Email exchange with my neighbor

—– Original Message —–
From: Brian
To: Friends
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:40 PM
Subject: SPRING

We know it is really spring
when the Trilliums pop up and bloom.
They are unusually profuse
and large this year.
–Brian

D wrote:

Yes, they seemed unusually profuse to me, too, though I wondered if it was just because we’d been away for a while and had forgotten. But THESE! Wow, these look like some sort of tropical version–like they’re on growth hormones or something.

Also, does it seem like the trees are slow in leafing out this year?

Last, I’m interested in having a talk with you about the course you taught…I’m paraphrasing badly but I think it had to do with how the theory of quantum mechanics has spiritual implications? That’s been a topic that’s come up repeatedly this winter in my reading and chance listenings to interviews.

Great pictures!

D

—– Original Message —–
From: Brian
To: D
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: SPRING

Yes, well – to be truthful – we were all exclaiming about how BIG
they were this year – I couldn’t help but digitally enhance the photos
a bit. I don’t know about the leafing. Every year people say that
it is an “unusual” year for one reason or another.
I did teach a course last summer called
“Quantum God – Is She a Wave or a Particle?”
with the idea that quantum physics has some very spiritual aspects.
I was inspired by a book by Ervin Laszlo called
“Science and the Akashic Field : An Integral Theory of Everything”
in which he showed some amazing similarities in current research
in physics, biology and cosmology.
I also found some very interesting parallels between this
and the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,
a French Jesuit paleontologist and Christian mystic
of the first half of the twentieth century.
I’d be glad to share any of this material with you.
SO … now I’m interested to know: what is your interest in all this?
–Brian

D wrote:

Hi, finally getting back to you.

I just took a moment to look up “Akashic”, since it wasn’t a term I was familiar with.

So my interest in all this is that I’m drawn to it for some reason. For whatever reasons I’ve felt most at home in this world and at peace with myself when I’m learning something new, or formulating a better question to find out what I don’t know. There’s something orienting about getting clues about the nature of reality, and I think at the core science and religion share that. There seems to be that common impulse in human beings, and religions are one manifestation of that impulse.

For whatever reason I find satisfaction in trying to find what underlies our experience. Maybe it’s just the thrill of the hunt, of having veil after veil removed. That certainly seems to be true of science, where matter becomes molecules becomes atoms and then sub-atomic particles and so forth. It’s fascinating to me the time and money devoted to looking ever closer; I’m thinking of the particle accelerators like the new ones just coming on line and the questions they’ll be able to answer (or pose) about these nano particles of matter and how they behave..

I’ve come across a number of books lately, either through talks with a friend who majored in physics, or radio interviews, usually on “Talk of the Nation”. Gleik’s “Chaos” was one of them, as was Lisa Randall’s “Warped Passages” and Lawrence Krauss’s “Hiding in the Mirror”. Sadly, I’m very lacking in the math and physics vocabulary that would make even these “dumbed down” books accessible to me. But I feel delighted when I can pull something out of them.

Anyway, the concept of Akashic Records seem to resonate with all of that.

So that’s the long-winded answer! Thanks for listening,
D

—– Original Message —–
From: Brian
To: D
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: SPRING

Hi D –
Thanks for your thought full email.
I wasn’t familiar with the idea of the Akashic records either, but apparently it goes way back. All the ancient civilizations had some form of a belief that there was a record which contained the history of humankind and other spiritual information. The Vedas of the Hindus and the language of Sanskrit are said to have been extracted from Akasha, and the Hebrew Bible refers to “The Book” in the same way. Like you said – there is a common impulse here.
But Lazlo comes at it from a study of recent weird results in cosmology, quantum physics, biology and consciousness research. In each of these areas, the researchers have come to a phenomenon which is invisible and seems to hold information. The each give it a different name, and seem to be unaware of similar results in other research. So Lazlo uses the Akasha as a metaphor for all of these – calling it the “A-Field”. He defines it as “an interconnecting cosmic field at the roots of reality that conserves and conveys information”. This is truly what underlies our experience.

