(Permalink) (Was chapter 50 and Chapter 51 in version 1)
For conventional science, and beyond for all the Western Aristotelian philosophy, paradoxes, and a fortiori the idea of creating reality, seem absurd, heretic, and anyway unmanageable in rational ways. Hence the constant demonization of the paradoxes in the Western culture, from the Greek antiquity up to quantum mechanics through Christian dogmas, and the general distrust toward the content of this consciousness rebellious to any classification. However, the logical bases given throughout this book allow to understand the paradoxes without peculiar difficulties. In these conditions, we can even try to make good use of the resolution of paradoxes, at our advantage, and this, it is still science!
And it is even not a discovery, as mathematicians do it, with the paradoxical creation of the number i (chapter III-2), which allows to simplify a vast quantity of mathematical theorems. This is not even a novelty: the Buddhist of Nalanda University also did it fifteen centuries ago, with their Vajrayana which is a «resulting vehicle» (Phalayana), this meanings that it uses the result to create the cause of spiritual awakening, in a fine example of creative absurdity (chapter III-3) skilfully put to practical uses.
In facts this is even not complicated, and the only obstacle to spiritual applications is the charge of neurosis and prejudices which prevent us from sanely understanding these areas. Indeed, if our modern world is prancing high in an exponential technical progress, we are still in the Middle Ages in regard to spirituality (and sometimes even to the Inquisition, as I could see personally). Hence the urgent need to get up and move forward. This book has precisely for purpose to lay the foundations of such a spiritual science, both theoretical and practical.
A fun consequence of this view is the reason why it is impossible to «demonstrate the existence of God» (of the Transcendence): this is due to His paradoxical nature. As in the Barber paradox, we cannot demonstrate nor a term (God exists) neither the other (God does not exist). And actually this book brought no better demonstration than in 2500 years of philosophy. But on the other hand, still about the Barber paradox, we are free to set the term that we prefer! So that all this becomes very simple, and even the paradox seems «logical». I actually predicted in chapter I-9 (in 2000) that paradoxes could be essential for the definition of reality, from the physical world to the ultimate Transcendence. And this is indeed what we find. And, finally, when we stop to freak out, paradoxes are no more complicated to use than any ordinary logical reasoning. It is even very practical to set one of the terms of an equation, depending on our needs.
It is still what mathematicians are doing, when they assign a value to an integral. Indeed, an integral is defined save a constant number, and this always requires to set an arbitrary zero level. Not so arbitrary, and the choices made by mathematicians or physicists always meet practical criteria, for example the «zero energy level», or zero electrical potential at infinity. Therefore, they solve the paradox of the undetermined constant. We are thus in known terrain, and in more on firm and sound ground, which elevation is adjusted right at the level of our feet. Probably many questions of fundamental physics are resolved in this way, but the publications accessible on the Internet are not accurate enough on this point.
(Permalink) We understand therefore how some things, such as Creation, Transcendence and the Purpose of Life are beyond Popper's principle of testability.
Translated into English, this principle (seen in chapter II-1) says that we must not state something that we cannot verify. It is a very useful scientific principle, which says for example that we cannot affirm that there are people in the Pleiades, by lack of means to go there. However this fact is still defined somewhere in the world, and we can not either say that there is nobody in this place, as would say an extremist Popperian (chapter III-5).
Indeed, about Transcendence, Its existence or Its non-existence is undefined, because It is a resolution of a paradox. It is therefore fundamentally indemonstrable, nor testable in practice. A dogmatic religious would say that it is an article of faith. More scientifically, I would say that it is a choice, which in the case of a paradoxe resolution, it has the power to create reality. And this, is much more powerful than belief.
If we think in depth, it is the same thing as with money: it is impossible to prove its existence, or its non-existence, since it is a convention, something that we created. However we do not hear Popperians saying that money has no meaning. It is that this philosophy was created against religion, not against money.
(Permalink) With the previous chapters, we get a fairly comprehensive view of things, from the physical world to the meaning of life, with a single theory. However, we still need to asses the epistemological statute of consciousness, as it determines its own reality: the scientific methods of passive observation used in physics can no longer be transposed to this case. This does however not mean that we can no longer speak of consciousness: quite on the contrary, it has its own laws and its own purposes, which study is of utter importance for us.
If, in short, the content of the test tube depends on our thinking, then the very notion of scientific objectivity is compromised, and the scientific study of consciousness seems impossible. (This is the practical application of the discussion of the second part on epistemology, especially chapter II-5)
However this is only about the content of consciousness, which, of course, depends on the person, and even varies from one second to another. But the laws and the functioning of consciousness are fixed and objective, because they do not depend on the person, or on his opinions or concerns. And they are therefore just as much as physical objects available to the objective scientific study, even if the observation methods are different.
