20100910 keithhill questions - 1 2 3

10/09/2010 keithhill questions - 1 2 3

Index

1: ON THE NATURE OF REALITY

We human beings divide reality into two basic aspects: physical and spiritual. However, those among us who adopt a materialist interpretation of reality deny that the spiritual realm exists. Alternatively, many religiously and/or spiritually oriented people give primacy to the spiritual realm and denigrate the physical realm of reality. I am assuming in all the questions that follow that we human beings, in our embodied existence, equally exist in both the physical and spiritual realms, which are therefore the two primary aspects of reality of which we can conceive. However, it is reasonable to assume that there must be other levels to reality beyond these two. In particular, a realm of thought, existing halfway between the physical and spiritual realms, clearly impacts on humanity’s physical existence. I’ll come back to this issue of the multiple layers of reality in the following set of questions. For this set, I’ll limit my questions regarding the nature of reality to its physical and spiritual aspects.

Regarding the physical aspect of reality: 1. Currently, human observations of the universe, and deductions made on the basis of these observations, have led scientists to propose that the physical universe was created by a “big bang”, in which all the matter in the universe came into existence via a singularity. Do you agree with this proposition? If not, what do you alternatively propose as a model for the coming into existence of the universe? 2. Current cosmology suggests that the universe is expanding, and that there are three potential outcomes for this expansion: (a) That the universe will expand indefinitely, eventually dissipating in what is termed “heat death”, (b) That the universe will expand to a certain point, reach equilibrium, and remain “hovering” at this point of expansion forever, (c) That the universe will expand to a maximum point, then start contracting, eventually being reabsorbed in a singularity, an event termed the “big crunch”. (d) In a variation of this last option, some scientists argue that the physical universe will contract to a point short of a singularity, then spontaneously expand again, in an event termed the “big bounce”. There is also possibility (e), that the end of the universe has not yet been assigned, and that what occurs within the universe will affect its eventual outcome. What are your thoughts on these options? 3. Scientists consider that which of the options in question 2 apply to the universe depends on how much matter there is in the universe. Currently, scientists can only “see” (that is, infer from observations) a total of 3% of the total matter that, given the universe’s total gravitational “pull”, they expect to be in the universe. The missing 97% of gravitational mass is termed “dark matter” and “dark energy” – even though we don’t know exactly what these are, as they are theoretical constructs rather than observed real “things”. What is your view of what we human beings are currently missing from our scientific explanation of the physical universe? What is the mass missing in the universe that provides 97% of its gravitational “pull”? 4. How old is the universe? Cosmologists project that the big bang that manifested the universe occurred around 14 billion years ago. On the other hand, if the “big bounce” option applies, the universe may have previously “bounced” a large number of times, so this may not be the first time our universe has manifested, and the universe may be much older. Or the singularity that manifested this universe may have itself have been seeded by or derive from an older singularity. Your thoughts? 5. Cosmologists emphasise that the physical universe is expanding. Yet there is also an attractive force, which on the physical level we term gravity and which we understand to be a force that is somehow a property of matter, or somehow connected to it. While we don’t actually know what gravity is, we ascribe to gravity the power to draw cosmic dust into suns, and suns into galaxies, and galaxies into super-galaxies. We consider gravity also formed the Earth and Moon into spherical shapes, and keeps the Earth circling the Sun, etc. Newton described gravity as a mysterious force that acts at a distance, while Einstein described gravity as a curvature in space-time. These are descriptions of its manifestations rather than a definition of what it is in and of itself. What is your definition of gravity? 6. We human beings perceive (1) a repulsive force, which we propose emanates from the big bang, and which has led to the universe expanding, and (2) an attractive force, which we call gravity, that balances the repulsive force, functioning universally to keep the universe from flying apart, and locally to form suns, planets, solar systems, and galaxies. Obviously (3) space is the third force that provides a “background” or “medium” in which the repulsive and attractive forces at play in the universe may act. What is your definition of space? 7. We perceive the universe as expanding. If this is indeed the case, does space expand to enable matter in the form of galaxies to travel further away from each other? Or is more space “manufactured” to provide the space for the universe to expand? 8. My teacher, Abdullah, proposed that black holes manufacture space. Do you agree? 9. This gives rise to a question regarding whether the universe is an open or closed system. Scientists assume that the universe is closed system, and that no energy or matter goes out existence or comes into existence in the universe. What is your view: Is the universe an open or a closed system? 10. The scientific assumption behind the previous question, of course, is that the universe is a closed physical system. There is also the possibility that the cosmos, as a whole, is a closed system, but there are layers to the cosmos apart from the physical, that could feed the physical universe. Your thoughts on this? 11. What is the function of black holes? They have a singularity at their core. They attract matter and crush it into oblivion. What happens to the matter and energy in the singularity? One of the assumptions of science is that energy cannot be destroyed, only converted into another form. What happens to the energy at the heart of black holes? 12. Are there white holes in the universe, which like black holes have a singularity at their core, that emanate energy? 13. Is there a deeper function of black holes and, if they exist, white holes, beyond the purely physical?

