Explorations In The Dynamics Of Consciousness

"EXPLORATIONS IN THE DYNAMICS OF CONSCIOUSNESS - 8"

Now, we have gotten to the place where life has appeared in the universe. And, in the process, we have discovered that we do not really know yet just what life is. We know a number of ways of detecting its existence. Yet, we are not certain that we have discovered all of its various forms of existence. In fact, I am absolutely certain that we are far from understanding even a fraction of what there is to know about life. And yet, we argue vehemently in the courts about it. And we are living in it every day.
There is a theory, which actually dates back to the ancient Greeks, that is finding a renewed interest lately. That theory is summed up in the word, Gaia. How many of you are familiar with Gaia? Gaia is the term for the sum total of all life on this planet. Furthermore, it is a belief that all life has consciousness, and that all of that consciousness is part of one consciousness. I do not want to get into Gaia just yet, only to plant the seed. The reason I bring it up now, however, is that it is a theory which directly links life with consciousness. And if there is such a direct link, then when life was first born in the universe, was not consciousness born also? Or was consciousness here already? We will be looking at that more as our explorations continue.
For now, let's look a little bit closer at life. No one really knows how it got its start. There are certainly a number of theories, and scientists are continuing to create experiments to more accurately determine which of those many theories may hold promise of a proof. Of course, the only life we generally acknowledge an awareness of is life on this planet. And in such a vast universe, that is really slim pickens. Personally, I am intrigued with the theory that life on this planet was deliberately seeded by life from somewhere else in the universe.
Of course, if that were to be the case, it would merely mean that the original question still remains. How did life first start? The answer just might have to be found somewhere else, somewhere that we are not yet aware of. But, of course, for now there are extensive experiments underway, attempting to recreate those first primordial conditions in an effort to create life. Personally, I think that it is just a matter of time, and someone will figure out how to do it. And that someone will be what we call a scientist.
So, let's talk about science. Science was defined by the British astronomer, Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, as "an effort to place the facts of experience in order." Exquisite definition. We have already said that the universe consists of our sum total of experience, and that it is only through experience that we know anything. Marshall McLuhan is quoted, in Stewart Brand's book, "The Media Lab," as saying "We experience far more than we understand. Yet it is experience rather than understanding, which determines our behavior." Science, then, is a process of determining the order believed to be inherent within that experience.
Our lives have been, and increasingly continue to be, altered by the discoveries of science. Up until a few centuries ago, the way of the scientist was often fraught with extreme danger. During the gradual civilization of humanity, a number of theories were formed regarding the supposed nature of existence and the universe in which we live. Those initial theories were very shaky, because humanity had not yet discovered and developed the tools which would allow us to measure, and test, the theories with sufficient accuracy that we could verify their validity and determine their place in the order of things. The very fact that humanity suspected that there is an order to the universe is a concept that must have taken thousands of years to develop.
In the meantime, while science very slowly developed, those simplistic theories which had already been defined became institutionalized. What I mean by that is that elaborate systems were created to protect and perpetuate those theories. This discouraged further discovery, at times by threat of death. The Spanish Inquisition is but one example of the extremes that institutions went to in an effort of protect their theories. Yet people continued to seek answers to questions. Then, in the sixteenth century, science, once again, stubbornly raised its head in the form of Nicolas Copernicus, who basically declared that we are not standing still. The way that he did that was to present some proof that the earth was not the center of the universe, but rather that it orbited around the sun. That was a very radical concept at the time, and the Scientific Revolution was born.
This led, in the eighteenth century, to the birth of the Industrial Revolution as scientific discoveries were applied to the mass production of goods. The process during those centuries, between Copernicus' time and the seventeen hundreds is an amazing story. One of the most interesting ways that I have discovered to explore those discoveries is Isaac Asimov's book, "Asimov's Guide to Science and Technology." In that book, as I've already mentioned, Isaac briefly outlines the lives of 1,510 scientists throughout history. It is extensively cross referenced and new versions keep coming out. Exploring the book can lead someone on a journey similar to our earlier examination of the definitions interconnected with life and religion. In fact, it is quite possible, as Isaac claims, that merely starting anywhere in the book may eventually lead one to ultimately reading the entire book. What is more, the book is fascinating, I find, because Isaac compiled it himself. He did not have a staff doing the legwork. An incredible undertaking. And he kept revising and updating it.
In the early twentieth century, the Atomic Revolution got a kick start with the intuitive discoveries of Albert Einstein. This might also be called the Relativity Revolution. At that time, we entered an invisible world of incredible possibilities. This revolution had such an impact upon the course of humanity that most of us have yet to begin to discover how drastically it has changed all of the rules of the game. We will be hitting upon that time and its impact in more detail as our work together develops.
By the mid-twentieth century, we were in the midst of a Cybernetic Revolution, where machines began assuming much of the world's workload. Of course, each of these revolutions continues. It is not, as one might expect that one revolution replaces another. Instead, they grow out of one another, complement one another, and lead to other revolutions.
The Cybernetic Revolution was joined in the last twenty years by the current Information Revolution. Jay Ogilvy, a former economic consultant to the London Stock Exchange, is quoted in Stewart Brand's book, "The Media Lab," as stating that "a Nobel Prize is waiting for the person who figures out the economics of information." The Information Revolution is so new, and so complex, and so dynamic, that no one yet fully understands how it is operating. That is right. This new revolution is running itself. How is it doing that? The computers are doing it. That is right folks, the future is already here.
In "The Media Lab," Stewart Brand interviews Peter Schwartz. Peter used to head the "Business Environment" section of the strategic planning division of Royal Dutch/Shell, one of the world's three largest companies. Do you know the other two? They trade places occasionally for the top two slots on Fortune's 500: Exxon and General Motors. Royal Dutch/Shell is composed of several hundred companies in over one hundred and twenty countries around the world. Peter's job with them was to predict world economic futures. Later he, and Jay Ogilvy worked as strategic advisors to the London Stock Exchange to develop scenarios for the future of world finance markets.
Peter points out that the amount of world foreign exchange is increasing dramatically. He says, "Before the 70's it was one, two, three trillion a year, max. It reached $65 trillion in 1985 - double the figure for 1984. The newest figures I have seen," he says, "show that in 1986 international foreign exchange transactions reached $87 trillion." Hey, there is a lot of something going on out there. Just what is it? Well, Peter continues, "it's not trade volumes, it's not physical activity that is driving the value of currencies any longer; it's this electronic money sloshing around the world in vast quantities. Trade is only ten percent of that $87 trillion; it's trivial. Movement of money itself is the game." Let's let that settle in our heads for awhile. We will get back to it later.
What is next on the revolutionary horizon? Well, before the next century begins, I predict a fourth twentieth century scientific revolution. It will be a Consciousness Revolution, and its impact upon the course of humanity will be greater than that of all of the revolutions which have preceded it. It will all but destroy the current political, economic, educational, and religious institutions of the world. Actually, when I claim that this next revolution will destroy major institutions, the fact of the matter is that those institutions will actually just change rather dramatically, and to the benefit of all of humanity. All that is necessary for this next revolution to commence is for the scientific community to officially acknowledge and accept the existence of consciousness and all of the accompanying implications inferred by that reality. If you are keeping up-to-date with the latest theories in quantum physics, then you are already aware of how close this next revolution is to taking off.
Just about twenty years ago, I published, in an alternative newspaper, a news item claiming that an increasing number of atomic physicists suspected that they were on the verge of an exciting new discovery. That discovery would come when, in an effort to discern the components of some subatomic particle, they would find that it was composed of nothing except pure principle. Today, almost two decades later, we find an increasing number of quantum physicists embarking upon new careers as philosophers. That career change is a natural outgrowth of their scientific discoveries.
Science and religion are beginning to merge. But it is science that is at the forefront of that emerging unity. That is because pure science, by definition, seeks to discover the order inherent in all of the components of our experience. Applied science then takes those discoveries and produces artifacts for the use of humanity. This means that science is constantly forward looking. Religion, on the other hand, is generally backward looking, investing an inordinate amount of time in protecting outdated concepts. That can be rather scary when one realizes that religion has played a major hand in running the world for thousands of years.
Let me share just one example of what I am talking about in the difference between science and religion. Shortly before his death, Buckminster Fuller was in Austin, Texas, where he was queried as to his feelings regarding homosexuality. He responded, "Perhaps it is nature's way of dealing with the world's overpopulation." Now, some people might respond to that statement by claiming that AIDS, then, may be nature's way of dealing with homosexuality. That would be, however, a very homophobic, nationalistic, and ignorant response. For, although the quarter of a million people infected with AIDS in the United States have been largely within the homosexual population, worldwide, there are five to ten million people carrying the HIV virus. And, the vast majority of those world carriers are heterosexual. I recently heard a statistic that a child becomes HIV positive every 30 minutes. Now, perhaps AIDS is another of nature's ways of dealing with world overpopulation, but there is no evidence to imply that AIDS is nature's response to sexual proclivity.
The biggest objection to homosexuality appears to come from religion. But, if Fuller is right, and homosexuality is a natural response of nature to overpopulation, then where does that leave religion? Nature and God suddenly come into conflict. Does this mean that the Creator is schizophrenic? And, in particular, where does that leave those aspects of religion which encourage large families?
Now, I do not bring this up to argue the validity of Fuller's comment. Rather, my purpose is to demonstrate the difference between the scientific approach verses the religious approach to experience. The scientific inquiring mind says, "Well, perhaps ...," and will then commence to investigate, while the religiously self-protective mind responds, "Well, it says here in The Book ...," and that ends with an emphatic period. It appears that science asks questions, while religion makes statements.