Well. I thought that was very interesting. I spent 30 years in computer science working with things that were invisible and seemed to hold information – software! When I was in my twenties, I had a kind of metaphysical crisis – it seemed like we had to pick between science or religion. Then I started reading Chardin who was a scientist and a priest, and he derived a strong theology from observing the evolution of matter up from electrons to atoms to molecules to cells to organisms to consciousness. But then I got married and became a householder and father and wage earner … and metaphysics was dormant for me. But – when I retired – the embers reignited and I started studying a lot of theology and put it together with my technology background. For several years I taught a course at various churches around town called “Computers and God”. This was fun because the audience is already sort of religious – being in church – and everybody today has a lot of computer technology in their home. But what is the connection? Why do we have to leave our mind at the door of the church and go inside and talk about miracles, then go out to work the next day and leave our heart at the door and pretend the world is entirely physical. This is a problem today. And I am exploring it through teaching these classes.

The next book after I read Lazlo was “The Field : The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe” by Lynne McTaggart. This very similar except McTaggart is a writer, not a scientist, so she explores it from the stories of the scientists. This stuff is a little woo-woo for many people but I find it compelling. Did you see the movie “What the Bleep” ? It was playing at the Bagdad theater and Karyl and I went five times because it went to fast for us to get it but it was nevertheless extremely interesting. It’s the same story – there is more than the meets the eye. In this movie I would say they postulate the brain as the mediator between the A-Field and our consciousness.
The theological implications are to me just wonderful. This invisible field, which our scientists have discovered is everywhere and knows everything … the ground of being … all that is … some might call that God. Why not? Kind of a new version of God – not so judgmental and intervening and needing constant worship like the God of our forefathers. Deepak Chopra has pointed out how prayer has a whole new meaning in the context of quantum physics. It is more like the Buddhist idea of sending lovingkindness. The Field sounds kind of neutral at first – but it is conscious … super transcendent consciousness. This blows my mind.
Well, I’ve rambled on a lot here … as you can imagine – you have triggered a great interest. I did read “Chaos” and I like the weather metaphor where some small event can make a huge difference. I have not read “Warped Passages” or “Hiding in the Mirror” – what are they about? And what has been your journey through all of this? You are obviously a seeker. What questions are you pursuing? Would you say you are religious or spiritual? I know you are quite busy, but it might be fun to get together and discuss these things over a cup of tea from time to time. On the other hand, email has the advantage that we can listen and think before responding!

–Brian

D wrote:

Hi, Brian

Thanks for your message and the references.

“Hiding In the Mirror” and “Warped Passages” are both about extra dimensions. “Hiding” comes at it from the point of view of history: of humans’ intrigue and longing for more dimensions than what meet the eye, and “Warped” engages the topic with explanations from science about how this is possible and what it would “look like”. Both authors promise that the new accelerators are going to tell us a lot about the nature of matter and the forces that govern them. I just wish I were a little more math literate/conversant because it really strains my brain to try to apprehend this.

I DID see “What the Bleep”, just recently at the recommendation of a friend. I rented it, and so did a number of rewinds to try to “get” some things that slid past me. I really appreciated the great 3-D graphics of the nervous system and the interfaces of synapses and hormone/receptors. The application of quantum mechanics to the reality we experience was very interesting.

I have to admit, though, I had some doubts cast on some of the movie’s veracity when I did a little digging and found out that it was a Ramtha project. I’m not really able to suspend my disbelief quite enough to accommodate housewives channeling 35000 year old warriors from Atlantis. Still, even frauds can be speaking truth; I’m interested in knowing if career scientists are also drawing these conclusions from the research. From Lazlo’s title and what you say of his work, it sounds like they are. Some of them anyway.

I’d love to talk with you more about this over tea. I like to combine the benefits of “live” conversation with the benefits you mentioned of e-mail conversation too.

Thanks again, Brian.