Regarding the spiritual aspect of reality: 14. The human concept of the spiritual realm is that each human being has a spiritual core, which existed before our birth in a body and continues to exist after our body dies. This means there is some kind of spiritual dimension or realm, part from the physical realm, in which our spiritual core dwells before, during and after our body’s death. However, your concept of the spiritual realm is that it is vast, apparently vaster than the physical universe, consisting of innumerable levels, and filled with vast numbers of beings. From your perspective, could you succinctly define (a) the nature of the spiritual realm and (b) the nature of spirit? 15. I assume that the spiritual realm is right here, existing on multiple levels right around us human beings as we live our lives in the physical dimension. That the physical realm is interpenetrated by the spiritual. Is this so? 16. It seems to me that the three forces – repulsive, attractive and creative – that I identified in relation to the physical universe also act in relation to the spiritual aspect of reality. On this level, the repulsive force is responsible for humanity’s sense of spiritual falleness, of forgetfulness and separation, and for psycho-spiritual feelings such as lostness, loneliness, ignorance, and despair. Attraction manifests as love and nurturing. And creativity manifests as growth and as the desire to obtain knowledge and to understand. Is this triad a fair assumption? Or would you put it another way?

Regarding all reality: 17. The Michael books suggest that what is called the Dao (also known as Tao) is the ultimate source of all that exists, that the Dao is the source of everything. The word “Dao” is preferred because it gets away from the idea of a personal God that dominates in other religions. However, even this has religious and ancient associations. Perhaps in this secular age we should use an abstract noun which has no religious connotations, such as “Origin”, or “Presence” or “Source”. Your thoughts on the “source” of everything, and what it may be called? 18. With respect to the relation of the physical realm to the spiritual realm, it appears to me that there are three possibilities: (a) The view that only the physical realm exists, and any talk of spirituality is either only intellectual and lacking a really existing component, or, when it takes a religious form, a fantasy. This is the scientific empirical view. (b) The view that all reality, both physical and spiritual, consists of one “stuff”, one “material”, which is somehow differentiated into separate frequencies, and these differentiated frequencies manifest as to us human beings as the physical and spiritual levels of reality. This is the non-dualist spiritual perspective. (c) The view that actually only the spiritual realm exists, and the physical realm is a projection by spiritual entities, or created and sustained by them, or is 19. Humanity necessarily perceives reality from a human perspective. This fact necessitates a consideration of the nature of human perception and understanding. I’ll come back to this later. For now, I am seeking a general statement regarding what seems to me to be the narrow view human beings have of reality. Limited is the term that keeps coming back to me. We are only aware of 3% of the physical universe – not that we even see that 3%, as most of it is inferred from mechanical measurements. And we are only aware of a tiny sliver of spiritual reality – and even the existence of this is denied by some, while many others superimpose religiously-derived assumptions over the spiritual aspect reality. Either way, in effect, when many people consider the nature of reality, they are viewing their own assumptions more than the view the even the tiny aspects of reality that are available to human beings. T.S. Eliot commented on this when he wrote that human beings cannot stand too much reality. Your thoughts on our approach to reality? 20. Do you have any other comments on the nature of reality?