To make a comparison, to study optics with looking at the images in a randomly agitated lens would lead to nothing: what is seen through a lens depends on what there is behind, which can be anything. However the people who created the optical science never did in this way: they placed the lenses in precise positions, on a defined background, which allowed them to understand how the lens deviate light and change the image of objects placed behind them. They have created an objective optical science, which allows to use lenses in practical applications with useful results, such as for example cameras. Cameras which allow to create beautiful or useful images, instead of showing random stuff or «effects».
We then understand the comparison with consciousness: to examine the content of a consciousness agitated at random by emotions and external events would lead to nothing, since this content is different for each person. However, to place consciousness in specific situations allows to understand how it reacts, and to objectively examine its laws of operation. This is what we did with the experiment of chapter V-5, and what is done for thousands of years by those who explored meditation and spirituality.
I agree however that it is more delicate than in optics, since the only available measuring instrument is our own consciousness, that we then need to cleanse from its own opinions or attachments, as seen in chapter II-4 about psychological bias. This is why that all true spiritual doctrines require not to be attached to opinions. I believe I heard that science has exactly the same requirement.
Added on May 1, 2017:
(Permalink) The very notion of science is based on the idea as what reality is unique, and does not depend on the observer (this is called «objective reality», see chapter II-6). But then, how can we scientifically manage Transcendence, if its observable effects depend on the attitude of the observer? This is not very complicated, and it does not involve any questionable metaphysics or sadomasochistic «unknowability».
In common terms, refusing to accept Transcendence is equivalent to place oneself behind a wall: we hide ourself a part of reality. We can still reason logically, and eventually realize that there is «something important» hidden behind the wall, which gives its meaning to the reminder. In fact this «wall» is nothing else than the filter created by our neuroses of opinion. It is therefore easy to remove, by a suitable training.
In terms more familiar for the scientists, we can say that the world with Transcendence and the world without Transcendence are like two entangled «quantum states». Our mindset is then the «field» which will reify one or the other of these two states, in each of the various occasions of our lives. (Of course it is not as formal as quantum physics, but it is still more than a simple analogy).
This has a consequence that no scientist can afford to ignore: by refusing Transcendence (consciousness, the purpose of life), we actually create «our reality», in which this Transcendence is absent (and with it, consciousness, purpose of life, ethics, etc.)
Some will say that this withdrawal is only a «detail», but it is of crucial importance: it removes any scientific statute from «skepticism», «zetetics», and even from ordinary materialism and reductionism. Indeed, in this situation of resolution of a paradoxe, this attitude is in fact the exact equivalent to cheating, such as to disconnect the instrument of observation, and then pretend that the phenomenon does not exist (This is discussed with more details in chapter II-9).
In fact, any scientist must get rid of his materialism neurosis of opinion BEFORE he starts talking about these things. Once this is done, he will necessarily see.
As I saw myself, after also being atheist and materialistic.
The only problem is that they don't do it all together in the same time. From this point of view, spiritual science is still in the stage of alchemy, when the forerunners of physical science had to hide from the autodafes.
Also see chapter V-20 on the planetary Logos.
Added on May 1, 2017:
(Permalink) Most religious persons will think that finally I justify their faith. But there is a dangerous trap here too. Indeed, for most religious persons, faith is only a belief, also locked by a neurosis of opinion (often inculcated in childhood, and never questioned later), or even a simple sadomasochistic submission to «the established order» (sometimes a «questioning» of this established order, but as much neurotic). Hence all the confusion and dogmas of the traditional religions, or disputes over such fundamental questions as the length of the divine beards or the gender of the angels (this happened). In practice, this results in a grey life, full of shame and of fear of sin, which can go as far as extremism and Inquisition.
In fact it is the same neurosis of opinion as materialism, but which hides the Transcendence behind beards, dogmas and shame, instead of only denying its existence. The remedy is therefore the same: to cure the neurosis of opinion. This alone allows us to receive the true message of the Transcendence, and allows us to emerge from arbitrary beliefs in order to reach the true reality of Transcendence. Religious persons will say that true faith is precisely this, but I avoid using this word, since common usage confuses it with the neurotic belief.
We recognize a religious person who accomplished this, as he practices eucumenism and he understands how modern conceptions of Human Rights can lead to the improvement of certain traditional religious rules. Above all, he will put love and joy in his approach, because what Transcendence demands above everything else is that we are happy.
Personally, even if I do not claim any particular religion, I can make myself understood by any follower, with using his own concepts.
(Permalink) How can the Transcendence manifest everywhere, without exchanging information between Its different manifestations? Indeed we see It in meditation, in mental calm, in moments of Superconsciousness, in NDE, and most likely after death. And the contact is always radical. And always in the same direction.