Religion relies largely upon the requirement of faith in the validity of ancient writings. That faith could better be directed at the content of those writings, and to investigating their current validity. Science, on the other hand, relies upon measuring the facts of experience. And therein has lain the rub. Science has always been limited to that which can physically be measured. Yet now science is venturing into areas which are totally beyond physical measurement. Will this put an end to scientific inquiry? Definitely not.
Science is already well into dealing with concepts which defy physical measurement. It is being forced, by the nature of its discoveries, and the forward looking thrust of its methods, to consider areas of experience which are totally beyond the realm, and the constraints, of physics. The precise term for the reality which the scientific community is preparing, out of necessity, to embrace, is metaphysics. Metaphysics means beyond physics. And that means beyond the limitations of time and of space.
If you are not aware of it by now, let me share with you that the reality in which we live is not somewhere out there. Reality exists totally within us. So, if we want to alter the apparent reality out there, then we need to alter our perception of reality. A possible explanation of the mechanics of this process is found in the concept of parallel universes. Resigned to the realm of science fiction a mere fifteen years ago, parallel universes is now the stuff of serious, valid, scientific investigation. Perhaps the next area to be investigated will be the possibility that metaphysics is the syntropy that balances the entropy of physics. That is to say that while the physical universe is slowly expending all available energy, through gradual heat loss, from the realm of metaphysics, it may be possible to add available energy back into the physical universal equation. There are countless people throughout history who have reported experiences which would imply that to be precisely the case. And if it is discovered that metaphysics can syntropically alter physics, then the implication is that each of us is a true creator of godlike proportions.

"EXPLORATIONS IN THE DYNAMICS OF CONSCIOUSNESS - 7"

Okay, let's do a quick recap. In an effort to lay a foundation upon which to build this Seminar, we began with the question, "What is it all about?" In an effort to include "it all", we first considered the question, "Where did it all begin?" In pursuing the answer to that, we discovered that the physical universe is finite and entropic. We then followed the lead of scientists, using current knowledge of universal physical principles to project backwards in time to speculate on how this all came about. The result is a theory called the big bang, although it would probably be more accurate to call it the gigantic expansion, or the incredible omnidirectional suck. Understand that although this is still termed "a theory," it is backed up with voluminous experimental evidence.
Now, we want to know where it is all going. If there is a beginning, then there has to be an end. Well, since that first big bang, some 15 billion years ago, the universe has continued to expand. And there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to expand for a long time to come. However, entropy tells us that it must be slowing down. Now, if it continues to slow down, does that mean that it will one day come to a stop? Well, that is a good question.
The physicists look at it like this. Either the universe is an open system, or it is a closed system. If it is open, then it will continue to expand, slowly running down, forever. If it is a closed system, it will expand until it slows down sufficiently that gravity will begin to pull it all back together, eventually ending up where it all started. What is it that determines whether the universe is an open or a closed system? The answer depends upon how much matter there is in the universe. If there is a sufficient amount of matter in the universe to allow the interattractiveness of gravity to pull things back together once it has all slowed down sufficiently, then the universe is closed. If there is not enough matter in the universe to ultimately pull things back together again, then the universe is open, and it will continue to expand as it gradually slows down.
How much matter is out there? We don't know. However, the matter that we have detected so far is not sufficient to close the system. So, as of today, for all we know, the universe will end in ice, rather than fire. But that is billions of billions of years away. And we may yet discover enough matter in the universe to close the system. And then everything will end in the increasing heat of radiation as it all comes back together again.
So, we have a beginning scenario and two possible ending scenarios. Between those, what is it all about? What are we doing here? Is there a purpose? If so, what is that purpose? What are we supposed to be doing? Well, one thing I can tell you in answer to that is that most of us are not doing it. Most of us are throwing away our potential. Now, if any of you felt offended by that observation of how we are not living up to our potential, then orbit with this. I am more offended by the pettiness of people feeling offended by my language than you could ever be by whatever words I might choose to use in expressing myself.
Feeling offended by another's choice of words is exactly what I am talking about when I say that we are throwing away our potential. Let me give you an example of where I am coming from and why I view nitpicking over words to be an obscenity in and of itself.
How many of you are familiar with the Holocaust? The Holocaust was a great tragedy of World War II. Over sixteen million people were deliberately, inhumanely, tortured and murdered at the direction of a relatively small group of people who were under the incredibly false impression that they were better than other people. They believed they had the right, in fact, they claimed it to be a personal obligation of destiny, to decide who should live and who should die.
However, an even bigger tragedy of the Holocaust is implied by history in that far too many people, who later claimed to be offended by this severe travesty against humanity, did whatever they could to ignore what was happening, and even attempted to keep others from becoming aware of what was going on. To this day, people bandy about the name of Hitler as the example of the evil that is possible in the world. And yet, I wonder if Hitler was the real evil, or if, rather, he became the scapegoat for the evil in so many others.
Now, let's talk for a moment about what I mean by evil. I am not going to look to Webster this time for a definition of evil. In fact, I am not even interested in what Webster has to say on the subject. My definition of evil comes, instead, from John Brunner. How many of you know who John Brunner is? John is a novelist. In particular, he writes science fiction. I first became aware of John Brunner because of Stewart Brand's book, entitled, "The Media Lab: Inventing the Future At M.I.T."
I discovered "The Media Lab" because of another science fiction writer, William Gibson. Years ago, Gibson's second novel, "Count Zero," was serialized in "Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine." I found the story particularly intriguing. It dealt with a not too distant future when the Boston to Atlanta metropolitan corridor is called The Sprawl and characters called computer cowboys roam mentally, via electronic brain hookups, through the computer systems of the world.
Gibson's first novel was entitled, "Neuromancer," and for years I kept an eye out for it in the secondhand bookstores which I frequented. Looking for particular items, like books or records, in used stores can be very enlightening. Some very popular items are quite easy to find. Then again, every so often, an item pops up that is very difficult to find. "Very difficult" is not really the proper adjective. It is more like extremely difficult. And what I find most intriguing is that it is often an item which has important implications, and would therefore be, one would believe, very popular. It is as though some books and records are too precious to recycle. The movie of "The Magus" was like that. In my experience, "The Magus" has only played in a theater near me on two occasions. And the critics hated it. Each time, it appeared for only one single showing. I have record albums that it has taken me as much as a decade to find. There are others that I am still looking for. An example of just one of those is, "The Telephone Door To Richard Brautigan."
Anyway, from time to time, a particular item which I am seeking takes on an importance of its own which supersedes other priorities and demands fulfillment by whatever means necessary. "Neuromancer" was such a case in point. It developed into a priority. So I hit the new bookstores for a change. No one had it, at the time. So, I special ordered it.
I do not know how to describe my experience with reading "Neuromancer", other than to say that it really possessed me. It had an intensity which seemed to totally engulf me. Reading it was as though Gibson reached out, grabbed me, and said, "Come on, there is incredible adventure afoot." With that kind of a reaction, it should not be surprising that I talked about the book, recommending it to others, even before I was finished reading it.
Someone I recommended it to said, "Oh, I read about that book in 'The Media Lab'." They loaned me a copy of Brand's book. I read it, was impressed, and bought my own special order copy.
The reference in "The Media Lab" to "Neuromancer" listed it, and two other books, as favorites of the students and professors at M.I.T.'s Media Lab, as a source of new ideas. One of the other two books that were a favorite at M.I.T. was John Brunner's "Shockwave Rider." I ended up traveling over a thousand miles before I was able to find a copy of that book.
Now, some of you may wonder, "Why didn't you just go ahead and order what you wanted when you wanted it?" Well, there are three answers to that question. First, if I were to have ordered something when I wanted it, I would not have had enough money to pay for everything I would have ordered, much less the time to get into it, since I would have had to work so hard to pay for it all. Now, that is a tragic situation. I used to think that it spoke ill of the society in which we live, that an individual, like myself, desiring to gather together the tools and the time to discern what is going on, and then to use that knowledge and experience to contribute to bettering the world situation, should be so stifled in his attempts because he was required to work an endless chain of nondescript jobs just in order to make ends meet. Over the years, my frustration with this situation grew, for the more I learned, the more I was aware of how unnecessary was the game that I felt forced to play. Then, eventually, I learned that there was someone even more to blame than society for my situation. That someone, of course, was myself. But, until I discovered that, and took steps to develop the self confidence necessary to take control of my life, and to make it what I willed, I shopped the secondhand stores.
Let me tell you what that was like. The intensity with which I jumped into a secondhand store search at times felt as though it bordered on addiction. I would often enter a store with several items in particular in mind. While searching for my targeted items, other things would catch my eye. At times I would run across something totally unexpected, like a recording of Marshall McLuhan's "Medium Is The Massage," or a record by Timothy Leary called "You Can Be Anyone You Want To Be This Time Around," or a double record bootleg album entitled "Sweet Apple Tracks," which consisted of out takes from the Beatles' recording sessions for the album, "Let It Be." In books, it might be Arthur C. Clarke's "The Odyssey File," or Gerome Agel's "Is Today Tomorrow," or Stewart Brand's "The Media Lab" with a hologram on the cover, or Timothy Leary's "Neuropolitics" or "Exopsychology".
If it was a record store, I might end up thumbing through every single record in the shop. As for bookstores, I would go from science fiction, to psychology, to mysteries, to drama, to physics, to humor, to math, to sociology, to science, to philosophy, to reference books, to motion pictures, and back to science fiction. And through that hit and skip or general overall thorough search I would fulfill my second reason for haunting secondhand stores: discovering the unexpected.