2. A PROPOSED MODEL OF REALITY

BACKGROUND

The preceding questions gives rise to the idea that we need a new model of reality, one that better reflects reality than our current scientific and religious models – models that respectively propose (scientifically) there is only the natural world and the culture and thoughts that we superimpose on nature, or that (historically) the world consists of underworld, earth and the heavens, or (for Christians) there is earth, hell, purgatory and heaven, etc. Various spiritual thinkers today have come up with a range of new models of all kinds. The following model has come to me as providing a description of reality that is understandable from our human perspective, and that is more consistent with our increasingly secular view of the universe than traditional religious or scientific models allow.

PROPOSITION: A MODEL

The most effective way of explaining this model is via a diagram. The comments that follow explicate the thinking behind this model. What makes models useful is that they offer alternative ways of looking at a particular problem or situation. Models are always provisional, in the sense that they offer new ways of thinking about things, but they do not offer full and final explanations. So a successful model is one that triggers further ideas in the viewer or reader. Of course, I appreciate that, from your perspective, reality is more complex than this model suggests. However, humanity currently requires new models to go on with for now, so to speak. Accordingly, I offer this model, and ask for your comments, clarifications, alternative suggestions, or even rejection.

8th level magnitude

7th level magnitude

ABSOLUTE TRANSCENDENT CONSCIOUSNESS

Tao / Pure Being

ACTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS

Active Tao / Active Being

Origin of all that is

Manifests the cosmos 6th level magnitude Forces - principles - laws Organising principles of cosmos

5th level magnitude

THE MANIFEST COSMOS

Spiritual realm

Spiritual entities 4th level magnitude Thought - time-space Medium of thought 3rd level magnitude Extension - volume - bodies Physical existence 2nd level magnitude Inherent propensities Creativity, evolution, emergence 1st level magnitude Constituent atoms and energy of universe Atomic, sub-atomic, quantum vacuum