The logical feedback may well explain this, but we are not sure to be in this situation. In more, in situations like a NDE, the influence of the Transcendence is much higher than a subtle natural selection: it is immediate and unambiguous. If the example of the flight of birds, it is as if a brontosaurus suddenly laid a titmouse egg. We therefore cannot exclude, at this stage, that the Transcendence is actually «organized» by somebody. But there is another much simpler explanation:
In physics, there is no law which specifies the shape of a planet (or a drop, etc.) Yet all planets are round. Why? Because the play of the laws of physics at quantum scales necessarily leads to this result. We can find many similar examples: why water boils always at the same temperature? There is no law which directly requires it to do so, yet the play of the laws of statistics makes that the boiling temperature of water is very accurate (some melting temperatures are even used as references), even though current science cannot deduce this temperature from the quantum properties of the water molecule! Same for crystals, which beauty is identically repeated ad infinity, without any communication from one crystal to another. But a point of a crystal does not «know» what the other points are doing, and therefore their geometric shapes, the most perfect that nature can produce, seem impossible. Yet these geometric shapes are always the same, because they are determined by the angles of the quantum states of electrons, without any need of exchange of information between the different parts of the crystal.
Similarly, the Transcendence may result from the sole logical self-generation law of consciousness, without however being precisely one of these laws. So that we understand that it always gives the same result, regardless of the person, and in very varied situations, without however any information is exchanged between these different manifestations. For example, each NDE is different. But all speak of universal love. There are no NDE which advocate racism, for example. (Let us not include negative NDE, in which apparently the communication with the Transcendence failed to take place. But even in this case there are no racist NDE). The simplest explanation is that the being of light would always be the same, for example Jesus. But according to the previous chapters, he is only a reflection of our own consciousness. How can he then always say the same thing, without receiving information from a single source? If what he says is the result of general laws of consciousness, then it is possible, just like always having round planets, or crystals with all the same shape without exchanging information between them. And his spiritual discourse can regularly come to the same perfection as some crystals. This perfection can even arise spontaneously from chaos, because of the underlying laws, exactly as gems that form spontaneously in a chaotic viscous fluid. The principle is the same. Consciousness can even bring spontaneously «energy» (chapter V-17) to do this, exactly as the thermodynamic energy can promote the growth of some crystals, or force a drop to be round.
This point explains another mystery: that mystical experiences, even the purest and the most radical, seldom bring useful personal information (in addition to the fact that the experiencer (note 14), projects on it his own beliefs, and think he saw Jesus, the Buddha, master Yoda, etc. without any denegation from the «light».) Indeed, to receive such information requires a connection, not with an ideal Transcendence, but with other persons, or with another world, which is a totally different thing. Tantric Buddhism indicates for example that such contact can occur only if we «reincarnate» in a spiritual paradise: then the consciousness sticks to this new reality, that it can then perceive «objectively» (the two self-generation processes exchange information). This could be what happens in advanced NDE, when the experiencer sees such paradises (or, on the contrary, at the very beginning, when he meets already deceased relatives). Even benign experiences would also be in this case: premonitory dreams or instants of Superconsciousness, which bring very useful and very personal warnings of danger. On the contrary, the experience of Saint Teresa of Avila would be a «blank experience» of pure communion with Transcendence, without any communication with other people or with other worlds. This removes nothing to its spiritual value, but we must not expect from a contact with the Transcendence what belongs to contact with other worlds or other persons.
This kind of considerations also leads to a simple understanding of the religious Revelations, of their common points and even of their diversity.
Common points of course come from an objective perception of the Transcendence, while the differences come from the varied concepts used to apprehend it (chapter I-9). For example Christianity personalized the Transcendence, as it was the custom in the Greco-Roman antiquity, while Taoism used more subtle concepts of the Chinese culture, in terms of energy and balance. But that they speak basically of the same thing is an absolute basis for ecumenism, and even a duty of ecumenism, including with religions with abstract Transcendence such as Buddhism or Taoism.
Other differences come from ideologies which polluted the revelation: the receiver took his personal ideas as part of the revelation. These differences can even happen to be... all identical, for example this sexism which more or less infected all the religions.
Another important consequence is that Revelations are not magical phenomena, or reserved for special people. In fact the perception of the meaning of life, or of an altruistic ideal, is possible in the same way for everybody. Which does not withdraw any spiritual value to it, because this value comes from the content of the message, not from the person who tells it.
(Permalink) In mathematics, we have numerous self-generation systems: the theories themselves, and all the series. There even are vector spaces which are exact equivalent of Newtonian universes, and even relativists ones, with exact equivalent of our space-time. Laws of self-generation are perfectly Aristotelian, and everything is predictable to an infinite future. In fact, nothing happens in these worlds.
The physical world seems at first sight to obey the same laws. But this is not true, because at each quantum interaction, the result is indeterminate, and reified at random. There is therefore something going on in there. As seen in chapter IV-3, the physical world has an history, that is to say that the events at a given date can be known only if we know all the previous.