But it was not easy. I would get totally locked into my search. My heart rate would increase, my muscles would tense, my palms would sweat, my mouth would become dry, my breathing would become slow and measured. And in the background, I would worry about getting caught. "Caught?" you ask. Yes, caught. As I said, it was like an addiction, an addiction to the expansion of consciousness. And my experience had taught me, right or wrong, that that was not a pursuit that is socially acceptable.
And that leads to my third reason for prowling the secondhand stores. It was an escape from the mundane. I mean, one can only watch so much TV and read so many magazines and newspapers, and follow the same routine, day after day, until it becomes necessary to make a break. After awhile, it is all just too repetitive. As Bono, the singer for U2, said, in the song, "Bullet The Blue Sky," "I can't tell the difference between ABC News, Hillstreet Blues, and a preacher for the old time gospel hour." One needs new input. One can hit the regular book and record stores, but their product is so predictable. In the secondhand stores, one never knows who or what one might run across.
So, anyway, I finally found "Shockwave Rider." I began reading it shortly after finishing "Neuromancer," and Fred Alan Wolf's, "Space, Time And Beyond," and Carlo Suares' "Cipher of Genesis." Like "Neuromancer," "Shockwave Rider" takes place in the not too distant future, although it is a completely different type of future. Without going into the plot, let me just say that towards the end of the book, the main character, a genius who inserts a worm program in the world's computer systems that causes the computers to reveal all of the secrets to everyone, makes a very profound statement. "If evil exists in the world," he says, "it is in treating people as though they are things."
Having said that, let's now take a quick look at Webster, who defines evil as "bad character or conduct, causing discomfort or repulsion, causing harm," and "marked by misfortune." Yes, I prefer John Brunner's definition. The evil inherent in the Holocaust was in people treating other people, or looking at other people, as though they were things.
To demonstrate how deep the evil of the Holocaust runs, even to this day, I have two questions I would like to ask. I think that you will see by your own responses to these questions how well we have insulated ourselves from a full awareness of the evil in our past. And then, I am going to share with you how that evil exists today to a degree that makes the Holocaust look like a tea party.
First question: How long did the Holocaust last? (Take answers.) In fact, the first German concentration camp was opened in March of 1933. So, the Holocaust, running until the liberation of the death camps in April, 1945, lasted for twelve years.
Second question: How many people were exterminated through the Holocaust? (Take answers.) Prior to researching this, I would have said seven million people were exterminated by the Nazi regime. In fact, over six million Jews, or two-thirds of the European Jewish population, were murdered by the Nazis. However, in addition to that, another nine or ten million people, consisting mostly of Gypsies and Slavs, were also murdered during those twelve years. That is a total of sixteen million people. And that doesn't count the 12 million who died of starvation defending St. Petersburg and the rest of the Soviet Union.
Now, again, the tragedy was not only that it happened, but that obviously there were many people in important, influential positions who must have known that it was going on, but who did not say anything about it. I mean, God almighty, it went on for a dozen years. Adolf Hitler was chosen by Time magazine as the "Man of the Year" in 1939. Sixteen million people were deliberately, methodically killed. How can that be covered up? How in the hell could that have ever happened? People in the clergy and in the Red Cross knew and said nothing; did nothing.
Well, people, listen to this. I have one final question for you. The difference between your answer and my answer will reveal how well evil still thrives in today's world. Ready? How many children will die this year as a result of starvation or malnutrition? (Take answers.) Well, the official answer, which is no secret, is that fourteen million children will die this year as a direct result of malnutrition. That is damn near as many people as were deliberately murdered during the twelve years of the Holocaust. Why is this happening? Why is this allowed to happen? Is it because we have no choice? How could that be? What are our priorities? Where is our religion? Where is our heart? Where is our sense? Where is our humanity? (Snap fingers.)
Folks, every two and one quarter seconds a child on this planet dies of starvation or malnutrition. And that is not to mention the adults who are dying of starvation or malnutrition. (Snap fingers on other hand.) Now, tell me about the importance of supply and demand economics. Tell me about the importance of communist doctrine. Tell me about the rationale of spending trillions of dollars on exotic mega death weapons. Tell me about love your neighbor. Tell me about how advanced we are as a species. Tell me about the importance of the stock market and leveraged buyouts. Tell me about how religion, any religion, is the hope of the world. See how many lies you can tell me without appearing blatantly evil. (Stop snapping fingers.)
No, on second thought, don't tell me anything. I have already heard it all. We have all heard it all, too many times. I am fed up with the lies. Let me tell you, before I leave, that it is no longer necessary for people to starve. Anyone who tells you otherwise is evil. Now that may seem like an extremely harsh statement to some of you. (Resume snapping fingers.) Harsh? Unfair? Bull! Feed the world! Do it now! Anything else is unacceptable. (Stop snapping fingers.)
Now you know what offends me. And you know why I am adamant when I say that most of us are pissing our lives away. Much of what is going on in the world today is short sighted and unnecessary. The current world situation is the result of a long string of events. Many of those events have been misperceived. Much of what we have learned in the past is no longer valid. Our views and our perceptions of the universe have altered incredibly during our own lifetimes. In fact, we have learned more, come to understand more, during your lifetime, no matter what your age, than we have in all the millions of years prior to your appearance upon this planet.
The problem is that we have learned so much so fast that it has not yet had time to filter down through all of the aspects of our lives, bringing all of our perceptions up to date. Those that are attempting to help bring us up to date in our understanding of who, and what, and where we are, are oftentimes finding it a very difficult job. I believe that this is because they are too often relying upon old outdated means of communications and means of perception. Together, however, you and I are going to turn that situation around, for that is part of our discovery this week.
Now, when I way we, that is not your usual come-on sales pitch. Remember, I am not looking for any followers. I am just trying to turn people on. I am not selling memberships, or schemes, or magic potions. True, I am attempting to make money doing this Seminar. Perhaps some of you think that my chief reason for doing this Seminar is to make an incredibly large amount of money. If so, I want you to take a moment, and expand your consciousness, and touch on another key idea before we continue. True, I expect to add to my wealth by doing this Seminar. However, that is not my real goal. My becoming wealthy is merely the result of fallout from my prime reason for designing these Explorations in the Dynamics of Consciousness. And understand, I am not apologizing for becoming wealthy or claiming that I have no interest in becoming wealthy. Quite the contrary. I no longer have any problem with being wealthy. Let me tell you why.
Like any good American, I was raised with the desire instilled in me to be wealthy. A wife, 2.2 kids, a beautiful house with a two car garage and a swimming pool, these were the goals imbedded in my consciousness from as far back as I can remember. As I grew older, the term, "millionaire", became a goal. Television helped to support that desire with a show called, "The Millionaire." How many of you have ever wanted to be a millionaire at one time or another? How many of you have never had the desire to be wealthy? I used to be like that.
During my hippy trippy days, I tried very hard to be anti-materialist. Then I got conned into trying to become a salesman. During that period, I learned a very important lesson about so-called anti-materialism. The basic product I was selling back then was a program entitled, "How To Become Financially Independent." From time to time, I would speak with people who claimed that they had no desire whatever to become financially independent. And this was after I had already defined financial independence for them. Now, actually, financial independence has as many different definitions as there are people in the world. At present, that means that financial independence has over five billion existing definitions. By a few decades into the next century, that number of existing definitions will have doubled to over ten billion. Yet, all of those definitions can be summarized in one single statement. Financial Independence means being able to be what you want to be, to do what you want to do, to go where you want to go, and to have what you want to have. Personally, I like to tack on to that, "and without having to take away from anyone else." Unfortunately, too many people believe that financial independence can only come at someone else's expense. We will discover during this Seminar how that thinking came about, and why it is no longer true.
Well, I discovered that if I asked those people who claimed a disinterest in financial independence if they were happy and doing what they wanted to do, the answer was almost always negative. The one I recall most, said, "I just want a cabin in the mountains where I can paint all of the time. I don't need financial independence." Well, I responded, "Why aren't you doing it?" You know their answer. "Well, I can't afford it."
During these weeks we are going to discover how to become financially independent, whatever that means to you. And we are going to discover not only that we need not achieve that goal at the expense of others, but that, in fact, we can actually become wealthy, while helping others to do the same. Don't try to second guess me here. I am not leading up to any business opportunity pitch. I am not talking about selling shares in any financial independence scheme. The need for schemes and scams are a thing of the past. There is so damn much wealth out there, just waiting to be put to use, that you will find that it is a pure pleasure just to turn other people on to ways in which they, too, can tap into it.
There is no need to make the mistake, which I did, of deliberately putting off doing anything that may result in wealth because of a feeling of guilt about all of those people who have not yet discovered the wealth that awaits them, the wealth that is inherent within them. What we are going to discover is that we are all, each of us, on our own. That means we can not wait for someone else to make the first move. The first move, and each succeeding move, is ours, and ours alone.
There is a neat thing that happens here, though. For although we are each of us alone, we are also all of us connected. First Law of the Universe. So anytime anyone does it, no matter what that it is, they do it for everyone. The term most often used for that interconnection of everyone is race consciousness. Another term for that, which has gained popularity of late, and which goes beyond mere human consciousness, is Gaia. We will get back to a more in-depth exploration of group consciousness later on. For now, just park that idea on the side for the time being, that there is a consciousness composed of the sum total of all individual consciousness.
So, let's get back to what we are doing here. We have already seen that when something is subjected to heat, that the higher the temperature is, the more active the atoms become. This is very easy to verify. Simply place a pot of water on a stove and watch what happens to the water as it heats up. Well, if we were to raise the heat high enough, eventually the atoms would become so active that they would start knocking one another apart. That was precisely the situation during the first 500 million years following the big bang. The universe was so hot that it was impossible for atoms to even form without immediately being knocked apart.