THINKING BEHIND THIS MODEL

I am assuming that the manifest cosmos consists of five inter-penetrated levels. Collectively, these five levels constitute the manifest cosmos. Each of these five has a variety of forces or beings within it, and a wide range of activities going on that impact on those bodies and forces. Level 1 is the atomic and sub-atom levels of the physical, natural world. Level 2 are the tendencies that I see as innate in the cosmos. The primary innate tendency is the marvellous creativity that we see occurring in the diversity of inanimate structures and living creatures on Earth, at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, and in the universe itself, in stars, super-novas, etc. Creativity in turn gives rise to evolution, complexity and emergence (I’ll look at these separately in the next set of questions). Another innate tendency, as we human beings perceive and experience the cosmos, is growth, in which we don’t just grow through a physical growth cycle, but that we grow inwardly as well. Level 3 is the diverse inanimate forms and structures and animate cellular and complex creatures that exist in the natural world. The fascinating aspect of this is that due to the cosmos’ innate creativity, not only are there an astonishing diversity of forms and creatures, but there are also orders of organisation. So on Earth we have minerals, amoeba, slimes, vegetation, insects, reptiles, mammals, and human beings, each of which exist on increasingly complex levels of material and biological organisation. The result is that this third level, which we popularly call the third dimension, is teeming with life. It is reasonable to assume that teeming life is not exclusive to the Earth, but in fact occurs throughout the cosmos. Level 4 is the realm of thought. This is a psycho-spiritual level, of which I assume that thoughts are things in themselves, that exist independently of bodies. This is the level at which we human beings assemble an experience of the world. As such, it is fed by both our physical perceptions in the third dimension, and our spiritual experiences in level 5. I’ll come back to this level with questions later. Level 5 is the spiritual realm. I make two assumptions about this level. First, like level three, it is teeming with life, in whatever modes they may be. And second, that just as there are orders of organisation within the third dimension, the higher orders of which are incomprehensible to lower orders (i.e. bacteria could have no conception of the existence of an ant, and ant could have no conception of the existence of human beings), so on level five it is reasonable to assume that there are orders of organisation, in which lower orders of spiritual being would have no idea of the existence and experience of higher orders of being. For ease of vocabulary, I’ll call this level of spiritual reality the fifth dimension. These five levels collectively constitute the manifest cosmos. These are the levels of reality that we exist within, of which we know so little. It appears clear to me that there are patterns present within each of the five levels of the manifest cosmos, patterns that are embedded in them, that are intrinsic to them, that govern what happens within each level, and that define the boundaries of what is possible in each. The fact that these patterns exist – patterns that are visible mathematically, biologically, cosmically, sub-atomically, socially, conceptually, artistically, etc – suggests a higher level of organisation underpins the manifest cosmos. This higher order of organisation I have called the 6th and 7th levels. The 7th level I postulate as the active force, or power, or consciousness, or Tao, or whatever we wish to call whatever manifested the cosmos. The 6th level consists of the patterns that underpin the manifest cosmos, providing the patterns that we interpret as cosmic forces, principles (such as evolution) and laws. The 8th level is Tao, the mysterious “whatever it is” that underpins all of existence. The difference between Tao on the 8th and 7th levels, is that Tao on the 7th level is actively engaged in the manifest cosmos, whereas Tao on the 8th level is the Tao as it is in and to itself, wholly unknown to us. This level may not be necessary. I need to clarify that this model allows for the manifest cosmos, consisting of levels 1 to 5, coming into existence via a big bang, utilising organisation derived from levels 6, 7 and 8. On the other hand, if the big bang is not accepted as a hypothesis, levels 1 to 5 may have derived from the higher levels by some other process. All these levels existence as one complete interpolated existent. The final point I would make before moving onto questions is that levels 1, 3, 5 and 7 are active, in the sense that the model presupposes that there is life, activity and different kinds of consciousness on these levels. In contrast, levels 2, 4 and 6 are passive. That is, they function as mediums via which Tao, or whatever we call what is, steps down from higher to lower levels.