For this reason, we saw in chapter IV-7 that only this kind of universe can host the evolution of life, or even life itself.
The self-generation laws of our universe (quantum mechanics) fundamentally differ of a mathematical series, or a vector space. At each step (each nib) there is a logical indeterminism, which needs to be assigned a value at random. However this assignment is still in a controlled manner: the new values are only in a very limited set of allowed values. For example an electron which moves remains an electron, even if it undergoes many electromagnetic interactions on its path. For example it does not change trajectory at random, it stands close to the straight line (Newtonian principle of the conservation of speed). But this gives the impression, at a large scale, of perfectly defined laws as in a mathematical vector space, as absolute and immutable laws of physics leaving nothing to chance.
Which, incidentally, responds to one of the open questions of physics: no, the universe does not divide in several at each quantum choice. If we take again the Barber paradox, the Barber resolves the paradox by taking a single decision, and the city does not splits. Each quantum choice similarly takes part in the creation of a single reality.
The formation of a domain, such as in the RHIC experiment, does not either happen in a random way. We certainly have an «exceptional» indeterminacy on the ratio of matter versus antimatter, but only this parameter is assigned an arbitrary value, the other remaining strictly unchanged. However we saw that this logical event must involve many particles at once, while one nib implies only one (two, if we count the quantum of field which interacts with it). For this reason, I called this logical event a «magical moment», to differentiate it from the nib. (Being known of course that there is no parapsychology in this case).
These two situations strongly suggest a general law for this type of events. Both resort from what we called «creative absurdity» in chapter III-3. In a general way, when reality is indeterminate, it reificates at random, according to one of the possible values of the undetermined parameter. But never the determined values are changed (rule 5). This last point is strictly observed in the case of quantum mechanics. In the case of the creation of a domain as in the RHIC, we certainly have a violation of an unusual parameter (symmetry), in unusual ways (a whole set of particles affected in a single operation), but this violation remains strictly limited to the undetermined parameter. No other violations were observed in the RHIC.
We could call this the «economy of absurdity» principle, because it limits, precisely, the effects of a logical indeterminacy to what is strictly necessary to allow for the logical self-generation process to continue. So the result is the less illogical as possible, or the less arbitrary as possible.
In the case of the barber paradox, the creative absurdity allows the barber to escape the common rule: «the barber shaves every man who does not shave himself». (And in reality, he necessarily has one of the two possible attitudes, despite the logical indeterminism). But the principle of economy of absurdity does not allow him to escape to other laws for which its behaviour is determined, such as «every man must has his hair cut» (to remain in the original «Arab city» style, where men had this curious custom).
In the case of an electron emitting a photon, the direction of the photon is indeterminate, as it can go in any direction. But its energy is however strictly determined, and no photon does violate the law of conservation of energy.
In the case of the RHIC experiment, only the rate of symmetry breaking is changed. Each created particle remains otherwise identical to other known particles of matter or antimatter. This is likely to be the same for the major symmetry breaking which occurred earlier in the Big Bang.
Now we come to the case of the creative absurdity which occurs at the beginning of an universe. Due to the logic involved, this case is not fundamentally different of the previous: such a creation must obey the same principle. Just that, as no parameter being specified a priori, then all kinds of laws would be possible. All? No: the least illogical. The most simple. And we saw in chapter IV-8 that «simpler» means, contrary to intuition, relativistic and quantum. So, the principle of economy of absurdity still further favours them, though we can not say that others would be impossible.
(Permalink) When we think about the experience in the RHIC, we are stunned by staggering temperatures, gargantuan magnetic fields, violation of the fundamental laws of the universe at hyperelativistic speeds... We however note that the only «physically impossible» thing is the «magical moment», and the only difference with an ordinary quantum interaction is that it involves many particles in a single interaction, instead of one.
If we undress this «magical moment» from its staggering temperatures, gargantuan magnetic fields and other hyperfolklore, then only remains a finally very simple logical event.
And very familiar.
Indeed, there are another very common phenomenon which behaves in the same way: a neural network which generates a basic pulse. Oh, I do not want to say that it would violate the laws of physics, only that it works in this way as a logical unit: several different elements, each with its own physical determinism, also produce a unique logical event, without we can say which of them started the others. (The theories of the functioning of neural networks even explicitly exclude that one of the neurons leads the others).
It is simply the nib of the nervous system, made of neural networks. And it is this nib which produces the pulses observed in the electroencephalogram. It is also the concept of synchronous discharge of the neurologists, which can involve in a single event even neurons far away in the brain.
(In chapter V-3 I was considering such an event about free will. However the same event also occurs in any ordinary nerve activity, the only difference being that there is no influence of consciousness in this ordinary activity)
We draw from there several interesting conclusions.
