Talking Points from: METAPARTICLES 3rd edition

[Guest guest]

Concerning the Dynamic Field Concept

 

Twenty-five years ago I spent some time consulting the standard Greek

philosophers plus Spinoza, Descartes, and Bergson. I was looking for

field concepts, hoping to find one that might relate in some way with

ideas I had come across in some Eastern metaphysical writings. These I

would describe as " cosmogonic assertions " . There was no attribution as

to original source, and details were very short, but I felt somebody

had put more into the few words than could be passed over as mere

hints. Somehow I got the notion there could be some significant

relation to subatomic particles -- though nothing was thought to be

known along those lines in ancient eras prior to the Vedas. I had

never studied particles myself but found particle theory intriguing

due to my interest in ontology.

 

Here then is my careful rendition of the " clues " which have thus far

resulted in the Metaparticle Theory. Interpretive or explanatory

remarks are given in italics.

 

Motion is one of the three aspects of the Absolute -- Abstract

Space and

Duration being the other two.

 

(There is) but one principle in nature -- spirit-matter or

matter-spirit, the third the ultimate Absolute or the quintessence of

the two.

 

In the thickest dictionary I have consulted, the word

spirit is given twenty-six definitions. I intend no disapproval of any

of them when I observe that " spirit " is a sure means of inviting

confusion when used without specification in instances where precision

matters.

 

I have learned over time that if one rearranges words so

they fit some tested and understandable frame of reference, knowledge

is often better served. The wording in question here was not said to

have been discovered chiseled in stone.

 

The " Absolute " may not be a principle identifiable " in

nature " , but wherever it resides, " spirit-matter or matter-spirit "

must certainly be derived from it, rather than the other way around.

Note that the third " clue " below, found in the same book by the same

author (who was obviously not the original framer of such an axiom)

tends to verify my interpretation.

 

Spirit and matter stand to each other as the two poles of the same

homogeneous substance, the root principle of the universe.

 

This one, as you will have seen right away, is the one

that did it. Nothing I had read in books about particles said anything

about two poles. In those days it was one " spinning " point particle

with an electrical charge plus all kinds of invisible waves. Further,

the use of the word homogeneous struck me as implying a field. And the

" root principle of the universe " could only equate with absolute,

primordial reality; how could you get more basic than " root principle " ?

 

I must add, with chagrin, that in my initial research an entire

Ancient Greek Genius somehow slipped completely past me back then and

I missed an ideal quotation from Anaximander, student of Thales. I did

not acquire this important data until 2003. It sounds very much like

Anaximander knew a lot more 2600 years ago than most of the world's

philosophers do today.

 

Anaximander described a basic primordial " element " that differed from

" all the heavens and worlds " created from " its infinite nature " . He

said this apeiron was an " eternal and ageless substance " encompassing

all worlds, to which its " infinite motion " gave birth.

 

Now there was a man who would have spared a kind word for

Metaparticles. I would wager that if Anaximander were among us today

he could gain the attention of leading scientists. Providing he held a

Ph.D. in astrophysics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKUP MATERIAL USED IN MAKING THE TRANSITION

FROM DYNAMIC FIELD - VIA DIVERGENT BALANCE -

TO METAPARTICLE MODELS OF PHYSICAL ELECTRONS

 

 

Since there is only one Dynamic Field but a number of different names

for it, it is of first importance here to identify and try to clear

away some of the confusion this has caused. If I occasionally sound

proclamatory, it is not because I consider myself an unchallengeable

authority, but for the sake of brevity.

 

First let me make a distinction between substantive and conscient

metaphysics. I think much depends on such a bifurcation for the future

of scientific investigation, and hope this version will be improved upon.

 

SUBSTANTIVE METAPHYSICS

 

Deals strictly with the origins, unseen structures, forces, and

differentiations of matter, implied as well as evidenced. Though

subjectivity may or may not be a factor in some categories of matter,

itis to the greatest extent possible excluded from the material

concerns and substantive aspects of the cosmos.

 

CONSCIENT METAPHYSICS

 

Does not ordinarily deal with grades or ranges of matter and energy

and most often subordinates materiality to spiritual states,

teachings, religious doctrines, and other belief systems. Expanded or

elevated states of consciousness and expectations of survival are

emphasized. It is the automatic association of " conscient " attributes

with metaphysics in general, minimizing the importance of the

" substantive " aspects, that should be discouraged and distinctions

promoted -- for the good of both sides.

 

 

Confirmations of the Dynamic Field Premise

 

Beyond the fragmentary " clues " presented first in this section, I was

never able to find anything in my years-long research that added

further to them in the way of specific facts, reports, teachings,

etc., regarding the composition and actual formation of primordial

matter. Anaximander, of course, was the shining exception where

reassuring generalities are concerned.

 

I did, however, collect quite a few examples from reports by people

telling of a certain kind or category of " transcendent subjective

experience " . Most of these were from Zen Buddhism, and this always

guarantees extreme brevity and no analytical comments. ( " Everywhere

nothing but shining like the blue sky " is an extra-long memoir when it

comes from a Chinese or Japanese Zen master.)

 

But there were more detailed examples, a few from India and two from

German and American sources. Conclusions that I find logical and

convincing can be drawn, and I will synopsize them below. But first

let me say what has to be said -- and can be put in few words indeed.

 

 

Being and Existence

 

Most people (including a few dictionary compilers) make little or no

distinction between Being and Existence. But where metaparticle basics

are concerned, such a distinction is absolutely and rigorously

necessary. The entire process of material creation (or production -

whichever the reader prefers) depends upon the fact that Existence is

not the same as Being.