The first atoms to form were the simple ones: hydrogen and then helium. The more complex atoms did not appear until billions of years later. They are too complex to merely form at random in space. Their creation depends upon extreme pressure, incredible mass. But, in the beginning, there was no mass other than the few random elementary atoms that were forming.
Eventually the temperature of the universe cooled sufficiently that these elements began forming in sufficient quantities that there were enough of them that they began to be close to one another. So close, in fact, to paraphrase John Lennon, that "they cloong together, mon." Yes, gravity, the interattractive force between physical masses, caused them to form larger and larger groups of atoms.
Eventually, some of these groups of atoms became so large, and so dense, that the heat generated by their density caused them to ignite in a large, ongoing explosion of nuclear fission, and stars were born. Neighboring stars were attracted together in patterned groups of interaccomodative behaviors, and galaxies were born. Throughout all of this activity, other groups of atoms were forming or being thrown off from the explosive stars, and they fell into movement patterns as planets, asteroids, comets, and just dust.
Through all of this, the makeup of atoms was becoming more complex, creating new elements. The more elements, the more possible combinations of elements. This complexability continued until something new and extraordinary came into existence in the universe. Life was born on at least one chunk of matter in the universe that we know of. It is at that point, when life, as we know it, first made its appearance, that our problems began. Scientifically, there is no place for life to fit in to the scheme of things. It is totally synergistic. If it were possible to be around before life was first born into the universe, there would have been no evidence, whatsoever, to even begin to suggest that such a possibility could possibly exist. Life, therefore, was an unexpected surprise.
Now, it may sound like we are caught in an endless loop. If it were not for life, there would be no science, and yet life has a way of appearing to screw up science. It is the old "can't live with it, can't live without it" scenario. The problem that life presents in the whole scientific equation is that we don't really know just what it is that life is. Remember that science is defined as "placing the elements of experience in order." In order to do that, however, the elements of experience must be quantifiable, measurable, if we are to place them in their proper place in the order of things. But how can we do that? How can we measure the aspects of life if we do not know what it is?
Now folks, orbit with me, because I am going to lay something on you that some of you may not like in the slightest. However, we are going to have to face up to this, and deal with it, if we expect to make any real headway in the weeks to come, much less if we expect to make any headway with the rest of our lives. Our attempts to deal with this immeasurable event called life, and all of the immeasurable events that are a consequence of that initial event, are at the root of most of our major problems. And most specifically, the problem expresses itself as religious beliefs. Now, that is pretty harsh. Religion is supposed to be the solution, yet I am telling you that it is the problem. Well, hang in there with me folks. I have no intention of destroying your religious beliefs. Quite the contrary, together we are going to discover how to enhance your religious beliefs, whatever they may be.
Wasn't it Jesus who allegedly said, "I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law." Well, that is what we are going to do. Now, some of you might say, "Hey, where do you get off comparing yourself with Jesus." Well, listen to this. "The things that I do, ye shall do also. And greater things than these shall ye do." What do you think that means? Those are, reportedly, Jesus own words. Now, I am not claiming any "greater things". I am merely claiming the right to comment. And if anyone thinks to try to deny me that right, then hear this: as far as I am concerned, that is a selfish, self-centered hypocritical thing to do. What are they afraid of? That the law might be fulfilled? Well, our purpose here is to discover what really is, not just what we think it is, or what we were taught it is, or what we wish it was, but what it really is, and how to get into the flow of that reality. And if you understand anything at all about Jesus, then you should understand that his mission here was to help people to do precisely the same thing.
So again, we will turn to Webster. Now, it occurs to me that some of you might disagree with what Webster has to say. However, in order to effectively communicate with one another, we must have a common language, a common definition, a common, agreed-upon understanding. Since none of you have published a dictionary, much less a dictionary with as wide a distribution and acceptance as Webster, we use his definitions as a common basis for communication.
So, we look first to the term, religion. Webster tells us that religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." He further states that it is "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance." This leads us to three more relevant terms: God, supernatural, and faith.
We touched on God during the first hour of this Seminar, but we never consulted Webster on the matter. He defines God as "the supreme or ultimate reality: as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness whom men worship as a creator or ruler of the universe;" and, according to Christian Science, "the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit;" or "infinite Mind." Moreover, he continues, God is "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require man's worship." Now we have three more relevant terms to investigate: reality, being, and spirit.
But before we continue with Webster, let's take an interesting historical tangent and talk about Christian Science and how it got into the dictionary.
As Paul Harvey might say, "In a moment, you will know the rest of the story." Two hundred years ago, the world was experiencing the beginning of what would come to be termed, the Industrial Revolution. Actually, that is a misnomer. True, a revolution was taking place. However, it was much more than merely a revolution in industry. It was also a revolution in politics, economics, power, mental comprehension and understanding, and spiritual perception. On the spiritual front, a key figure, whom you will find little or no information about in most reference books, was Phineas Parker Quimby, who lived during the first two-thirds of the last century. Quimby, directly or indirectly, influenced all of the major players, or founders, of what has generally become known as the New Thought Movement. Many of those who were founding the different groups which make up New Thought, referred to the thrust of their new thoughts as a Christian science. The new thought sparked during the advent of the industrial revolution was seen as a return to first century Christian teachings and interpreted from a contemporary scientific viewpoint. That means that they approached the teaching of Christianity from the classic scientific approach, based upon personal experience. This is why New Thought was so revolutionary, because it revolted against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the day, which implied that one needed the institution of the church as a go-between in communicating with God. "This is not what Jesus said," these self-appointed Christian scientists proclaimed. "Every individual being," they declared, "has a direct pipeline to God, and it is through one's personal experience of the practice of Christian principles that true growth, insight, and fulfillment are found."
Then, Mary Baker Patterson Eddy, the founder of the First Church Of Christ, Scientist, in effect, took everyone else in New Thought to court and legally won the right to exclusive use of the term Christian Science. I suppose that got her what she wanted. She is in Webster's, and she will be remembered, but her legal move helped to stifle an understanding of the roots of what Ralph Waldo Emerson had termed "this new thought," and how it attempted to bring science and religion together through approaching religion scientifically. Furthermore, her insistence upon having the last word ultimately created its own dogma, which further stifled that to which she had gained sole legal right, a term describing a scientific approach to Christian thought. So, now you know the rest of the story.
Now, let's continue with our definitional search. We have already looked at religion and God. The definition for religion, you will recall, specified worship of God or, the supernatural. Supernatural is defined as "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God, a god, demigod, spirit, or devil;" and "departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to transcend the laws of nature." Hmm, the laws of nature. Let's check that out. Law is defined as "the revelation of the Will of God set forth in the Old Testament;" and "a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions." Nature, we're told, is "a creative and controlling force in the universe, and the external world in its entirety."
Next, let's look at reality, which is defined as "a real event, entity, or state of affairs; the totality of real things and events." Well then, what is real? Real, we find, is "having objective, independent existence."
We will get to existence shortly, but first let's pursue our offshoots from God. Being is "something conceivable as existing; something that actually exists; the totality of existing things; conscious existence;" and "life." Life; ah, we are beginning to get back to the subject which initiated this definitive search. But first, let's look at spirit, which is "an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms; a supernatural being or essence; the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person;" and "God," according to Christian Science. Again, we see life rear its mysterious head. Sentient means "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions." Essence is "the permanent, as contrasted with accidental, element of being; the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing, especially as opposed to its existence; the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is;" and "something that exists."
Feeling lost yet? Or are you feeling that it is all coming together? Or, are you, perhaps, like me, feeling that there is still an important piece that is missing in all of this. Well, let's not stop now. We are too deep into this thing to back out now. So, onward. Rest assured that there is light at the end of the tunnel, for if Webster does not supply the light, we will let its seeming nonexistence reveal its existence to us.
Next, we have principle, which is "a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption; a primary source;" and, the Christian Science contribution, "a divine principle, or God."
What is happening here is that we are coming full circle without the full story. Something is missing. It is like this. What is religion? Belief in God. What is God? God is spirit. What is spirit? Spirit is principle. What is principle? Principle is God. Wait a minute. What is going on? Well, what we are not being told is precisely what we are being told. This stuff we are talking about avoids definition as we scientifically understand it. Well, if we can not nail it down with the normal scientific tools of pursuit, then how do we know what it is? Well, that is where the definition of our last offshoot of religion comes in: faith.
Faith is "belief and trust in and loyalty to God; belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion; firm belief in something for which there is no proof;" and "complete confidence." Personally, I think Paul outdid Webster when he said, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So faith is our effort to place those aspects of reality which can not be sensed, which can not be measured, ordered, and categorized by the tools of science, into a sufficiently compatible place in consciousness that they will stand up to the thrusts of scientific inquiry, and yet not directly conflict with scientific discovery, and therefore be allowed to give meaning to our existence.
Up until the last couple of centuries the balance between scientific discovery and faith was a heavy handed power play by the defenders of the faith who exhausted whatever means necessary to protect the faith from the onslaught of new ideas resulting from the new experience of discovery. They dramatized, ritualized, institutionalized, dogmatized, scripturalized, socialized, politicized, concretized, codified, edified, and generally all around stupefied the faith in order to protect it from the experiences of everyday existence. I am not talking just about Christianity here. This is a blanket indictment of all institutionalized religion, for it ultimately always comes to the place where it will kill, indiscriminately, in order to survive. Organized religion, which worships creator, ultimately has difficulty with the creator's creation. We will talk about why that is in a moment, but first I would like to quote Eric Butterworth from his book, "Unity: A Quest For Truth," on the evolution of religion.