21. Would you comment on the viability of this model with respect to your perception/conception of the cosmos? (a) Is it useful as an interpretative guide for contemporary humanity? (b) What are its virtues and (c) limitations? (d) Would you suggest alternations/additions? My observations/questions on the basis of this model: 22. With respect to level 1, two scientific concepts of creation apply. One is the big bang, which postulates that all the matter and energy in the physical universe came into existence as a result of the big bang. I’ll call this the cosmological creation hypothesis. The second concept is that offered by quantum physics, that sub-atomic particles come into existence for nano-seconds as virtual particles and go out of existence again. Moreover, virtual matter and anti-matter particles come into existence, cancel each other out, and only the fact that there is a slightly higher percentage of matter over anti-matter virtue particles ensures that the material universe in which we live exists at all. This churning of sub-atomic virtual particles is called the zero point energy field and also the quantum vacuum. I’ll call this second concept the quantum postulate of creation. This means that science offers two different descriptions of creation. Cosmological creation is a once-only activity, while quantum creation is on-going. Cosmological creation suggests that the matter and energy in the universe are locked off forever, while quantum creation suggests that, at its sub-atomic level, the universe is being created over and over, nano-second by nano-second. Cosmological creation suggests that the cosmos is definite, measurable and predictable, while quantum creation is measurable only in limited senses, and by probability equations rather than by definite measuring devices. However, despite the churning of virtual particles at the level of the quantum vacuum, one thing that is clear is that the physical universe displays remarkable coherence. This means that, on level three, the third dimension, the Earth remains the Earth, and our individual bodies remains an individual body. This is despite our cells, just like virtual particles, constantly dying and new cells being born – billions of cells in our body each day. So against this backdrop of the quantum vacuum, coherence sustains. Questions: (a) Two different spiritual outlooks are implicit in the cosmological and quantum concepts of creation. The cosmological concept of a one-time creation or manifestation makes levels 6, 7 and 8 separate from the manifest cosmos, wholly transcendent. In contrast, the quantum concept implies that not only is creation or manifestation an on-going process, but that levels 6, 7 and 8 are present in the manifest cosmos. Your thoughts on this? (b) Ervin Lazslo suggests that the quantum vacuum is a medium for carrying information. And that the coherence present in the physical universe ultimately derives from the “memory” that is the information retained by the quantum vacuum. Further, just as a holographic recording equally retains its totals information in each portion, like a hologram the quantum vacuum retains all information in each (albeit indivisible) portion. Is this fantasy? Or a useful way of thinking about the function of the sub-atomic aspect of level 1 to the rest of the physical universe? 23. With respect to level 2: To my mind, coherence in the universe also results from various tendencies being embedded in the matter and energy of level 1, and giving it direction. One clear tendency is the propensity for simpler forms to become more complex. This gives rise to growth, to evolution, to emergence. So matter is not a blank canvas, governed entirely by chance. Tendencies are implicit in the manifest cosmos. My model suggests that these tendencies emanate from level 6. Your thoughts on this? 24. With respect to level 3, the physical realm, what strikes me most is that, first, it is filled with different orders of organisation and, second, that a higher order of organisation cannot be predicted, or even conceived of, by a lower order. For example, a rock consists of a particular ordering of certain crystalline molecules. A flower is a higher order of organisation. It grows, and responds to its environment. An ant is a higher order again. It grows, responds to its environment, and exists in a hive within a strictly determined social ordering. And a human being is an even higher order of organisation, doing all an ant does, but with a hugely greater responsiveness to the environment, and an introspective ability. A flower can have no concept, couldn’t even imagine, the social organisation of an ant. And neither could an ant have any possible awareness of the depth of human ordering. It appears highly possible that on the physical level, there are higher orders of organisation we can have no concept of. For example, various thinkers over the ages have suggested that the Earth and the Sun are consciousness beings. It could be that galaxies exist at a level of conscious organisation inconceivable to human beings. I suggest this in the knowledge that communication between these levels is impossible: just as we can’t communicate with ants, because our way of being in the world is so vastly different to and beyond the way an ant is – we can’t possibly communicate with an ant what concerns us during our day, even though we can comprehend much of what an ant goes through. Similarly with orders of organisation higher than us. Your thoughts? 25. I assume that the same principle of orders of organisation applies at level five, in relation to the spiritual realm. We human beings have a spiritual part and we participate with existence on this level, existing there between incarnations in a body. But there must be orders of spiritual organisation, presumably both higher and lower than us. Your thoughts? 