D

—– Original Message —–
From: Brian
To: D
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: SPRING

Hi D –
Sorry for the reply delay … no excuse when you’re retired !!
Thanks for the info about extra dimensions. I don’t have the faintest idea how string theory works, but I am intrigued by the idea that they had to posit ten or more dimensions to make this theory of everything work out. Since reading “Flatland” (and Plato), the extra dimensions seem plausible, so it is interesting that now they are necessary just to “do the math”. It seems like we are always just one (bigger) particle accelerator away from the final answers to the Big Questions.
Yes, I also had qualms about the Bleep movie coming from the Ramsters up in Yelm, Washington, and I found J.Z. Knight’s contributions the least persuasive. On the other hand, I did enthusiastically devour all the books by Jane Roberts in the sixties and seventies when she channeled the Seth material – so … I’m not averse to some mysterious source materials if they make sense to me. I thought the Bleep material, though not new, was very well illustrated and I liked the way they connected it to the story of Amanda and her problems here in Portland. I also liked the idea that a “MOVIE” could even discuss these topics.
So then … what DOES underly our experience? In Neale Walsch’s “Conversations with God” books (more channeling – only this one comes from Ashland, Oregon) he says that perspective creates perception, and perception creates experience. We can’t see it unless we believe it, and we can’t experience it unless we see it. Then THOUGHT underlies our experience. But what is a thought? Science isn’t much help here — most scientists think thoughts don’t exist, or are just artifacts of physical processes. In the ancient Vedic literature the mind and thoughts are referred to as made of “fine matter” — maybe these are strings.
What do you think?
–Brian

—– Original Message —–
From: D
To: Brian
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: SPRING

Hi, Brian!

I heard about “Flatland”, haven’t read it. The Plato’s Cave story is VERY intriguing. It’s interesting how the possibility of extra dimensions has had such a long history in humans. That was one of the few things I took away from the Hiding in the Mirror book. The rest was way beyond my facility with math/physics vocabulary and concepts. And this is popular science, dumbed down for the masses! They didn’t dumb it down enough.

I agree that it’s a good thing that a movie can address some basic issues about the nature of reality; have them illustrated in the life of a character who is like any of us, and show what alternative realities might look like. I’d like to see more movies like that. Yes, it was very helpful to see the 3-D imagery of the nerve endings and synapses. I’d never had such a clear picture in my mind before.

About channeling, I was reminded the other day when someone in an interview talked about the items taken on faith–the givens of all the major belief systems. An article of faith, in fact, the MAIN one in Christianity is that Jesus was God come down in the form of Man to be crucified in order to take the punishment for our sins, and then was raised from the dead. And if you’re catholic, there’s also the item of faith that in every communion the wine and wafers actually become the blood and body of Christ. So I suppose the notion of a 35,000 year old warrier from Atlantis communicating through the body of a present-day woman isn’t much more fantastic.

It seems like we are always just one (bigger) particle accelerator away from the final answers to the Big Questions.

yeah, like the nesting dolls, or always doors behind doors.

perspective creates perception, and perception creates experience

I’m continually exposed to this concept, in many different situations. ‘Change your perception change the world’ I have evidence from my own experience in something as simple as the appearance of something. Sometimes something that seems awkward and inharmonius seems beautiful and graceful at another time. And I know it’s because certain features are standing out–features I either call “beautiful”, or “not beautiful”. Sometimes the features that predominate are the ones that say beauty, and the other way around. It is odd, particularly the fact that it’s not something that’s easily done at will, at least for me. Sometimes I find the implications of that a little distressing: that if someone’s in a situation they’re not liking then it’s because they’re “choosing” to see the features that make it unpleasant and if they’d “change their perception” they wouldn’t ve reacting to the things they don’t like. Taken to it’s logical conclusion that seems like basically if you feel badly because someone has said something hurtful, then it’s not the responsibility of the one being hurtful, it’s the hurt-one’s responsibility to have altered their perceptions so that something hurtful doesn’t bother them. I haven’t entirely been able to work this out in my mind, since on the other hand it makes a lot of sense that there are many details out there, dots to connect, and that connecting different dots makes different patterns. I’m not sure how to reconcile the seeming freedom of having command over our perceptions with the more punitive perspective I just described.

Well, Scott’s calling. And Connor’s due home from school. Got to go. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this fabric of reality stuff.

D

~ by kaleidoscoperefractions on September 21, 2008.