"A professor at the University of Southern California has given what he calls 'The five M's of Religious Evolution.' They are: THE MAN, THE MESSAGE, THE MOVEMENT, THE MACHINE, THE MONUMENT. He cites the fact that every religion the world has ever known started with someone who found something that changes his life. In time he became inspired to tell others about it and thus came 'the message.' A group of followers quickly organized themselves into a religious movement. Then in time, as years passed, to keep the movement from losing sight of its original objectives, the organization set up safeguards in the crystallization of the teachings, creating patterns and ceremonies of worship, establishing a hierarchy of control, and deifying the original man. Then the final result becomes not a religion devoted to the worship of God, but a monument to the original 'man'." I think that nails down what happens with religion, but why does it happen? That brings us back in our definitive search to the crux of this whole problem, the existence of life itself and all of its ramifications.
We will look once again to Webster and see that existence is "reality as presented in experience; the totality of existent things; sentient or living being; life; the state or fact of being especially independent of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence; the manner of being that is common to every mode of being; being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect;" and "continued or repeated manifestation."
So, with all of this under our belt, just what does Webster have to say about life? Are you ready for this? Life is "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body." Heh, heh, heh. Sometimes I wonder who writes Mr. Webster's material. Anyway, he continues that life is "a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings; an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction; the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual; spiritual existence transcending physical death; an animating and shaping force or principle;" and, finally from Christian Science, we again have, "God."
The fact of the matter is that we can define the results of life, like metabolism, growth, stimulus reaction, and reproduction, but we can not define life itself. We can not pinpoint it. We can not nail it down. We do not know where it comes from. We do not know where it goes when it leaves. We do not know where it resides. We do not know how it came into being. But when it did come into the expression of being, the expanding universe took a quantum leap that, to this day, remains an incredible mystery.
I am reminded here, again, of the final line from Jackson Browne's song, "For A Dancer," when he says, "In the end, there may be a meaning for your life, but you'll never know." What is this mystery and just how do we get a handle on it? Well, that is what this Seminar is all about.
Now, it occurs to me here that some people might feel offended by comments which I have made regarding religion. It seems that I have violated one of the cardinal rules of public speaking. That rule being, do not talk about religion. Well, there is another, similar cardinal rule that I will be violating later on in the Seminar. That rule is, do not talk about politics. Politics and religion are very heavy topics because everyone seems to have their own, very personal, opinions in those two areas. But friends, I am not here to win public speaking awards. I am not here to impress you with how cool I am. I am here to do some mental shake and bake.
As I was developing this Seminar, by the time I had reached this point, I was getting very excited about its prospects. I sidetracked from further development for awhile and put together a one-hour promotional tape about the Seminar with the idea of using it to stir up interest in this venture and to seek startup capital to get this thing off of the ground. That tape, as with this Seminar, was a very interesting experience, for it seemed to write itself. And when I got into the second half of the tape, I found myself really blasting institutions. For awhile, I was very frightened by what I was writing. After all, some institutions do not take very kindly to being criticized. I was deliberately shredding some very heavily ingrained belief patterns. And I really did not want this Seminar to be a kick 'em in the crotch sort of affair.
So, I had to do some real soul searching to discover just why I seemed so adamantly opposed to institutions in general. By and large, for awhile there, it almost seemed as though I were blaming institutions for all of our problems. And, let me tell you, I can make a very good case for proving just such a contention. However, it is not my purpose here to get people up in arms with the intent of trashing all of our institutions. Let me use Eastern Europe as an example of why that is a foolish way of trying to bring about change.
Prior to the establishment of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and prior to World War II, there was a great deal of anti-Semitism throughout much of Europe. That is one of the reasons Hitler got away with what he did for so long before finally pushing the world into an all out war. A lot of people hated the Jews. Why was that? I am sure that there were many different reasons. Here are just a few that come to mind. Some people believed the Jews to be responsible for the death of Jesus. Other people resented the Jews' claim to be God's chosen people. Still other people found the tight-knit relationships within the Jewish community to appear to be elitist. Others resented the appearance that Jews could handle money very wisely and therefore suspected that they had garnered a great deal of power. What it all appeared to boil down to was the fact that a great many people resented how different many Jews were from them, and the fact that some Jews seemed to exalt their differences from other people.
I can understand how that resentment can arise. Personally, I have always advised people that, in their search for the truth in their lives, they should avoid anyone who claims to have found THE Truth. As Kahlil Gibran said in his book, "The Prophet," "Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'" There is no such thing, friends, as "The Truth," and anyone who claims that there is, insults all of those who do not believe as they do. People who have a very strong tradition in which they were raised, can have a tendency to come across to others as insisting that their way of life and their beliefs are the way rather than a way which they have personally found comfort in. Vrle Minto says, "You can get away with saying just about anything you want about somebody else, just so long as you do not say that they are wrong." To say that someone else is wrong is a sure invitation to a fight.
We have already talked in regards to orbiting about how we can attempt to influence others by covertly implying our desires. Well, when someone interprets someone else's actions, or their way of life, or beliefs, as engendering an attitude of superiority, then you can bet that there is going to be trouble. Any time anyone claims that they, themselves, or the group to which they feel they belong, is better than someone else, you have got trouble brewing. Likewise, anytime someone claims that they are better than some group, and furthermore, they judge all of the people in that group by stereotypes, you have got trouble brewing.
Let me give you a current example of what I am talking about. How many of you have heard someone say, when speaking about the tragedy of the bombing in Lebanon some years back, "Those Lebanese are all crazy?" Those Lebanese are all crazy. Well, we just got through quoting from Gibran. How many of you have ever read "The Prophet?" A truly beautiful, and incredibly heavy book. Would you agree? How many of you are aware of the fact that Gibran was Lebanese? Unless we know all of them, then we should separate them from their actions. So, although what is going on in Lebanon and other places around the world may seem crazy, that does not mean that all Lebanese, or Chinese, or Iraqis, or whatever group we choose to put a label on are crazy.
Any time we act towards others as a group, rather than as individuals, we are fomenting trouble in our world of experience. Race, religion, nationality, language, customs, habits, occupation, appearance, activities, beliefs; there are so many different ways we can figure out how to group people together. And why do we do that? It is often because it is much easier to hate a group than it is to hate an individual.
Let me share with you a personal example from my own life of what I am talking about. I want to do this because I do not want anyone taking the comments I just made about Jews out of context and trying to put me in the group called anti-Semite. When I was in my early teens, one could have probably claimed that I was not only anti-Semitic, but also that I was racist. It was something that I just picked up from my peers. Yes, sad to say, I grew up with a number of young people who were racist, anti-Semitic, bigots. Many of them were that way because their parents were bigots. That was the beliefs of the family group that they grew up in. My family group was not as bigoted, though, I must admit, my Father had his fair share of bigotry. But my Mother seemed to balance much of that out.
So, I was just like my friends. I told my fair share of jokes about blacks and Jews. One group of my classmates at one high school used to go around saying, "I've been working on my nose. How's it look? Is it getting bigger?" And we all thought that was funny. Then I transferred to another school. I was in the band and the school was putting on a big athletic show. The band was sitting at the edge of the football field. A large group of girls was on the field doing various calisthenics. Several guys in the band, including yours truly, began tossing pennies out onto the field. Now that, right there, is very sexist. But we thought it was cute. Then the guy sitting next to me said, "Boy, you guys are sure silly, throwing away that money." I turned to him and said, "What's the matter, tightwad? You Jewish or something?" He just looked at me and said, "Yes, I am." And friends, it was no longer funny. At least, not for me. I felt exactly like a total jackass. And I was. That experience changed my life right then and there.
Later on, we will be talking about humor and laughter and its possible origins. For now, suffice it to say that the vast majority of my catalog of jokes was no longer funny, at all. I was totally ashamed of who I was. Here I had been insulting people behind their backs, thinking that I was cute. But when it came to insulting them to their faces, I just could not do it. After all, that was another human being. It was not a group. It was not a label. It was a thinking, feeling person.
If I would have known, then, more about my ancestry, I might have had a better understanding of the pain engendered by bigotry. I told you in the first hour of the Seminar about how my ancestors who first came to this country were Huguenots. Well, in those days, in Europe, the Huguenots were viewed by many the same way the Jews were in this century. My ancestors came to America because they were fleeing persecution in Europe.
So, let's get back to Europe. Once the totalitarian Communist regimes began crumbling, and people once again were discovering the freedom of democratically voicing their own opinions, what happened? Anti-Semitism once again began raising its ugly head. After forty years of total domination by the institution of Communism, when given the opportunity, bigotry showed that it was still alive and well.
So, we need to keep in mind that although we may create institutions which operate under the guise of believing in, and fostering certain principles, and even demanding adherence to those principles, that the individual is still going to be who they are. And they will show their true colors at the first opportunity.
My problem with institutions, therefore, appears to be founded in the realization that they give us a false sense of security. In fact, that is the purpose of an institution. To assure security to a certain set of beliefs. Remember the quote from Eric Butterworth on the Five M's of Religion? The fourth step is to keep the faith by turning it into a machine. But that does not do a damn bit of good for the growth of the individual.
So, while I was making my promo tape, I was playing around with using some music in it. One of the pieces which I selected was the Beatles' song, "Revolution." And, as I listened to it, once again, rock and roll nailed me. "You say that it's the institution. Well, you know, you'd better free your mind instead." And friends, they were right. Laying waste to institutions is a quixotic endeavor. If we don't figure out how to nurture experiences that will help ourselves, and others to change our minds and hearts in more constructive directions, then, as in Eastern Europe, the uglier parts of us will keep resurfacing every time there is a change in our institutional security.