26. Level 4 is the realm of thought. The interesting thing about thought is that functions as passive, active and reconciling. Thought is passive when we use it to analysis what is going on around us. But thought is also active, in the sense that what we think creates the possibilities for what can actually happen in our lives, and in activities such as telekinesis. And thought is reconciling when it brings together disparate levels and situations and resolving them, such as ethical thinking, spiritual concepts, and ideas that lift us out of where we are to a higher level of understanding. I’ll come back to thought later. For now, your response to the function of thought in this model? 27. Levels 6, 7 and 8 are an attempt to get my head around the higher order of organisation that I assume exists beyond the fifth level spiritual realm. Scientists consider that in order for the physical universe to exist in the way that it does, in a stable, coherent form, in which life is possible, a tuning a certain key numbers was required. Cosmologist Martin Rees has identified six key numbers. One relates to the ratio of the strength of the electrical forces that bind sub-atomic particles into atoms divided by the force of gravity between them. If this was different to what it is, then the universe could not have formed the way it has. Another relates to the density of matter in the universe. If this number was higher, the universe would have collapsed into itself, while if it was lower no stars or galaxies would have formed. The upshot is that particular numbers and ratios, certain numeric values, have been discovered to have been embedded in the big bang, and their values being tuned the way they have been has enabled the universe to develop into a stable, liveable universe. This gives rise to questions regarding the relationship of what I am calling levels 6, 7 and 8, and what scientists would call pre-big bang conditions. In particular, there are three possible positions regarding these numbers or patterns. 1. These numbers were the result of pure chance. They appear right and even pre-ordained by us because if these numbers were not the way they are, we would not be here. This is the Anthropic Principle. 2. However, many scientists have a problem with (1). This is because the likelihood of these numbers being “just right” is incredibly slim. Even impossibly remote. Therefore they postulate that really there must have been a massive number of big bangs, with a huge variety of key numbers and rations embedded in them, which created a massive numbers of alternative universes. Most failed because the numbers didn’t work together to create a stable universe. Our universe was one of these vast numbers of universes that actually “worked”. However, there is also a problem with (2). This is there is no evidence that this occurred. And there is no way of testing for the existence of alternative universes. So it remains pure speculation. Instead, another explanation is offered. 3. This is an evolving model. It postulates that over a vast period of time a huge number of universes have predated our universe, and as each collapsed certain values were retained that manifested in the next version of the universe. So the universe gradually evolved, over a period of its lifetimes, embedded values that worked to create stability and discarded those values that did not. So over a vast period of time the universe, through chance combinations, eventually tuned itself. There are, of course, issues with this model. While it conforms to an evolutionary model, what would be the selection principle by which the evolving universe chose some chance values and discarded others. In Neo-Darwinism the environment is considered to supply the selection criteria. But in this situation there is no environment, only the universe itself. So that would mean selection criteria were generated by the universe itself. But this would mean some kind of universal consciousness being involved, a situation materialist scientists reject, preferring a model of mindless matter governed by chance. So this postulate remains problematic. 4. Religious people offer a way out of this conundrum by postulating that a super-natural, transcendent being, called God, selected the numbers then initiated the big bang. This God remains transcendent and separate from the cosmos. In this model the eight levels are like a ladder, with one level above the other, with God at the top “ruling” over all the other levels. 5. Finally, there is the possibility that these eight levels are packed into each other as a whole existent. But rather than being a ladder of levels, each level includes and transcends the level below it. This means that level one is at the centre and level eight embraces all the others. So the eight levels form an integrated whole in which orders of organisation are separate but interpolated into each other. This model allows for the whole being a conscious entity, with consciousness being the constituent that binds the entire structure together. Consciousness plays with chance, chance allows for choice, and the entire entity is evolving. So there is no “God” sitting above, pulling strings, deciding how things should be. Nor does the universe consist of mindless matter functioning within laws of probability that arose by chance. Instead, there is an organically evolving totality, that we exist within, that is conscious, and is mind-bogglingly larger than human beings can conceive. 6. Personally, hypothesis (5) appeals to me, as it explains the preordained numbers, selected by the consciousness existing at levels 6, 7 and 8, but that consciousness is innately and inseparably a part of what is. But all the options remain speculation on our part. Your thoughts?

