… I'm sorry to write again so soon but it seems I'm afflicted with an embarrassing desire to present my wayward ideas to experts, both literary and scientific. I will endeavor to balance this undesirable personal profile by informing you that whenever I have a question or complaint I never tarry with the Floor Manager, but go directly to the General Manager. Unfortunately, for my current purposes you seem to qualify. Also my immediates are not much interested in their origins as I am.
Since writing to you I have re-read the Mind of God and have been inspired to re-shape my novel about TE Lawrence, Miracle of the Desert: The Untold Story again before beginning another. Consequently the current draft contains some rather symbolic descriptions of quantum cosmology. Mercifully I will spare you any quotations. I have also purchased Six Easy Pieces and A Brief History of Time and will read them before too long.
The background to what I have to say this time is complex, and not strictly important. It would be suffice to say that during my research into the life and times of TE Lawrence, and the subsequent writing of the novel, I have recognized the true value/danger of creative activity, so much so that I am toying with ideas educational to promote it. However that is another story. The research involved has had me jumping indiscriminately from history, literature, philosophy, science and mysticism as previously indicated. In fact whilst the writing of the novel remains of great importance, the urge to learn had almost taken priority. So, typically impatient, I advanced to this queer notion.
To me the term initial conditions has a rather stimulating, almost inspirational appeal, reflecting an eclectic confidence trick or practical joke. But what proof is there to maintain there were any initial conditions for the origin of the universe at all? Might the absence of initial conditions be just the condition required to bring the universe into existence? What does the Bible say? In the beginning there was nothing. I will endeavor to prove that indeed there was nothing. Perhaps not even God.
From a human standpoint nothing gets done without a reason, and what does get done is the usually in response to some form of dissatisfaction. This response to dissatisfaction itself results in either an actual or intellectual outcome or both at the same time. This activity occurs for reasons of necessity, reward or fulfillment, but there will always be this need to fulfill the set task whether the activity is of great significance or not. Hunting, gathering, housework, employment, recreation, creative pass times are the appropriate responses to specific forms of dissatisfaction and resulting in varying degrees of satisfaction, where survival, I suppose, is the ultimate goal. If, on the completion of the activity, an acceptable degree of satisfaction isn't achieved, then the activity would be doomed. And in a sense, so too the organism.
The appearance of the universe in the first place could have been brought about by its initial non-existence, and I shall call this absence of anything the State of Dissatisfaction. (Please, excuse my peculiar attempt to link creation with fulfillment, science with self.) In other words, before there was something, there was nothing, and at the very instant something appeared, there was everything, potentially speaking. Consequently the number, type and purpose of any new universe(s) is initially meaningless as their progress is simply based on their need to survive, self-perpetuate, an example of a universal evolutionary theory. In the course of this development everything we know as fact, theory or feeling, are created along with it, and maybe very rapidly and expansively at first, followed by gradual slowing.
You know its like when you're highly motivated and lot's gets done. After a while you settle down into a more regular pattern thwart with fits and starts. Maybe this less prolific period coincides symbolically with God's so called day of rest. However I hesitate to mention God so soon as I feel he had about as much choice in the creation of the universe as we did. In fact, exactly as much as you will see.
In this situation the Laws of Physics might be compared to mother's milk! And if it wasn't this particular set of laws it would have been another. Even religion and culture, and in theory, the means by which the universe will continue to survive (with or without Mankind in his current form) arose perfunctorily. Either consciously or sub-consciously we collectively create our own futures. I submit that thoughts play a vital role, as do culture in all its forms, also interaction and conflict. The universe is a veritable macrocosm of miracles.
This proposal might also go somewhere towards explaining the American Psychiatrist, John Mack's, work with alien abduction. Just as certain individuals are gifted musically, so too might some be gifted in new, less understandable ways, and depending on the level of universal progress, be able to experience new things creatively. Through this process the experiences gradually become real, increasing their creative pool and their likelihood of survival, so to speak. It makes me wonder where this piece of nonsense belongs.
Then how does this explain the early universe, that is, before human desires and needs played a part? Maybe it has something to do with our fundamental composition. After all, isn't everything in existence composed of the same, essentially inert matter? Perhaps this is not the case after all. Nor at the crucial State of Dissatisfaction, Inspiration, Singularity, Big Bang or whatever you want to call it was our universe the only one created.
I visualize the result as an unbounded sphere, forever expanding, where at the State of Dissatisfaction creation thrusts itself spirally. Like the rapid inflation of a balloon containing segments, or the spokes of a wheel containing spirals. At this vital moment the State of Dissatisfaction meets its end as the newly created everything replaces the nothing which was.