Now, that does not mean that I am going to lay off of institutions. Quite the contrary. I will be trashing them all during the course of this Seminar. And here's why. Where institutions are concerned, I am a firm believer in Abraham Lincoln's words regarding the institution known as the United States of America. "Of, by and for the people." That should be the purpose of every institution. "Of, by and for the people." Instead, institutions seem to have a way of being dedicated to the premise that they are of, by and for the perpetuation of themselves. Hogwash. In the whole seven days of creation, I do not recall once the mention of institutions. However, the role of institutions has become so entrenched in our lives that we do not even see how they corrupt our purpose of being.
And what is that purpose of being? Well, all evidence points to the fact that human beings appear to be designed to be problem solvers. The way we solve problems is to ask questions. Name one institution which seriously encourages one to ask questions, without limitation. Oh, you think there should be limitations? Why? Unless you can explain to me the mystery of life, then I see no limitations, whatsoever, in the foreseeable future.
If one starts laying out limitations at the beginning of an exploration of a mystery, that is almost guaranteeing that the proper solution is going to be unreachable. Bucky Fuller claimed that his problem solving technique was to begin with the entire universe, to throw out all of the non-essentials, and whatever was left was the solution. In this day and age, most of the world's problem solving begins by limiting the available options. One of the biggest limitations most often appears to be "not enough money." If we were to step back just a bit and take a look at, oh, say the last century of development on this planet, that limitation would become a joke.
Here is an example. How much money do you suppose has gone into the development of the airplane since the Wright Brothers first flight at Kitty Hawk? (Take answers.) Well, the last answer I heard, and this was twenty-five years ago, was three trillion dollars. Now, when the Wright Brothers made their first flight, in 1903, if it had been possible to know, then, that development of that invention was going to require a long term investment of over three trillion dollars, how many of you think that we would have flown as far as we have in less than ninety years? Back then, most people could not even comprehend what a trillion was. It was like science fiction. They never would have let the Wright Brothers get off the ground.
That dollar figure, incidentally, is an interesting one. I have heard estimates that it would cost approximately three trillion dollars to adequately develop solar power systems so that they could benefit all of humanity. That figure is just one of the reasons that so little, relatively speaking, is yet to be done in the area of solar power, or photo voltaics. Later on in the Seminar we are going to discover how to goose the development of solar power and make it the most cost effective source of energy in a mere five years.
Okay, time for a recap and a break. We looked at the closed system and the open system scenarios for the possible billions of years in the future ending of the universe. We took a sidetrack into the Holocaust and evil and their relationship to today's world. We sidetracked further into a discourse on the science of prowling secondhand stores. We then delved briefly into some thoughts about financial independence. We then returned and picked up with the big bang and followed it up to the appearance of life on this planet. That resulted in a tangent on religious definition. Finally, we talked briefly about institutions and their limitations.
Any questions? (Take questions.)
Okay, let's take a break.

"EXPLORATIONS IN THE DYNAMICS OF CONSCIOUSNESS - 6"

(SCENARIO: Classroom with whiteboard, globe, bookshelves, stool, pointer, table. Enter grey-hair professor in tweed suit with bifocals down over nose. Music - "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" - Leon Russell.)
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am Professor Codger, and I have been asked to speak to you this evening because most of you have been conditioned to respect the viewpoints of educated people and to trust the wisdom of age. I am here to guide you through a reexamination of how we got here.
Many people ask me, "Professor Codger, what is it all about?" Now that is a very interesting question. Personally, I am fascinated by interesting questions. Yes, that is a very interesting question, "What is it all about?" Does anyone else have any interesting questions?
Well, it is been nice talking with you. [Pulls out pocket watch.] Hmmm, that went fast. Did we forget something? Oh yes, that's right: what is it all about? Heh, heh, heh. A very interesting question.
Well, to answer that, we ought to start with the question, "How did it all begin." Now that is an interesting question. To tell you the truth, I have never met anyone who knows the answer to that question. Never met anyone who has been around that long. Heh, heh, heh. Hmmm!
Okay! Well, first we ought to look at our question and see what it is made of. "How did it all begin?" The first thing we notice is an implied assumption that there is a beginning. Now, if there is a beginning, and we have not yet established that that is the case, then it follows that there must also be an ending. That would then mean that the "it all" of our question is finite.
We all look for everything to be finite because we grew up believing that everything has a beginning and an end. Even life seems, we believe, to have a beginning and an end. We were taught that everything is finite. Our institutions imply that everything is finite. Politics, history, education, nations, families, science, and religion are all full of beginnings and endings.
And yet, when we look at the big picture, the "it all" of our question, it does not necessarily have a definite ending, beyond that contrived through speculation. If, however, there is no ending, then there can be no beginning. Remember the third law of the universe? TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The "it all" can not just pop out of nowhere and never end. There is a price to pay for that kind of activity. The price is completion, ending.
So, we had better ask ourselves, "does 'it all' fit into this scenario?" Well, what do we mean by "it all"? By and large, to most of us, "it all" is the sum total of our awareness as perceived through our senses.
So, now the question is, "What do we mean by 'our senses'?" Well, our senses are usually referred to as our five physical senses: sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. It is through these five senses that we experience, by way of the brain receiving and processing data which these senses supply, what we commonly refer to as reality. And it is therefore this perception of a reality that comprises what we are referring to as "it all".
Because these five senses collect data, or information, resulting from physical phenomena, "it all" must, therefore, be physical. And if it is physical, it is therefore finite. Thus, it has a beginning and an end.
Before returning to our investigation of that beginning, let's linger with the concept of physical and delve into its meaning. Physical phenomena are events which can be measured. Until this century, physical phenomena were the only phenomena recognized, scientifically, to exist. They could be proven to exist because they could be measured. For the same reason, our five senses were known to exist because they could be measured, even as they measured data themselves. People have often speculated about a possible sixth sense. However, it could not be measured, and whatever it perceived could not be measured. Therefore, it could never be scientifically proven to exist.
Science has been defined by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington as "an effort to place the facts of experience in order." Although the past century has altered that definition drastically in ways that this Seminar will reveal, nevertheless, the vast majority of people conceive of reality purely in physical terms.
There is an interesting fact about physical reality. It is entropic. How many of you knew that? All physical phenomena are entropic. Well now, doesn't it make you feel better knowing that? I mean, that explains it all, doesn't it? I bet nobody ever told you that before. How many of you already knew that it is all entropic? See, if they would have told you that in the beginning, it would have all made more sense, wouldn't it?
Wait, if nobody ever told you, then maybe you don't know what entropy means. Well, let's take a look at the definition according to Webster. Entropy is "a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system so related to the state of the system that a change in the measure varies with change in the ratio of the increment of heat taken in to the absolute temperature at which it is absorbed." Now, I can hear some of you saying, "Is this old codger making this up, or is he trying to "talk over our heads." But hang on, that is just the "a" part of this first definition. Take a gander at the "b" part.
Entropy is "a measure of the disorder of a closed thermodynamic system in terms of a constant multiple of the natural logarithm of the probability of the occurrence of a particular molecular arrangement of the system that by suitable choice of a constant reduces to the measure of unavailable energy." Heh, heh, hen. Honest, that is the truth. No wonder so few people know what entropy means. Its definition appears to have been hidden behind a veil of logorrhea. Logorrhea? That is excessive and often incoherent talkativeness or wordiness.
But stay with me, our exploration continues. By second definition, entropy is "a measure of the amount of information in a message that is based on the logarithm of the number of possible equivalent messages." Do you ever think about the fact that there might be people out there to whom this makes perfect sense? But we want to find out if it can make sense to us without having to have a specialized background which qualifies us to shake our heads knowingly when confronted with such logorrhea.
And so, our exploration leads us to the third, and final, of Webster's definitions. Entropy is "the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity." Aha, there it is. That is what we are looking for. All of the matter and energy in the universe are degrading until they reach a state of inert uniformity, until they achieve a state in which all movement uniformly ceases.
What kind of movement are we talking about here? Well, you may recall that our Second Law of the Universe states that everything is going somewhere. But where is it going, and just what does that "going" entail? What is the nature of, or the mechanics of, that going? For the answer to that, we will have to turn to Uncle Albert.
Albert Einstein appeared, at the turn of the century, to be headed nowhere special. Aside from an avid interest in the mathematics of theoretical physics, educationally, he appeared to be a washout. In college, he kept cutting classes so that he might have more time to read about theoretical physics. After leaving college, he could only manage to get a job in the Swiss patent office as a junior official. Yet that job allowed him time to think, to think about theoretical physics problems and their possible solutions. During this time, he wrote, and had published, five scientific papers in 1905, resulting in a completely new view of the universe. Einstein effectively, with nothing more than pencil and paper to record his thinking, overturned the Newtonian view of the universe, which had stood for two centuries. In Newton's universe, the norm was "at rest." In Einstein's universe, it is all in motion.
The most recognizable aspect of those scientific papers was a simple mathematical equation, E = mc2, which was the culmination of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. That equation states that E, energy, is equal to m, mass, times c, the speed, or velocity of light, squared. In other words, all mass, or matter, is comprised totally of energy, and the amount of energy within any mass can be calculated by radiating that mass omnidirectionally at the speed of light. Suddenly, matter and energy came to be understood as being interchangeable. They are merely different expressions of the same phenomenon. The wide ranging impacts of this new definition of reality are yet to be fully understood. As this course progresses, we will be exploring those impacts in greater detail.
