, saying that Helvetius left a detailed account of the events, which suggests that he was impressed. He then quotes E. J. Holmyard: “In most cases of ‘transmutations’ it is not difficult to perceive where trickery could have entered, but in the case of Helvetius, no one has yet discovered the loophole”.

    Tim Wyatt identifies this mysterious stranger as the English alchemist Thomas Vaughan, otherwise known as Eirenaeus Philalethes, who “is said to have produced large quantities of both gold and silver”. He adds the following detail: “The gold had even more curious properties. It was shredded and dissolved in nitric acid. Silver was added and then the whole concoction re-separated. Astonishingly it was found that there was more pure gold than there had been originally. Some of the added silver had actually been turned into gold”.

    If this example of alchemy is indeed genuine, then Vaughan must have discovered the ultimate secret. Wilson mentions Philalethes, but is unaware of his real identity, calling him “an unknown Englishman”. He says that he “claimed to have completed the Work at the age of twenty-two” (p416). He would seem to be an outstanding candidate for the description of successful alchemist.

 

NICHOLAS FLAMEL

    Both Wilson and Wyatt mention the Frenchman Nicholas Flamel, and tell a similar story. He had by chance come across an alchemical manuscript, the Book of Abraham the Jew. He and his wife studied it for twenty-one years. Wilson says that he then “made a pilgrimage to Spain, where he met a Jewish doctor who was able to offer him further enlightenment. In 1383, he succeeded in making the ‘red stone’ (the Philosopher’s Stone), and transmuted mercury into gold. He did this three times, obtaining enough money to live comfortably for the remainder of his life”. Wyatt expands upon this last detail, saying that “Flamel had lived a life of poverty but within months he owned 30 separate properties in Paris alone”. Wilson accepts that his manuscript could be a forgery, “but we know that Flamel existed, that he was an alchemist, and that he became a rich man and gave away large sums of money”. That much is fact. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

   

ALBERT RIEDEL (Frater Albertus)

    Wilson tells this story. Israel Regardie is a well-known name in the world of esotericism. He had studied alchemy deeply, and written about it, principally in Philosopher’s Stone, which was essentially a Jungian interpretation, thus claiming that the transformations described in alchemical texts were psychological, spiritual, rather than physical transmutations. Wilson says that this is “one of the best and most stimulating of all works on alchemy, and certainly one of the clearest”. It was surprising therefore when in 1968 Regardie made “a public confession of error”. He had “met a real laboratory alchemist” by the name of Albert Riedel, and had been dumbfounded by his laboratory work, which he had witnessed. He said that “in insisting solely on a mystical interpretation of alchemy, I had done a grave disservice to the ancient sages and philosophers”. Wilson says that he continues: “when Basil Valentinus tells the alchemist to take some antimony, pulverise it and place it in a dish over a fire, he means exactly what he says. There is no spiritual symbolism involved”.

    Regardie doesn’t actually “describe the experience that caused this astonishing change of heart”. He did, however, go on to write a preface to The Alchemist’s Handbook by Frater Albertus (Riedel), and this book “gives us a clear idea of at least some of the things Regardie witnessed in Riedel’s laboratory”.

    Albertus makes a distinction between the Great Work — the transmutation of metals — and the Lesser Work — “the extraction of the essence of plants or the vegetable stone”. Both works involve the extraction of the essence of the material. He says, however, that the lesser work “can be carried out by any competent chemist”. “But the Greater Work is a different matter; ordinary men cannot do it, for it requires some special power in the alchemist himself”. That is why “he has no intention of giving away the secret of the Great Work, the transmutation of metals. But he offers a clear and detailed account of the ‘lesser work’ ”, with plants. He then adds, tantalisingly, that even though it is not permitted to reveal the secret of the Great Work, anyone who can accomplish the procedures in this current book “can surely accomplish the Grand Arcanum, if he is ready”. All this clearly suggests that Albertus knows the secret of the Great Work, the ability to transmute metals.