Consequently for us there appears to be no beginning or end to each universe. Although I predict some universes, according the random nature of their Laws will impact profoundly on themselves. Perhaps too, the internal spiral structure of the segments will allow interaction between the past, present and the future. A sort of smorgasbord of time, real and imaginary, Einstein's fourth dimension, resulting in a self-fulfilling stimulus to survive as fundamental and elusive as a satisfaction seeking particle playing hide and seek in an acceleration chamber.
The metaphor of a mincing machine for our particular segment or spiral universe is useful. Begin with the crank handle as the impulse to create, that is, the State of Dissatisfaction. From that point onwards the piece of meat to be minced itself becomes reproductive, that is, creative. After all doesn't the Bible say that God made man in His own image? Then if God, in this particular case, the impulse to create is creative, then surely His creations will be too. So as the handle turns more and more is created exponentially. Perhaps the New Age thing of trying to find oneself is applicable. So while we are looking for ourselves, God is looking for Himself, and we end up finding each other.
Although the curved and spiral surface of the imaginary plates act as a boundary, they are only relative. As the crank handle turns there is a diffusion of particles, some of which might come into contact with each other. Maybe this helps explain coincidence, clairvoyance, the symbolic nature of dreams, nightmares, witches, ghosts, prophets, alien abduction, near death experiences, soul mates and past lives. It might also explain the symbolic nature of everything, including the quote from the Bible I used previously.
Nor is there any self -evident reason why the handle will be turned one way and not the other, indeed its direction would be as uncertain as the appearance of a quantum particle. This change might also be imperceptible to the creations themselves; they being fully occupied meaty morsels in the soupy spiral. But from a universal perspective the directional change might appear as unpredictable cycles as described in more advanced philosophical/scientific theories.
However as the universe ages the relationship between positive and negative creations might alter, and depending on the current status of the universe, also influence the cyclic behaviour of itself. Nothing is for certain, only that the future is uncertain, and that we have a vital role in it.
The theory of nothingness is my husband's favourite. It is derived, of course, from the zero energy equation of the universe. He likes to impress our more insecure friends with the notion that nothing exists. Perhaps it doesn't. Or perhaps we a feeble soap opera for some cruel intergalactic exchange. Or are we the result of oblivion, with the inspiration for our beginning, not our end, being ever lasting life? With God being actualized in the future, not in the past, prayer the processing of positive thoughts, and heaven, the infinite number of fulfilling experiences and imaginings.
Unless of course there is a God but he doesn't want us to know it. At least not until we've worked it out for ourselves, having then the capacity to meet Him on His own terms. I'm attracted to the reverse analogy, even though God is initially excluded from this version of events. Rather we earn him, if we're lucky, and his nature will be determined by our desires. Therefore the saints did not die in vain, nor had great good been wasted. However in consequence there seems no solution to the present suffering in the world. Yet the positive essence of creation, that ever present collective soul, or search for perfection, which joins us, will continue to evolve alongside the laws and the lapses. Indeed our survival depends on it.
There will, I imagine, be creations terrible, as there have been in the past. This theory, as yet, appears unable to reconcile good and evil as it seems part of the same progression. Perhaps as the relative good, or whatever else it may be called, becomes predominant, the meaning of the universe will become clearer. We might yet identify a predictable sub atomic particle, or even God. However, I think this is an argument for more positive belief systems than religion per se. It should also encourage us to create more responsibly, having in mind the production of a future to which we might return. We must be fussy about our future.
This proposal more or less suits the sensations I described in the previous letter, that is the ones accompanying the trance. Immediately afterwards I wrote; The more I create, the more I can create, spiraling forever upwards until I merge with what…the ultimate creator? The sensations that arose from this experience were immense pleasure, power and the disappearance of self.
I have reconsidered the last part now and prefer the words, all creation or an indeterminate mixture of them both, rather like the sub-atomic particle's shadowy world of half existence. I recall being unable to identify the precise feeling at the time. I think this is more accurate. So you see in trying to describe the experience I have come to all of this. However I predict that its mathematical execution will be instantaneous. Yet how creative and satisfying to conjure equations remedial, for Einstein's and Hawking's, relative and singular!