We saw in chapter I-6 that non-Aristotelicien reasoning was precisely involving this type of inference by neurons, able of finding the result of a non-duality or quadripolar logic in a single operation. This even is the usual way of working for all the nerve centres!
For this reason, I shall now call the magical moment a Non-Aristotelian nib. Okay, I should have said it earlier, instead of using odd expressions such as «magical moment» or «logical event». But we were in full hyperelativistic mash-up with gluons splatting on the walls and my sandwich being hadronized. So I preferred to gather all these supplements and definitions in this chapter, rather than leaving them scattered around.
Of course, the classical nib, of the quantum mechanics type, can now be called an Aristotelian nib (its behaviour can be fully described by classical mathematics, and even sometimes directly by Boolean logic). We thus reach the final conclusion of the chapter I-3, on the way in which the different kinds of logic govern each their corresponding objects, according to nibs of various kinds: mathematics or computer programs have Aristotelian nibs (inferences, instructions), while brain and consciousness have non-Aristotelian nibs (discharges of neurons, elementary instants of consciousness). Physics also has Aristotelian nibs (quantum interaction) but sometimes also non-Aristotelian ones (symmetry breaking)
Another interesting conclusion comes if we consider that the logical self-generation law of pure consciousness (disembodied) does only to copy the one of neurons. Psychological consciousness (chapter V-2) necessarily does this, as it is directly controlled by the neurons. But the spiritual consciousness is also forced to do so, as its self-generation system is derived from the one of the neurons («forked», chapter III-3, rule 6). The nib of consciousness is therefore Non-Aristotelian, and similar to the one of the neural networks. Thus, instead of a logical determinism, similar to the one of physics (mathematical laws or Boolean algebra), the nibs of consciousness are linked together according to a system of gradated influences, that only non-Aristotelian logic can describe. And the result is necessarily different, because precisely this behaviour cannot be described according to the Aristotelian logic of mathematics. It is said that it transcends them (in the meaning defined in chapter I-9)
This non-Aristotelian behaviour (apparently «absurd») is easily observed in the sequences of random thoughts, dreams, NDE, sleep paralysis, etc.
We saw in chapter IV-8 that several important laws of physics are in fact general laws of logical self generation processes. One of these laws is that any system of this type should be quantum. It is easy to check that consciousness is also, especially with dreams, which are made of sequences of instantaneous scenes, while passing from one to another by changing each time a single element at random. If we usually not realize that the content of our consciousness also changes by quantum leaps, it is simply because there is no defined reality between two nibs or two quantum interactions. So that we cannot perceive an empty interval between two thoughts!
What spiritual teachings call «mental emptiness» is not an «empty» state of consciousness (by definition, consciousness is necessarily aware of something, otherwise we are unconscious), but a state where consciousness contemplates itself, and therefore has no specific object. The only interest of this state, but it is quite important, is to allow for the emergence of the real spiritual consciousness instead of the neurological consciousness. This is why some spiritual masters say that this consciousness appears «in the vacuum between two thoughts»: it is in fact an episode of spiritual awareness without object, between two episodes of uncontrolled neuronal thought. We can also say it is nibs of spiritual awareness intercalating between two discharges of neurons (nibs of the psychological consciousness)
Another very general law in physics is about energy. However the physical energy exists only in a space (ultimately, as seen in chapter IV-5, the energy between two particles is function of the angle of the nibs in the Minkowski space, either this angle is caused by their speed or by a gravitational field). However there is not really a space in consciousness (even when it is aware of one), so that the notion of energy cannot be transposed as it. However, we shall see in chapter V-17 that the notion of energy remains very relevant in the field of consciousness, but in a very different way: pushing the flow of thoughts and emotions in certain ways rather than others.
The final touches to the logical self-generation process theory will be brought up in chapter VII-4.
(Permalink) (Added on April 26, 2020) This sub-chapter was placed in chapter V-10, but it makes sense to have it here too. It is about how a disincarnated consciousness perceives and influences a spiritual world, with sharing elements of the consciousness experience with it, after a «mixing angle».
(Permalink) Finally entropy can also be transposed to the logical self-generation process of consciousness, although it then gives different results from physics. We saw in chapter IV-3 that physical entropy is an increase in disorder, which prohibits certain physical changes that other laws still allow. For example, if we detonates a dynamite cartridge, the laws of movement or energy do not prohibit the resulting smoke molecules to gather again and reconstitute the intact cartridge. But this would require to control random in such an immeasurable number of times that the probability is virtually null, equivalent to an impossibility. Physicists say that the system has increased its entropy, and it cannot reduce it.
This entropy also appears into human designs (laws, philosophical systems, which complexity increases in proportion to the number of intellectuals cut off from life) or in the relations between people (problems which resolution quickly becomes impossible). For example the systems of laws and democracy are complex, and each fault brings a parade which further complicates things. This is called the entropy of the law: an irreversible inflation in the number of texts, regulations, directives, etc. which in fine ends up to cancel the advantages of democracy. Similarly, the relations between individuals often result in an accumulation of resentments, misunderstanding, prejudice, etc. which eventually make these relations unpleasant, if not impossible, even if everything went well in the beginning.