3. ON THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

BACKGROUND

As is made clear in your two books through Peter, and in other books such as the Michael series, you have a complex concept of consciousness. In particular, you consider human consciousness to be a subset of a wider range of consciousnesses than human beings recognise. The following questions are designed to elucidate your view in the context of current human scientific and spiritual knowledge.

DEFINITION

Humanity currently has two principal working definitions of consciousness. The first is the materialist scientific view that consciousness is identical with mind, and mind is a function of the physical brain. So when the body and its brain die, mind disappears, and individual consciousness is no more. The second is a religious/spiritual view, that consciousness is identical with spirit, and that this spirit enters the body at birth (or thereabouts) and departs from the body when the body dies. Individual consciousness therefore somehow exists as an entity separate from physical existence and so, because it has to be somewhere, participates in a spiritual level of conscious existence. Both the scientific and religious/spiritual views are connected specifically to human consciousness, because we human beings tend to automatically assume that human consciousness is the highest form of consciousness in the universe – apart from God.

28. What is your definition of consciousness per se, in and of itself, separate from particular levels or manifestations? 29. Where does consciousness come from? In the Michael books it is stated that everything in the cosmos derives from the Dao, which would mean that consciousness derives from the Dao. Do you agree? 30. If your answer to the above question is yes, then that suggests either (a) Consciousness is a function or manifestation of Tao, or (b) Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of Tao, i.e. that consciousness somehow is Tao. Regarding (a): The ancient Indian meditators suggested in the Upanishads and Bhagadvad Gita that consciousness is identical with Brahman, the Absolute, and that human consciousness was a portion of, or participated in, the Absolute. (I’m assuming Brahman is another word for Tao.) In other words, consciousness is a fundamental “substrate” of the cosmos, in the same way that energy and mass are fundamental to, and inseparable from, the physical universe. In relation to (b): Is consciousness eternal? I ask this because if consciousness is a function of Tao, it will come and go, rise and fall, and therefore have a lifespan. But if consciousness is a fundamental aspect of Tao, because Tao always is, so will consciousness always exist. Your thoughts on these options?

ON ORDERS OF CONSCIOUS BEINGS

The following questions have to do with how consciousness manifests in particular forms of living beings, beings which possess different orders of organisation and levels of awareness. I am differentiating here between consciousness, orders of organisation, and levels of awareness. I am assuming that consciousness manifests in or as particular living beings (both as species and as individuals within those species), and that these species/individuals possess varying orders of perceptual, motor, emotional, intellectual, social and spiritual organisation. These differing orders of organisation naturally and inherently also possess different levels of awareness which are a function of their orders of organisation. Thus, on Earth, plants, insects, mammals, and human beings are each different orders of biological organisation, and each correspondingly possesses a different level of awareness in relation to the world. Note: I am using the word “awareness” here to refer to a combination of complexity of perceptions and depth capacity to process those perceptions. So an insect has more complex perceptions that does a plant, and also possesses a greater depth component to process those perceptions and to generate awareness of the world around it than a plant is capable of. A mammal has more complex perceptions than an insect, and deeper and broader awareness than an insect. And a human being has more complex perceptions than other mammals, and deeper processing and broader awareness. So there is a clear hierarchy of biological orders of organisation on Earth, and corresponding levels of awareness. But it is also reasonable to assume that Earth is not the only place in the cosmos where consciousness manifests either in or as living beings. It is reasonable to consider that there also exist other non-terrestrial living beings in the cosmos that possess different orders of organisation and of awareness to human terrestrial life. Indeed, in your books through Peter you suggest that there are many different orders of organisation throughout the cosmos, many of which do not exist as embodied beings. So these questions have four parts: to do with terrestrial orders of living beings, embodied and disembodied, and non-terrestrial orders of living beings, also embodied and disembodied. I’ll begin with non-terrestrial beings.

NON-TERRESTRIAL EMBODIED CONSCIOUS BEINGS 31. Are embodied beings common throughout the Milky Way Galaxy – and, by extension, throughout the universe? 32. We assume a carbon-based biology. There is no real reason to assume this is consistent through the cosmos. Comments? 33. Because our biology is sophisticated in relation other creatures on this planet, we assume that biological complexity equates with levels of consciousness. Your thoughts on this? 34. Are stars conscious beings? 35. Does their embodiment have a purpose?

NON-TERRESTRIAL DISEMBODIED CONSCIOUS BEINGS 36. Are disembodied beings common throughout the cosmos? 37. What is the proportion of embodied beings to disembodied beings? 38. Do all disembodied beings incarnate in bodies at some stage during their life cycles? 39. Where do disembodied beings exist, ie. What is their habitat? In my previous model I suggested level 5 as a spiritual realm in which disembodied being exist. I assume that different levels of organisation exist on this level. Is this the case? 40. If so, what is the nature of this realm that different orders of consciousness can exist there? 41. If not, where are they?