 

Being, in its cosmic sense, remains hidden to human consciousness.

Existence stands out to be objectively knowable. Presence in a

dictionary doesn't make something a fact. But Webster's College

Dictionary defines Existence perfectly in the sense desired here, as

" having being in time and space " . (Oddly enough, Webster's seven-pound

Unabridged comes nowhere near that; they must have gone back and

abridged it.)

 

 

Examples from Research Relating to Dynamic Field

 

Of course, nobody from anywhere used our term " Dynamic Field " . I could

never tell which term, " satori " or " shunyata " , applied to what could

be called the " Field experience " in Zen. In both Eastern and Western

metaphysical literature the word most frequently applied to this

particular experience was " voidness " . But that expression was not

employed in the remarkably interesting and reassuring accounts left by

the medieval German ecclesiastic Meister Eckhart. What he recorded in

detail from his multiple inner experiences was without doubt the same

phenomenon other penetrators call voidness, the " zero state " , Space

consciousness, etc. As far as I am aware, Eckhart was the first to

call it " the Godhead " .

 

What is of prime import to the Metaparticle Theory is this: Meister

Eckhart experienced " the Godhead " many times, according to his

writings. Yet he emphatically distinguished this sense of spacelike

emptiness from " the awareness of God " . He wrote that on occasions his

consciousness spontaneously alternated between the two states of

perception, which he

found to be decidedly different. He preferred the awareness of God.

With the Godhead he seems to have encountered the more widely reported

sense of voidness.

 

Here is how Meister Eckhart put the comparison: " God has all the

glory. The Godhead seems as empty as though it were not. "

 

These East-West voidness coincidences, as the dubious would surely

call them, were reinforced in the writings and in personal

conversations with my own mentor, Franklin Merrell-Wolff, now

departed. He was the author of two unique, profound books, Pathways

Through to Space and The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an

Object. Dr. Wolff, as he

preferred to be called, coined his own term for the voidness

perception which, unlike Eckhart, he considered the ideal and

consummate state of consciousness. It was to him " the High Indifference " .

 

Dr. Wolff explained his choice of the word Indifference in this way:

 

The dominating impression on first encounter was of a " vast

Space " , empty, but filling consciousness with the realization that

such a seeming emptiness was the mind's interpretation of an infinite,

complete fullness. Plus a sense of constant balance.

 

At this point I will stop and acknowledge something that will have

already occurred to anyone in the sciences, whether or not you are

personally inimical to all things " metaphysical " .

 

Data supportive of the Dynamic Field premise are very scarce in

literature qualifying as metaphysical in the substantive sense. From

my own experience it is not likely that many books to be found on New

Age shelves contain much that so qualifies. Over years I have turned

up bits in literature of older days, and the best of it has been

presented above. I think there is enough to suggest certain

restrictive conclusions, but that is all. There could not be any

empirical evidence whatsoever in the area of the Dynamic Field itself.

As I admitted earlier, that area is as metaphysical as you can get --

even if it were all substantive.

 

But now I am brought up by the obvious: The " supportive " material for

the (I can't say existence, of course)....for the cosmic reality of

the Dynamic Field is all from subjective experiences. Modern science

skillfully nullifies any value available from that source. They

declare it is not admissible as evidence. Which is actually a wise and

pragmatic attitude to take, considering the mean sapient content of

six billion homo sapient brains. Though it's too bad if ninety million

of them report essentially the same experiences when resuscitated

under one condition or another. (Makes no difference, still

subjective.) And anyhow, our brains are genetically sapient even when

we are not. They produce reassuring Near-Death Experiences

when...what, the brain?...is afraid that...who, we?...might be dying.

 

But never mind all that; this is an uncertified, semi-scientific

theory, and under that aegis I see there are only three conclusions I

can draw that are really pertinent to Metaparticles. They are:

 

1 - People writing about the " voidness " category of

supernormal subjective experiences do not report that even an

intuition of a Godlike entity is part of them. Consequently I conclude

that is a logical exclusion to make.

 

2 - Since it can be proved that complete homogeneity in

something that is intangible is often interpreted as emptiness or a

relative void, an almost identifying similarity can be drawn between

certain postulated features of the Dynamic Field and the

emptiness-as-fullness concept from conscient metaphysics. Regarding

the Merrell- Wolff notations, it is true that he found much more that

was significant and confirmatory to him in " the High Indifference "

than I came across in all my other " voidness " research put together.

But in concluding his account of the experience, he wrote: " Neither I

nor God were there, only BEING remained. " (I would venture to say he

brought the seeds of all the other impressions with him.)

 

3 - Consequent to the above, the conclusion I reach that is

most pertinent to the Metaparticle Theory is this: Any impressive,

above-the-background presence of God is absent from the Dynamic Field

as conceived in the Metaparticle premise. But we should recall that

the Field is characterized as being absolute " substance " . I think it

is accurate to say that in Judaism and most Christian teachings, the

ultimate Godness is not only beyond all substance but beyond the

entire cosmos. So there may be other aspects of " absoluteness "

consistent with those beliefs.

 

 

May I add a word in closing. It may be supposed by some that I myself

have had -- or think I have had -- episodes of " paranormal " experience

consonant with or even approaching those attributed to Franklin

Merrell-Wolff, the British author and Sanskrit scholar Ernest Wood (of

my close acquaintance), or other outstanding figures in metaphysical

enquiry. Where such levels of achievement are concerned, I can only

say I haven't been there, haven't done that.

 

posted:

 

..b b.b.