However these things are based on an Aristotelian way of reasoning, specifically on the error called dualism (Chapter 1-5).
But we saw in chapter I-4 that precisely, non-dualities tend instead to simplify the problems to which they apply. And this is what we actually observe in the relationship of people who understand non-duality. These people tend, to the contrary of the dualistic ones, to better agree with time, either they know each other better, or they more easily dissipate misunderstandings and resentments. And if an incident opposes them on a point, it it resolved faster, and especially without contaminating all their other activities with dualistic judgements, or opinions against the person at a whole.
My experience of groups in the physical world or in the virtual worlds shows the same effect: the more people are civilized with flexible minds, the less rules we need. But the more people are intellectual or dualistic, the more rules are needed. At some point, we must provide rules for all cases, and the different cases for each of the cases, and the exceptions to case of the the exceptions which are making the rule, etc. The number of rules then increases exponentially. It is what is called «the entropy of the law». But to get here clearly shows that people do not seek wisdom, so that, eh, I do not waste my time trying to transmit it to them.
However the brain is non-Aristotelian in a native way, and in this way it will be followed by the disembodied consciousness, since the later mimics the brain. Thus, even in a dualistic person, the complexity of psychology should decrease with time, instead of increasing. So we can validly think that a consciousness operating according to non-dualities tends naturally to come to simple things, and eliminates spontaneously any complexity, misunderstanding, injury or error, even without any active effort of the person in this direction. Unfortunately the result is not always in the right direction: when people do not control their lives, their brain often gets frozen in a simplistic caricature of what they were. (This is usually called «to be old», because it happens with time. But it does not result from any real loss of abilities).
In short, entropy would also be valid in the field of consciousness, but it would produce the opposite result as in physics: the dynamite cartridge is always reconstructed, even if we make it explode, we cut it, crush it, shred it, etc.
This property is known to pediatricians as resilience, and in daily life under the names of forgiveness, forgetfulness, etc. (it is however not in this case a voluntary decision to forgive: just the resentment dissipates slowly over the years, and also disagreements).
In fact only obtuse ideologies or violent prejudices can prevent these things to work spontaneously, because they constantly add irritation and complications. So such serious neurosis are self-sustaining. Unfortunately, this is what happens to many people...
This is also why intellectualizing the Transcendence is the best way to be totally severed of it. It is unfortunately what many religious leaders do.
This property of automatic simplification is sometimes called negentropy, and some physicists use this word to refer to many self-organization phenomena of life (growth, evolution, self-organization...). However, in the physical meaning, the negentropy from living bodies can exist only if there is a constant supply of energy, to repair the constant destructive action of entropy. In the world of pure consciousness, where the physical energy does not play any role, negentropy could play alone, then very well explaining the ability of consciousness to spontaneously move towards more simplicity, toward love and beauty. And it may even do so very fast in certain special circumstances, such as the NDE.
This would be the most elegant explanation of how the Transcendence seen in the previous chapter can manifest everywhere, and delivers everywhere the same message of goodness and beauty, without the need of a God-orchestra conductor and a flock of Angels for posting all these messages all around the world. This vision proposed by the Transcendence would be simply the complete final state of consciousness, its «zero energy level» toward which we all tend, which maximizes the negentropy. The only difference from physics, but it is fundamental, is that matter always tends to descend toward the lowest energy, when consciousness always rises towards the ideal. A material object always tends to destroy itself, while consciousness always tends to build itself and heal itself. And, just as a planet always tends to be round, or a crystal to be geometrical, consciousness is always going toward beauty and goodness.
We can therefore say that, in contrast with physics, in the realm of consciousness, it is negentropy which dominates entropy, leading to simplify things, to go toward the good. And it is the entropy which needs a constant energy source to create or maintain disorder, for example a neurosis, an ideology, a clan, a manipulation, etc. But these things depend on the material brain, so that it is not surprising at all if death frees us abruptly of them, producing the huge positive impulses of the NDE. (What Patrice Van Eersel calls «the black source», this powerful energy source which calls just beyond death).
In facts, from a spiritual point of view, it is the entropy which is negative, creator of disorder, and limiting our freedom. Thus, to avoid associating the «negative» negentropy to the positive (good) consciousness phenomena, I propose the term «eutropy» © for the tendency of the mind to become easier, to go towards the good. In this sense, the neurosis would produce entropy, as in physics: an increase in disorder, in complications.
(Not to be confused with the term «extropy» already used, and which is NOT part of my philosophy. In February 2013, «eutropy» is not used, except in a company name. So, save this exception, I put my copyright on it, with the conditions of use defined in the introduction of this book).