    The alchemical work with plants (thus the Lesser Work, according to Albertus) is said to have great medicinal value. Someone mentioned by both Wilson and Wyatt pursuing this path was Armand Barbault. According to Wyatt, inspired by a book called The Mutus Lieber, he aimed to produce a universal medicine. “In his book Gold of a Thousand Mornings Barbault describes the long series of cyclical distillations and the remarkable results he achieved. After three years he produced his elixir — his potable gold. But when he sent it off for analysis even the most sophisticated tests failed to identify what it actually was, although it yielded spectacular results when used on terminal patients. Despite this, many scientists were outraged by something they didn’t understand”. Wilson adds the detail that Barbault “prints letters from scientists who have tested it, including one that describes how it cured a woman of multiple sclerosis”.

    One of the names in this field best known in modern times is Paracelsus, the Swiss practitioner of alternative, esoteric medicine. He was undoubtedly an alchemist but, given that his preoccupation was with healing people, it is reasonable to assume that he was more involved with the Lesser Work. As Wyatt says: “For Paracelsus alchemy was all about curing disease, not amassing glittering fortunes”.

    Another alchemist mentioned by both sources is Alexander Seton, a Scotsman who, according to Wilson, in the sixteenth century demonstrated the transmutation of lead into gold to Jacob Haussen, a Dutch pilot, who left an account. Seton “then travelled around Europe, repeating the demonstration in front of many ‘doctors’, who wrote their own accounts”.

    Others mentioned by Wilson are:

  • the Belgian chemist Van Helmont, who “described how he had converted four ounces of mercury into gold by means of a powder obtained from a stranger. Van Helmont seems to have been an honest and thoroughly scientific investigator; his account of the Stone was published by his son, who was a disbeliever in alchemy, so the chance of forgery seems minimal”.
  • James Price, who claimed that he had transmuted mercury into gold. “In May 1782 he invited a distinguished gathering of men to witness the transmutation. They saw him add a white powder to mercury together with nitre and borax, heat them in a crucible and produce an ingot of silver. When he used a red powder, the result was gold. The specimens were submitted to a goldsmith, who found them to be genuine”. That is the impressive part of the account; it becomes less so as the story continues, since he failed to reproduce the demonstration.

    Other alchemists mentioned by Wyatt are: Lascaris, the Comte de St-Germain, Jean Dubuis, Count Bernard of Treviso, and François Jollivet-Castelot. Most worthy of note is Fulcanelli, which is a pseudonym. As well as apparently being a successful alchemist, he wrote The Mystery of the Cathedrals, in which he claimed “that France’s magnificent Gothic cathedrals are basically esoteric textbooks in stone. Alchemy’s secrets — suitably disguised behind symbols — are intricately carved into these giant structures. They are openly displayed — but only to those able to see beyond the allegorical veils”.

    In conclusion, I’ll recount the story of Mary Anne South and her father Thomas; Wilson weaves his account of the history of alchemy around them. He does not say that they were alchemists themselves, but that they were “practising occultists, members of a secret society called the Zojese, founded by platonist Thomas Taylor”. As we shall see, however, they had a great interest in, and deep knowledge of, alchemy and its history, which leaves open the question whether they experimented themselves.

    They were both accomplished (amateur) scholars, especially of the classics. Thomas “attached particular importance to the Mysteries of Orpheus and Eleusis. These were secret rites of purification and initiation, often involving days of ‘ordeal’. Solemn secrets were imparted to the initiate, and he swore never to divulge them on pain of death”. (This sounds remarkably similar to alchemy on both counts.) They then began to study the Magi, and Mary Anne translated into English the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, “one of the earliest treatises on alchemy”. They had the revelation “that this ancient science of alchemy was not, as is generally assumed, a crude form of chemistry, based on misconceptions about the elements, but a coded form of the Mystery religion of the ancients”, “that alchemy enshrined the ancient Mysteries in symbolic form”.

    Mary Anne’s first published work was Early Magnetism, in which she hints that she herself had “received some kind of mystical illumination”. She then went on to write A Suggestive Inquiry into the Hermetic Mystery With a Dissertation on the More Celebrated of the Alchemical Philosophers”, which was printed at her father’s expense. However, he was “too absorbed in his vast poem³ to do more than glance at the manuscript and nod approvingly. The book appeared in 1850, and about a hundred copies were sent to libraries and reviewers”.