For now, we want to realize that matter and energy are interchangeable. That is, energy is being confined in patterns which we recognize as matter, and matter is gradually reverting back to energy. Each time this change takes place, there is movement. Each time there is movement, part of the energy involved transforms into heat energy.
"Wait a minute," you might say, "you started out talking about energy. Then you stated that matter is really just energy confined in patterns. Now you say there is another energy called heat energy. Just how many different energies are there?"
Well, to answer that, let's first look at Webster's definitions of energy. Before we do that, however, I want you to think for a moment about what energy means to you. (Pause) Now, we are going to find that Webster's thrown us a curve ball. With entropy, he appeared to hide definition behind logorrhea. With energy, we are going to find just the opposite. It appears that energy's definition is hidden behind brevity. Webster says that energy is "the capacity of acting or being active; natural power vigorously exerted;" and "the capacity for doing work." That is it! How does that relate to your concepts of energy. Solar energy. Energy crisis. Spurt of energy. Energy rush. Energy crunch. To all of this Webster discreetly responds, "capacity to act, natural power exerted, and capacity for work." Action, natural power, and work. Some other terms we might include, which are in harmony with the context of Webster are capability, potential, motion, and possibility.
In the new physics, it is recognized that the universe, that is, the physical universe, is comprised solely of energy. New physics further defines the universe as being finite, that is, it has limits. Even though we have not yet found those limits, it is accepted that they exist. This is a necessary premise if the physics of universe is going to successfully be expressed mathematically. If the universe were infinite, then it would not be possible to discuss it mathematically, because there would always be that, as yet unknown, not yet experienced, infinity of unexpected possibility waiting to totally undermine the math. If the universe is finite, then the amount of energy in the universe is also finite. There is only so much, and no more.
Energy expresses in many different ways or forms. It can express as radiation. It can express as light. It can be caught in interference patterns, at which point it is called matter. And it can express as heat. That last expression is where entropy comes in. Every time energy moves or changes its form of expression, there is a price to pay. Third Law of the Universe: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. That price is that part of the energy in the event in question becomes heat energy. The problem that arises here is that although it is possible for energy to change its form of expression a multitude of times, even returning to its previous form of expression, that is not the case with heat energy.
Every time forms of energy transform into heat energy, that amount of energy which expresses as heat is forever lost to the total energy equation. Now, let me stress that that is to the best of our knowledge. There is not yet any reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps that will change this week, due to insights which we uncover during our joint explorations. I mention that now so that none of you will be tempted to react to this information in a way similar to that of the woman who wrote to Isaac Asimov about the depression she experienced after reading his book, "Universe". "If the universe is destined to eventually grind to a halt, in billions of years," she complained, "then why is there any reason for us to even bother to do anything. We have no future." Well, that woman needs to realize that there is a lot we have yet to learn before that billions of years in the future ending. This is only based upon what we know right now. And what we know is changing and expanding even as we know it.
Anyway, when energy becomes heat, it loses its ability to transform itself. The reason for that is that it is awful damn cold out there. Heh, heh, heh. And because of that cold, the first thing that happens to heat, once its source is removed, is that it gets colder. You can prove that right now. Hold your hand right in front of your mouth. Take a deep breath. Hold it for a few seconds, so that the heat energy generated by your body can warm it up. Now, holding your hand right in front of your mouth, blow on your hand, and while blowing, move your hand away from your mouth. The further away your hand gets from your mouth, the opening to the source of the heat energy that has warmed your breath, the colder your breath feels. The longer it exists, the cooler it gets.
The ultimate temperature out there is called absolute zero. It is calculated to be minus 459.67 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. At absolute zero, all movement, all motion, ceases. That means that all energy ceases to transform. If movement ceases, then the source of heat no longer exists, and everything stops forever because it is just too damn cold.
Experimentally, absolute zero is beyond our ability to experience scientifically. We can get within a millionth of a degree of absolute zero, but that is not close enough. There is still motion, no matter how minute. Actually, we will probably never be able to achieve absolute zero, because in order to achieve it, we would have to know that we achieved it. To do that, we would have to measure it. To measure it will require some motion, no matter how slight. Any motion will give off heat, no matter how minute. Any heat will raise the temperature from absolute zero, even if only by a millionth of a degree. So, in order to experience what we were looking for, the mere act of attempting to experience it destroys it.
This is a key concept that has altered physics and the standard scientific approach so drastically that science is being pushed in a direction which will ultimately result in a scientific discovery which will totally shake the foundations of science, and, quite probably, destroy society as we know it. We are going to get a jump on the scientific community this week and make that discovery ourselves.
Now, returning to entropy, we see that everything in the finite, physical universe, all energy, all matter, is running down and running out. Since the universe is entropic, it therefore has an end. If it has an end, then it has to have a beginning. And that brings us back to our last question. How did it all begin? And still, the answer is the same. Nobody knows. Down through the ages, there have been a lot of theories. Even today, there is not just one theory; there are many theories.
In order to appear legitimate, a theory must have some sound assumptions upon which it is founded. Furthermore, if a theory is to gain wide acceptance among the populace, its foundational assumptions should be logically understandable and acceptable to the populace. For that reason, we are going to examine the big bang theory because it appears to currently be the best, or perhaps most favored, answer to our question.
But first, I want to touch briefly on the theory of creationism, and explain why I do not consider it to be valid. In order for the theory of creationism to work, it is necessary for the following assumption to be valid: "the book known as The Holy Bible, comprising both old and new testaments, is The revealed word of God."
In the first place, we have already demonstrated earlier that our definitions of God are individually unique. There is not a single definition of God offered by believers in creationism that I find acceptable.
In the second place, if one reads the Bible, one discovers that it contradicts itself many times. If it is The revealed word of God, then that implies that God is self contradictory. Again, I find that totally unacceptable.
In the third place, to accept the Bible's scenario of events is to throw out much of the discoveries of science, of the orderly organization of the facts of experience. It requires too many beliefs in special case miracles. We will discuss more about miracles later on in this Seminar. For now, suffice it to say that those special case miracles are each additional assumptions which must be accepted before creationism can be accepted.
In the fourth place, although no one actually knows for a fact who wrote the various books of the Bible, we do know who decided at the Conference of Nicosia which ancient books should be included in the Bible and which ancient books should not be included. I am not pleased with their decisions, nor am I happy with the lack of adequate documentation for the reasons behind their decisions. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the Bible, as we know it, suffers greatly from bad editing and can not qualify, therefore, as The revealed word of God.
In the fifth place, the Bible has been through so many translations that much of its original meaning has been lost, only to be replaced by misinterpretation. It can, therefore, not be taken literally. For more on this, read George Lamsa, who translated the Bible from original Aramaic texts and wrote at length on understanding the Semitic context in which those books were written. A current invaluable resource in this area is Dr. Rocco Errico who worked with Lamsa and carries on the work of accurate translation, interpretation, and understanding of the Bible.
In the sixth place, I believe that the Cabalists are on the right track in their claims that the Bible contains hidden meanings that can only be discerned through study, analysis, and meditation. Creationists find that anathema. The point here, however, is how can the Bible be accepted literally as The revealed word if the true meaning is hidden.
And finally, in the seventh place, I believe that everyone can communicate directly with God. In my own communications, God has revealed to me that the Bible is not The revealed word. So, who am I to believe, God or the creationists? I will go with my God, thank you.
So, on seven specific points, I find the creationists' basic assumption to be fallacious. Therefore, I do not take their theory seriously. This is not a matter which is open to discussion. My experience with fundamentalists is that their definition of discussion is more like a monologue of browbeating, baiting, and insults. Creationism, therefore, is not a seriously legitimate theory, as far as I am concerned. Later in the Seminar, we will investigate some possible motivations for those who get locked into fundamentalism, and we will also investigate ways in which they can escape their self-imposed prison of narrow beliefs.
Okay, time for the big bang. The basic assumption upon which the big bang is founded is that if we discover sufficient scientific principles which govern the movement of large bodies, like galaxies, that by calculating present size, speed, and direction, it is possible to calculate back to where the galaxies have been, where they are coming from. Well, when the scientists did that, it appeared, ultimately that everything in the universe is coming from the same place. That raises the question, how could it be that everything in the universe was once at the same point in space? If that is true, perhaps there was originally one piece of matter, or potential matter, occupying a single point in space. It would have to have been very dense. It would have been the most incredible black hole that the universe has ever known. Everything that existed would have been sucked into it. The rest of space was totally a vacuum. Or, perhaps even space itself was sucked into that point. Although only a speck, it would have weighed far more than the weight of the 4 quadrillion stars of which we are currently aware.
Then something happened. The speck exploded. That explosion was so tremendous that now, billions of years later, the potential matter contained in that speck is still hurtling through space at upwards to millions of miles per hour. I say potential matter because prior to the big bang, matter, as we know it, did not exist. In fact, it was not until 500,000 years after the big bang that the radiation generated by that blast had cooled sufficiently that atoms could begin to form. Actually, the explosion was not so much an explosion, but an expansion of space itself. And that expansion is continuing. However, it is slowing down and cooling off and eventually will cease.
Now that is just a theory, but it is a pretty sound theory for the time being, because it is based upon currently strong assumptions and measurements, many of which are experimentally supported. The theory which it replaced had been around for over 1500 years. The big bang theory could very well be replaced by a better and sounder theory. And it will not take anywhere near 1500 years for that to happen. But, for the time being, it is the best supported theory we have.