So, in the material world, consciousness (life) needs a constant supply of energy to maintain itself. But in the spiritual world, it is evil which needs energy to maintain itself.
(Permalink) To illustrate how entropy and the second principle of thermodynamics work, a scientists such as Maxwell designed in 1929 a though experiment known as Maxwell's demon (Amazing how such great spirits can confuse angels and demons, but this is not the point).
A closed box containing a gas is divided in two parts A and B by a wall. In this wall, there is a small hole, with a door. The «demon» watches at the door, and he opens it when a gas particle goes from A to B, and he closes it otherwise. In this way, he can build a greater pressure in the B part, thus extracting usable energy from the mere heat of the gas. Which is precisely what the second principles of thermodynamics forbids, leading to our physical world where everything ends up wearing and exhausting in a tedious averaging.
This thought experiment puzzled scientists for tens of years, because it looks like it «must» work, despite it opposes the second principle of thermodynamics. The reason is that Maxwell uses a «demon», this meaning a being who magically knows what he has to do. In the physical world however, intent and knowledge have no sense at all. Just we can represent information by modifying physical states. But this requires measuring and modifying material objects, processes which both consume energy and produce entropy. This is why most scientists think that the experiment above cannot work in the physical world.
But what if the «demon», well, let us say the angel starting from now, is a consciousness existing in an universe made of elements of the consciousness experience? In such an universe, intent is a strong interaction, and we naturally know the state of things around us, since elements «around» us are also elements of our own consciousness stream. In these conditions, we need no energy to know the state of things, and nothing forbids the Maxwell's angel to selectively allow in the good consciousness experiences, and reject the evil ones. We even not need him, since our own consciousness is so greedy to achieve this task itself that it performs it continuously.
Starting from here, the result will be quite different of the physical world: instead of bringing everything to an average, the evil will be quickly exhausted and the good will take total power. It is the same logical laws and process than the entropy of the physical world, but, in these different conditions, instead of bringing things to an average, it produces a massive shift toward the extreme good. This is why I call it eutropy ©.
And it can be very fast, in a matter of a minute in a NDE, or in high meditation (although high meditation needs years to be learned).
What induces people into thinking that eutropy cannot work, is that the brain being a material object, it obeys the classical law of entropy. This is why all the emotions, thinking, philosophies, organisation and political system which arise only from the material brain (the neural ego, chapter V-10) are so often flawed. They are also doomed to lose their original impulse, to degenerate and to be overtaken by ulterior motives and wrong interpretations. This is of course true in religion, but also in democracy, as we shall see in chapter VI-11. Even the «entropy of the law» is real entropy messing with information storage and communication, not just a metaphor. Only a constant flow of spiritual elements from the spiritual consciousness (free will, instants of super-consciousnes, etc.) can save us from this fate. This explains why today mankind cannot do without spiritual models like Gandhi or Mandela, inspirited artists, and gurus able of controlling their material brain and bend it to their true spiritual consciousness.
(Permalink) These visions of Transcendence as a logical phenomenon, or of the soul as mathematical series created from another series of physical elements, are at least dry and uninviting... does this will kill any faith, any beauty, any magic?
I say not, if we leave not doubt creeping into our minds. The previous reflections, coming from a neutral scientific observation, have for only aims to explain how all this is logically possible, how things such as the soul, the good, God, can exist and function, without needing the authorization of the materialists or of the immoral. And if I did this, it is really to seat the spiritual reality on firm and objective basis, while demonstrating the futility of all the dangerous «religions» of materialism, rationalism (as defined in chapter II-6), technocracy, positivism, freedom in the Sade way (note 83), etc. which claim to be science while they are in no case reasoning based on facts, only one-way arguments, or even simple mind control tricks. Science is not an argument that is brandished when it suits us, and ignored when it bothers us. Science is not a paint that we put on worthless trinkets to make them look shiny. Science does not like to be put in a closet when its light reveals lies. If a scientific reasoning shows the existence of a Transcendence or a meaning of life, we are as much compelled to account with it, as well as when it demonstrates the possibility of manufacturing atom bombs or washing machines.