The appearance of a new philosophy, religion or science depends on curiosity and questions, and its acceptance relates largely to the health and desires of the culture to which it subscribes. Perhaps the world is desperate for direction, ripe for a reward based renaissance and susceptible to seductive slogans, mine included. When the universe gave birth to itself it fulfilled its own destiny, and by continuing to participate in creative activity, its offspring, in one form or another, will ensure their own, possibly even facilitating transmutation and reincarnation. However its progress and the result will be unpredictable, with change given hardly a moment's notice. The relationship between the observed and the observer will be transitory, serving only as a clue to reality, like the shadows of Plato's perfect forms: a tempting tid- bit to wet our creative appetites. Even theories such as this one will fade, dimming in the demanding light of necessary change. Consequently our forms and natures will evolve according to the changing universal pressure, but maintaining with uniqueness and continuance, those qualities which will remain forever Creativekind's most peculiar gifts.
I wonder if this theory is like that of the Mindscape, where creative activity, which is part of all creation, is both a mover and member of itself, so that only through a mystical vision can it be conceived?
Lawrence once said there was no Absolute. Frankly I agree with him.
So what should I call it: The Theory of Universal Fulfillment? How does that sound? And regarding its nature, I agree it's more philosophical than scientific. As was discussed in The Mind of God, the possibility of a theory of everything is improbable. With this I must agree. There can never be one idea or group of ideas, which will explain and predict the origin and evolution of the universe: its fundamental nature is one of creation and change. The intoxicating beauty of The Theory of Universal Fulfillment is that it provides for this and every other thing which has been conceived or will be conceived, including the theory itself. And even more profound than that is the role of the conscious individual whose progress in thought and deed determines the future.
Nasty periods such as the World Wars and the Holocaust may arise again and again, products of earlier transgressions such as the Inquisition or Crusades. Should we, therefore, declare an open season on Satan? Perhaps we should not. For the more relevance we attribute to the evil ideal the more probable its manifestation. After all, we've all thought of things, good and bad, before they've happened. Science fiction literature abounds in such portentous examples. In order to limit, or even vanquish such historic rapacious repeats our collective mind sets must tend toward the greater good, producing, if you like, a universal self fulfilling prophecy. Hitler was a hallmark, not a daimon or demon, but a shameful symbol of soul suicide. Dare I suggest it, a blessing in disguise?
Is there anything more beautiful or tragic than a soul in torment?
Is there anything more beautiful or tragic than you and I?
If not for our longings there would be no tomorrow.
If not for our ignorance would the shadow hide the sky?
Don't turn from me now, the world is revealing,
things unknown and those half said.
Linger not in the half light, for on the horizon,
Is the path to peace, deposing our dread.
Just a thought to close. Throughout recorded history our best leaders have been those who lead by example. Lawrence included. Although at times throughout my research I have wondered deeply if he be saint or sinner. As the creators of our own destiny, our best course of action is to follow our own example. So it had better be a good one. As each of us is responsible for our own thoughts and behaviour it follows that the ultimate responsibility also rests with us. There is nothing new in that, except that I see now that responsibility doesn't end in death either. So I wish you, and all my fellow creatures, the very best forever and ever. Amen.
I must include this portion of a letter written by Lawrence to his mother in 1910. He was just 22 years old. His book, the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, did exactly this for me.
…But if you can get the right book at the right time you taste joys – not only bodily, physical, but Spiritual also, which pass one out and above and beyond one's miserable self, as it were through a huge air, following the light of another man's thought. And you can never be quite the old self again. You have forgotten a little bit: or rather pushed it out with a little of the inspiration of what is immortal in someone who has gone before you.
Come to think of it, this pretentious piece might be a good start up lecture with the opening remark being:
Scientific method is to the scientist,
as meditation is to the mystic.
Where both bring forth the imperfect truth;
inadequate, inescapable, and infinite.
Yours sincerely,
PS: It's now 7 pm, 13th February. I forced myself from the study and into the kitchen where I am obliged to prepare dinner. My youngest son, who is six years old, just out of the pool asks me strangely what made the universe. I have not spoken about my ideas, indeed have purposefully kept them quiet. He also asked me about God and how he, himself, was made. Should I tell him he originated from a longing, was cast ignorant into the universe, there to fathom its secrets and help create his own destiny? After all, it's accurate.
PPS: I might send a copy to ……just for fun. Also, I ask a favour, that you don't burn me at the stake as a heretic. Imagine the newspapers, ……. WITCH CLAIMS HITLER WAS A BLESSING! Move over……here I come. Talk about the Taming of the Shrew. This theory describes the Taming of the Soul.
| Next:Appendix 7 | Return to Table of Contents | Contact :Philosophic Friend |