    “Then a strange thing happened. Thomas Smith took the trouble to read the book. His reaction was instantaneous. He went to enormous trouble to call in the copies that had been sent out, made a pile of all the available copies… and burnt them. A very few managed to survive”. Mary Anne “apparently agreed with his verdict”, for after his death “she made no effort to have the book reprinted, although she admitted that its destruction had been a ‘crushing sorrow’ and had permanently destroyed her literary ambitions”. She did, however, much later present one of the few remaining copies of her book to the mystic Anna Kingsford”, and the book was finally reprinted in Belfast in 1918” after her death.

    Why did Thomas have this extreme reaction? This can only be a speculation, but the very likely deduction is that he thought his daughter was either revealing, or coming dangerously close to revealing, the great secrets of alchemy which it was forbidden to reveal. Wilson says that “her long ‘Preliminary Account’ is a history of alchemy showing that there is plenty of evidence to prove that alchemists really could transmute base metals into gold”. He had previously expressed his opinion that “Mary Anne knew perfectly well what she was writing from the moment she put pen to paper…”.

    She describes the basic aim of alchemy, but this does not seem to add anything to what can be found in earlier texts by practitioners. Then the first chapter of part 2 is entitled “On the True Subject of the Hermetic Art, and Its Concealed Root”, which is tantalising, and we wonder whether the great secret is about to be revealed. She refers to “pseudo-Alchemists”, but then, as Wilson puts it, “we read on, waiting for her to explain what she means by a true alchemist”. Instead she refers to “the secrets of the king” which it is honourable not to reveal. She says that she will offer evidence of the forbidden truth, without directly revealing the king’s secret.

    She nevertheless gives the impression that she knows what is required for success, and that “she is withholding tremendous secrets”. Whether this is knowledge of the precise details, or merely a theoretical general understanding, is not clear. Wilson concludes that the Souths “believed they had stumbled on the basic secret which no alchemist had ever stated in so many words, and that they had no right to break the silence of more than a thousand years. Mary Anne did her best to be as discreet as any of her predecessors. Yet she was writing the first general treatise on alchemy in the whole of its long history… No one had ever written a book aimed at the general public”. That is why she chose to express herself in obscure terms, and “in later life she realised that the secret was safe”. “No one seemed to guess what she was talking about”, and “we have not penetrated the whole secret of… her remarkable book”.

    In the next article I’ll discuss the implications of alchemy for the future of science, and humanity in general.

Footnotes:

1. Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer, Fourth Estate, 1998, p122

2. Panther, 1979

3. an epic about the ancient wisdom

· Religion and Spirituality

Alchemy — Why It Matters

21st February 2021

Image for post

    This is the latest in a series of articles about alchemy. In the first I discussed the career of Sir Isaac Newton, and how his passion for alchemy and its related philosophy influenced and led to his scientific ideas. In the second I addressed the question of how alchemy might be achieved. In the next article I’ll tell the stories of some of those who may have succeeded in the alchemical quest. Before I do that, however, since belief in alchemy in modern times can be considered a sign of madness, it’s worth stating why all this is important.

    Firstly, it is part of an ongoing battle with the arrogance and hubris of modern so-called science, which claims that it alone understands how the universe works, and that we should all deeply revere it and its practitioners. Belief in alchemy is now a scientific heresy for ‘obvious’ reasons, since chemical elements take their identity from the number and arrangement of electrons inside the atom, and no known chemical process can get inside the atom to effect the transmutations. Quod erat demonstrandum! Or so we are led to believe.

    There was a very interesting article recently at Medium.com by Geoff Ward on the subject of heresies. Here are two relevant quotes:

  • “Heresy… today can be defined as a belief or opinion profoundly in conflict with what is generally accepted, whether that general acceptance is valid or not…”
  • “Today’s heretics are not burned at the stake but marginalised, suppressed or ridiculed — even ostracised by their scientific, medical or academic communities: a metaphorical burning, if not of books then of reputations, no matter how impressive and relevant their credentials and status might be in their own fields of endeavour”.