Anyway, after a half million years, things finally cooled enough that atoms began to form. Eventually the interattractiveness of the atoms caused them to begin to bind together. These joinings resulted in stronger forces which attracted more atoms. As these atomic clusters grew, new, more complex, atoms were created. As the clusters continued to grow to tremendous size, the pressures inside them grew, until finally they began to ignite, to turn themselves back into the energy from which they were formed, and stars were born.
This added a new dimension to the universe, for the radiation from the stars, as it cooled, once again formed into atoms and atomic clusters, or else became part of already existing chunks of matter, like planets, comets, and asteroids. Much of it just hangs around as dust, waiting until a strong enough force pulls it into a larger cluster.
Now, we have talked about matter, and we have talked about energy, but there is another important aspect of the universe which we have only, so far, mentioned in passing. That is this thing called force. Force is very important in the overall scheme of things, for it is what "holds things together." At present, we are aware of four specifically different types of force. There was a time, during the first three minutes after the big bang, when there were less than four forces. Everything was so hot during those first three minutes that the forces were combined.
Most of us, when we think of force, think of push force. My own feelings about why this is, center around a belief that the way we were brought up, the society, the culture, the environment in which we grow up, all imply that it is through the force of pushing that we are going to be able to get ahead and make a niche for ourselves in the overall scheme of things. As a result of that overemphasis on pushing, we have come to give pushing a larger place in our lives than it really deserves. This overemphasis is changing now due to our ventures into space, but the lessons of our astronomical explorations are slow to trickle into the social aspects of our lives.
Let me give you an idea about how much we have over-emphasized "push". Every time we listen to the weather, one of the items we are informed about is from which direction the wind is blowing. Have you ever wondered about just what it is that is pushing the wind, that is causing it to blow? Whatever it is that is pushing it must be incredibly powerful. It would be so powerful that the closer we would get to the source of what is blowing, the more powerful it would be. Just like a fan. In fact, that is probably why fans were invented the way they were, blowing air, because that is how we mistakenly thought nature made wind.
And yet, just the opposite is true. The closer we get to the "blowing" source of wind, the less wind there is. That is because wind is not blown; (pause) it is sucked. There is a very simple reason that nature does it that way. It is more efficient. Now perhaps you don't think it is very important whether the wind is blown or it is sucked. But the efficiency principle which nature uses in moving the wind has many other important applications, as we will discover as this course progresses.
For now, to make certain that we understand how this works, we will perform a few experiments to demonstrate what we are talking about. We will make some wind right here. First, we will need a way of jointly sensing the movement of air, the wind, which we are creating. It will be easiest for all of us to detect the result of our wind experiments if we can track the results visually. That is easy enough to accomplish. We will use some EDC incense to create some smoke so we can watch its movement within the air around it.
(Light some incense and place in holder.)
Over thirty years ago, I used to sit and watch incense smoke for hours on end. Yeah, it was the sixties, and that is one of the things we used to do back then. I was fascinated with what caused the incense to alter its smoky movement. I used to watch it with the stereo playing, and for a long time I was convinced that the sound vibrations emanating from the speakers were causing the smoke to go through its intricate maneuvers. Eventually, I discovered that it was not the sound waves in the air but the sound waves in my head that were in synchronicity with the smoke from my incense. You see, the brain is designed to seek out patterns, and, given enough concentration, it will discern the existing patterns while relegating what does not fit into the overall perceived pattern to a background area of less importance.
That is the way our brains have always worked. That is the way they were designed to function. Constantly seeking out patterns. Concentrating on those patterns. Amplifying the patterns. Filing the experience away for future reference. Throwing out the extraneous sensory perceptions which did not appear to fit the patterns.
When allowed to function totally on its own initiative, that is what the brain does, and it does it very well. And that is what has happened to many of us. We have allowed the brain to function on its own initiative, seeking and perceiving patterns, often at the direction of, or in alignment with, past perceived patterns, concentrating on those familiar patterns, and trashing those experiences which did not fit the patterns.
And we got so used to our brains doing this that we grew comfortable with it, and the brain grew comfortable with it. And the more we just let the brain go about its usual merry way, the more control this pattern-seeking part of our mental processes took over our entire way of life, our entire way of consciously thinking.
This did not just happen. We were conned into giving over control to this pattern seeker. We were conditioned to let this tool take over control of our lives. And gradually a new pattern emerged, a pattern which said, "I am." The brain perceived patterns which implied the existence of consciousness. And not being interfered with by the questions which our upbringing had stifled, it decided that it must be consciousness, itself. And that pattern is what we call ego. It is the belief that certain thinking processes, certain mental tools, are actually the tool user, the tool maker.
If I had given in to my initial pattern discovery regarding apparent correlations between sound patterns and visual smoke patterns, and never asked questions, never kept control of my seeking, if I had allowed my ego to control my mental perceptions, my understanding of life, I would still believe that those sound vibrations from my stereo moved the smoke from my incense. And, furthermore, I would never have discovered the power play that was taking place in my head.
Our entire lives are like that incense smoke. We have discerned patterns, allowing the brain's conditioned reflexes to determine which habits to focus upon, and then we freak when someone or something appears and implies that those patterns we have focused upon are not as important, as correct, or as powerful, as we have thought. This is why one of this Seminar's premises is that "everything you know is wrong." The average person lives their life according to those egotistical patterns. However, those patterns are based purely on physical sensory perception, and, as we will soon discover, that is a very limiting view of reality.
So, as our incense smoke curls outward, away from its source, we want to alter it with air movement, with wind. First, we will attempt to create some push wind. To do that, we will need a source of power to push the air containing our tracking smoke. For that, we will use this balloon. We will blow it way up so that we have plenty of potential push power. (Blow up balloon.) Now, let's start off with a big bang type of push by using this pin to release our source of push power. (Stick balloon with pin.)
Well, it definitely appears that we moved the air. We seem to have created wind through push. There is a little problem, however. It did not last very long. We can already see that the air, within which our smoke curls, is already regaining its original stability. So, let's see if we can prolong this wind source's existence. For that, we will need another balloon. (Blow up balloon.) Now, this time we will release the air in the balloon more slowly, in a more controlled manner. Okay, there we have a nice steady breeze. Oops, there was a wind gust. Heh, heh, heh. Ah, we are back to our breeze. And the wind dies down as the source disappears.
Now, if that was push wind, then how do you suppose we are going to demonstrate pull wind. Well, first off, those two examples with the balloons were actually pull wind. If you want an example of push wind, you will have to provide it yourself (blow through smoke). And even that push (exhale) is an indirect result of pull (inhale).
Our two examples with the balloons only worked because there was a difference in the air pressure outside of the balloon from that of the air pressure inside of the balloon. Inside the balloon, the air pressure was greater. We crammed a lot more air than normal, normal being the amount of air per volume right here, into a confined space. Comparatively, the air pressure outside of the balloon was lower than the air pressure inside of the balloon. Therefore, when the two pressures were allowed to mingle, through destroying the continued surface of the balloon with a pin or through the controlled use of a hole or passageway between the two, the air in the higher pressure balloon was sucked into the lower pressure environment until the two achieved equilibrium. Actually, if this change takes place fast enough, you will see the balloon collapse, at which point it then contains a lower air pressure because all of its air was sucked out so fast. And then it will quickly refill with air to just before the point that the balloon's flaccid membrane is ready to stretch.
Now, what causes air pressure to change? Well, a very important factor is temperature. As an example, let's light a candle and see if the heat from the flame appears to have any effect on our smoke.
(Light a candle and gradually bring it closer to smoke.)
What is going on here? Well, heat and movement are closely intertwined. We have already discovered that all movement creates heat energy. However, there is a flipside to their relationship. Heat generates movement. As temperatures rise, atoms become agitated and move faster. What's more, heat rises. That is, it moves outward from the planet. Actually, it is moving outward because the further away from the planet, the lower the air pressure. So the heat gets sucked towards that lower air pressure. As these agitated atoms move outwardly, they leave behind a small void in space where they had been previously. Since there are fewer atoms in that space than there had been, the pressure in that space is lower than it was and lower than the pressure of the space nearby. Nature, in attempting to maintain balance, moves atoms into that lower pressure space. They are sucked into that space. That movement is followed in chain reaction and we see our incense smoke fall into line with that movement.
So, just as with the wind, when we speak of force, we are not speaking of push. We are speaking of pull. And where the forces of the universe are concerned, the best description of that pull is interattractiveness, or interaction. As we have already stated, in the beginning, right after the big bang, there was initially one force. That is, all forces which existed appeared to be identical. But during the first three minutes after the big bang, force altered as things began to cool down and by the end of those first three minutes, there were four distinct forces. Those four forces continue to exist to this day, some 15 billion years later. They are gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force.
We are not going to delve any deeper into force at this point. For those who are interested in pursuing details of the big bang further, I would recommend reading "The First Three Minutes," by Steven Weinberg. Of course, that book is over two decades old. For those interested in keeping up to date with the latest in science, I highly recommend a subscription to "Science News." It is a weekly publication with easily understood articles culled from the latest scientific publications. Another interesting source for comprehending science and the interconnectedness of its disciplines is "Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology." Revision 2, which is what I have, contains biographical essays on 1,510 scientists from the last 5,000 years. They are arranged by their date of birth and thoroughly cross-referenced. While we are on Asimov, I also highly recommend any of his books of scientific essays. There are over two dozen of these and they are all available through our EDC Catalog. That catalog, incidentally, is chock full of items and literature referenced in this Seminar, as well as other related trinkets and products designed to expand your awareness.
So, now we have an answer to our question, "Where did it all begin?" Perhaps it is only right that we next tackle the question, "Where will it all end?" Then, it is just a matter of filling in what is between the two to answer our first question, "What is it all about?" Before we get into the big cosmic end, let's take a short break.