What I request is that these demonstrations break nothing, but instead supports the spiritual practice of everybody, in front of the pseudo-scientific attacks against the human mind. I specifically request that everybody grows an even stronger sense of marvel about this spiritual world, with an enhanced, enthusiast and scientific certainty that it is the truth, and not a «faith» or an illusion. That everybody practices the good in good conscience, without the insidious doubt that it would be only an arbitrary system of rules among others. That everybody continues to worship Who pleases him, God, Allah, Brahma, Buddha, Tao, the Jedis, etc. and receives all the benefits he is entitled to expect, without the doubt that it would be only a belief (only the form is belief, but we often need it to understand abstraction. And if it works with the imaginary Jedis, then why to ask questions about the others). That everybody therefore chooses his path, without letting him be slowed down by those who go nowhere. That everyone enjoys the beauty where it is, and never hesitates to shut down the radio which pours out rap, supermarket purée or technocratic grisaille. That everyone loves his family, his neighbours, without allowing himself to be subverted by the egocentric or Sadian propaganda (note 83). That everyone thinks that life has a meaning, and accomplishes what is deeply dear to his heart, without being diverted by «a employment» which brings nothing to him. That everyone allows himself to be ecstatic with the smile of the newborn, fully experiencing the joy of meeting a new consciousness (or sometimes, an already known one). And, when a loved one leaves us, to have only the crying of a departure to a travel, not the existential tragedy imposed by some «scientific» journals and their desperate psychological reductions. Science is clearly NOT in these journals.
So then, let's go at work, and merrily!
Added June 16, 2016, to meet the urgent needs of today world:
(Permalink) In this 21th century, spirituality, its challenges and its applications, can no longer be denigrated, ignored or perverted. This is why a basic education should be compulsory in school, and also for the adults who missed it. This is for the applications as much as for the general culture. Applications are preventing fanaticism, sects, intolerance, suicide, asociability or lack of morality.
This teaching will be presented in a simplified form in primary schools, and complete beyond the age of about 14. It is independent from the religious background of the students, but the presentation can be adapted.
Basic spiritual practices 1: Introduction to meditation.
The easiest method seems to be concentrating on an object, in a lying posture, according to the Hatha Yoga method, while insisting on the non-duality between effort and relaxation. Depending on the context, other methods may be used, such as Zazen, etc. Masters in these disciplines will define the exact practice.
Basic spiritual practices 2: Introduction to non-duality.
theoretical explanation and practical meditation on simple themes not likely to bring conflict: colours, hot-cold, etc. Meditation, discussions or essays may be held on the application to more general topics: genders, freedom and discipline, etc.
Basic spiritual practices 3: control of neuroses.
Positive visualization, to control neuroses. Example of racism, or similar: see the hated people as friendly and positive. Concept of spiritual training, to control our primitive or neurotic tendencies and become a sociable person.
Conclude on the spiritual unfolding, according to the definitions accepted by the masters of different religions. One shall tell how it differentiates from the egotic «personal development».
Basic spiritual practices 4: motivation, morals and discipline
We do not discuss the different rules of morality of the varied religions, but we take the example of simple and generally accepted rules: respect of others, not to steal, non-violence, etc.
How positive visualization helps to control our desires and impulses. How they can also help avoid absurd or impossible desires.
Theoretical 1: the different religions
Simple presentation of the basic principles of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism, European polytheistic religions, Animism, according to a curriculum established in agreement with the authorities of these religions (or historians, anthropologists, etc.). One will introduce the concept that these approaches relate to the same Transcendence, viewed in different ways, and therefore they do not have to oppose each other. One should avoid going into dogmatic.
Theoretical 2: religion and modernity
Learning to distinguish the traditional claims of religions, from sectarian or extremist statements
Learning to distinguish modern values (gender equality, human rights, separation of powers) from materialism or repression of religions.
There will be no debates before these presentations. But after, if debates are requested, or are appropriate to the context, one will refer to the profound sense of Transcendence and human rights, without allowing the installation of a conflict between religion and modernity.
Theoretical 3: the deviations of religion
Mind control methods and recruitment methods of sectarian or extremist groups. This curriculum will be established with psychologists and victim therapists, not with the «anti-cult» groups.
The non-religious beliefs: conspiracy theories, auto-suggestion about health (anorexia, «intolerances») etc.
Amalgams will be avoided, such as saying «guru» to mean «cult leader». On the contrary the best way to defuse perverted concepts is to introduce the exact concept, such as how a guru actually works.
Theoretical 4: religion and science
-If science demonstrated the falsity of most cosmological or physical assertions of religions (but not always historical statements), however it could not enter in such areas as ethics, the meaning of life, or the life after death. Therefore spirituality remains relevant in these areas.
-One shall introduce recent science findings on NDEs and other scientifically proven phenomena, and the prospects they open. Insist that they do not validate a religion more than another.
One can not evaluate spiritual success. However it is still possible to note knowledge, assiduity, or the attitude during lessons.
In a judicial context, to assess the impact of such courses boils down to classical methods for evaluating repentance or changes in behaviour and motivations.
What this teaching does not include (or denounces if relevant):
Pseudo-spiritual or pseudo-science practices such as Freudian psychoanalysis, hypnosis, «each one his own truth» of the New Age and Greens, sects (To avoid «discussions», one will avoid to name any, save the ones who did serious crimes), cults of evil (Satanism, witchcraft, neo-Nazism... while carefully distinguishing them from things like Wiccans)
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.