    He blames for this situation “those with vested interests in the social, political or financial status quo” and those with “blinkered world-views, all too common today, within certain scientific, technological, academic and political communities”. They are the ones who decide what heresy is, and who make and apply the rules.

    It would seem therefore that we are being ruled by a scientific dictatorship akin to the religious Inquisition of the past. If their worldview is mistaken, then they are holding back the progress of true science.

    Along with alchemy, other similar ‘heresies’ according to this modern worldview, to a greater or lesser degree, are: astrology, homeopathy, Intelligent Design, ESP, James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis (the idea that the Earth, and perhaps even the universe, are living organisms), the afterlife, and belief in God and the supernatural. But if all these were true, which they may well be, just imagine how different the world would be if everyone believed in them as enthusiastically as we are now encouraged to have faith in science. The world would in fact be much like it was for thousands of years before the arrival of the ‘Enlightenment’, but with the addition of all the wonderful benefits that science has brought us.

    On this theme, some time ago the scientific journalist Richard Milton wrote an important book called Forbidden Science¹, which analysed the phenomenon of supposed heresies in some detail. Some of his topics were as controversial as those just mentioned, but others less so. Here are some of his interesting examples:

    Only weeks before the Wright brothers flew, an article was published “which showed scientifically that powered human flight was ‘utterly impossible’ ”. When they did manage to achieve flight, their local newspapers ignored them. Scientific American then ridiculed them because the press hadn’t written anything! Thus flying was believed impossible and ridiculed, despite actual evidence to the contrary. Milton sees this as a “refusal even to open our eyes to examine the evidence that is plainly on view. And it is a phenomenon that occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be almost an integral part of the process”.

    Thomas Edison, despite being already famous, received similar treatment upon his (supposed) invention of the light bulb (I’m aware that he was not necessarily the first). At the same time that he was demonstrating it, Sir William Preece read a paper at the Royal Society explaining that what he was claiming was impossible.

    When John Logie Baird invented television, the Royal Society “described Baird as a swindler (and) asked what was the use of his invention”.

    A common theme emerges in line with my quotes from Geoff Ward above; the supposed experts have become this authoritarian scientific dictatorship, deciding what can and cannot be believed, and are frequently wrong. It takes someone from outside this Establishment to make the necessary breakthroughs. This was especially true of the amateur Wright brothers who demonstrated that ‘science’ was misguided.

    It would seem therefore that science or, more accurately, what is perceived to be the correct scientific viewpoint at any given time, frequently and somewhat ironically, is at the vanguard of preventing advances in scientific knowledge. We now know for certain that flying, light bulbs and television all work successfully, are therefore ‘scientific’, and incredibly beneficial to humanity. Suppose for just one moment that the same might be true of alchemy.

    The second and briefer point is that, if alchemy is indeed possible, then this clearly demonstrates, contrary to what scientists would have us believe, that the ancients were far more knowledgeable and sophisticated than we are in modern times, and that this is because they were comfortable with what we would now call a magical, and spiritual approach to life. The modern ‘Enlightenment’ claims that science is enabling humanity to advance onward and upwards towards greater truths, and that in this process we have left behind the deluded earlier worldview which incorporated magic, superstition, and false religious beliefs. If alchemy is indeed possible, this clearly shows that it is the Enlightenment itself which is deluded.

    As I said above, in the next article, I’ll describe some examples of possibly successful alchemy.

====================================================================

Footnote:

1. Fourth Estate Ltd., 1994

· Religion and Spirituality

  • Newer Posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 9
  • Older Posts

Recent Posts

  • Quantum Physics and No Spirituality — Carlo Rovelli and Helgoland
  • Quantum Physics and Spirituality — Danah Zohar and a Quantum Worldview
  • Quantum Physics and Spirituality — Danah Zohar and a New Society, part 8
  • Quantum Physics and Spirituality — Danah Zohar and a New Society, part 7, Quantum Relationships
  • Quantum Physics and Spirituality — Danah Zohar and a New Society, part 6

Copyright © 2022 · Simply Pro Theme by Bloom Blog Shop.