TERRESTRIAL EMBODIED CONSCIOUS BEINGS Human beings, whether working within a religious or scientific framework, tend to consider we are the only truly conscious beings on this planet. We’re full of ourselves that way. But the evidence suggests the nature of consciousness is more complex than this. For example, a group or hive mind is discernable in the activities of many creatures, such as flocks of flying birds turning instantly, and the organisation of ant nests. On the other hand, whales and dolphins have a brain comparable to the human brain, are highly sociable, and display the functions of language. And pet owners talk about the communication they have, especially with dogs and, sometimes, cats. 42. So it appears that rather than thinking that human beings are the only self-consciousness beings on this planet, it might be more useful to think of consciousness on Earth as a series of discrete levels, each with its own characteristics. Your thoughts on this? 43. Where does the group or hive mind of flocks or nests reside? In the mind of the Earth? In the fourth dimension? Embedded vibrationally in the third dimension? Or at the quantum level? I ask because ant nests can exist for decades, maintaining the same social structure and functions, even though all the original ants have died. Human beings create schools and pass on knowledge. We don’t think ants have ant school. So they must be automatically part of a group mind that somehow transcends the nest itself, but dies when the nest finally dies. 44. What is the situation in particular with whales and dolphins regarding their status as consciousness beings? 45. And what is the situation with dogs, given that they have domesticated over thousands of years and have developed a rapport with human beings? 46. What is the consciousness of vegetation, particularly large trees? 47. Is the Earth itself a conscious being? 48. Any comments on other species?

TERRESTRIAL DIS-EMBODIED CONSCIOUS BEINGS 49. Are disembodied beings living among us, on Earth? If so, what are they and what is their relationship to human beings? 50. We human beings assume that either consciousness, is a function of the brain, and so dies when the brain dies, or that our consciousness, usually called soul or spirit, separates from the body at death. Whichever applies, we consider that whatever consciousness animals possess dies with them. Is this a correct assumption, ie. Does the consciousness of animals continue after death? 51. If the answer to the above question is yes, where does that consciousness go? 52. And where does the consciousness of animals come from?

Subsequent questions will be: 4. On Human Embodiment 5. On the Nature of Coalescence 6. On Emergence

Extra questions via email

Hi Peter,

I guess you sorted the video situation.

I looked up the “relational deity” term, and realised I have been considering it as part of process philosophy and theology. The relational deity term doesn’t appear to be very common. I’ll be getting to it soon in my book on God – currently looking at pantheism and panentheism. Hope you enjoying your reading!

My questions for your guys are attached. I see these as the first in a number of sets of questions, largely designed to reconcile current scientific knowledge with their wider perspective, and to present way-out ideas at least semi-scientifically. Hope you find them interesting, too. And not too onerous to get through. 

In addition, I have some personal questions for your guys. Hope it is okay to ask.

1. What is the relationship between the Michael teachings and Gurdjieff’s teaching? 

(a) I understand that one of the original Michael channels came from a Gurdjieff group in San Francisco. Given the overlap in terminology, was it the case that the Michael entity formulated its teaching the way it did to make sense within the existing Gurdjieff framework? 

(b) Or did Gurdjieff access just a part of Michael’s teaching, that already existed before him, and that was subsequently given in full via the Michael channels?

(c Or was there a negotiation between these two options, with the Michael teaching expanding on the foundation Gurdjieff laid, a foundation that he himself was given?

2.  Where is Gurdjieff now and what is his function?

3.  Where is my former teacher, Abdullah, and what is his function?

4.  Where is the Buddha and what is his function?

5. What is the relationship between the Buddha and Gurdjieff?

6.  What is the relationship of Buddha, Gurdjieff and Abdullah to me in my life journey this time round?

I understand that these names apply to fragments that no longer have these names. But I’ll use them for clarity, and because I have to use some name.

Events

Peter Calvert - AgapeSchoolinz

Friday, 17 February 2017 (1)