THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE  I


randomness and guidance in the occurrence of an event




A Study in Thought

sa074



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Existence is an abstraction of the mind.
The quality of existence can be given to a "ghost".
The stamp of familiarity.
A short review of the mechanisms of perception.
The difference between a mere existence in our mind, and a belief-structure we rely upon as "truthful", whenever we inter-act with our environment.
The central, life-giving role of individual existence for the sphere of our reality perceptions.
What happens, when we are asleep.
Dreaming and day-dreaming.
Does the moon exist?
The factor of agreement in the experience of reality.
The conscious awareness of flexible, intelligent animals.
A wolf, looking at the moon.

Existence is an abstraction. It is a quality and a concept, and, it is, therefore, a creation of the mind. The quality of existence is the most basic and fundamental quality of everything we can be aware of, and, this quality of existence is given to all ideas, notions, concepts or imaginations, regardless of the fact, whether or not we consider such mental images to be an accurate reflection of reality. For example, if we say that ghosts do not exist, we mean, that the imagery of ghosts, in whatever form we may imagine them to be, does not reflect an accurate "reality", but, this imagery still exists as an image in our mind, or, as a "figment of our imagination".

We also know, now, that all reality is, in essence, only a collection of images, notions, ideas or concepts, which we have given a high degree of reliability and truthfulness, and, we are, then, able to rely upon the predictability of an occurrence or the manipulability of a situation. Our brain forms certain images or notions of the incoming sense-impressions, which are a result of our inter-actions with the environment. We know, that such a sense-impression has to be recognised, before we can react to it, and, this act of recognition means, that an incoming sense-impression is compared with our previous experiences. It is then classified and given a name, and, at the same time, we give it a "quality of meaning"; is it threatening or beneficial, or, does it not have any particular meaning for us? Only, then, can we classify a sense-impression, together with the associated and evoked mental images and connotations of significance, as "familiar".

We live our daily lives with an almost constant feeling of a "relaxed familiarity", and, we are rarely aware of the fact, that this feeling is supported by a constant stream of sense-impressions that are processed and categorised. At the same time, these sense impressions are given a "stamp" of familiarity, of comfort, of being reliable and truthful.

We know, that sense-impressions are synthesised from a great many physical and chemical stimuli that have been captured and recorded by our special and general sense-organs, and, we know, that these organs "translate", or transduce, the various stimuli into a complex series or patterns of nerve-impulses. These impulses are then further processed, filtered, amplified and modified, but we lose the ability to follow the complex pattern of, even, a single nerve-impulse through the network of the nervous system, just as we are unable to follow the electron-impulses flowing through the network of wiring connections in a complex electronic instrument.

All we know, is the fact, that these impulses are responsible for our mental imagery and our state of alertness. Seen from this point of view, it is difficult to comprehend, why we believe, so readily, that the mental imagery of the surrounding realities, does, indeed, mirror, closely, this "external reality". Because the mental imagery is the only evidence we have for this external reality, it is natural to equate, simply, our concepts and images of the reality around us, with a reality "as it really exists". However, we have learned a lot about the physiology of the central nervous system, and, we have experienced, for a long time, the fact, that we have to change, continuously, our ideas about this external reality. It is time, therefore, to avoid such a simplistic equation between a reality and our perception of it.

Let us cut-short an interminable debate about a possible congruence, or similarity, between the external reality and our concepts about it, by saying, that we can only form a judgement about such a possible or probable congruence, if we have some idea, what this external reality really is; without it having been filtered through our central nervous system, and, without having been manipulated by the processes of our conscious awarenesses. However, we know, that all ideas or notions what such an external reality represents or should be, is, in essence, a creation or a concept of our thinking mind, and, we have, therefore, no guarantee, whatsoever, that we have indeed "glimpsed" an aspect of this external, non-human reality, whenever we think we have. We know now, also, that it is actually very unlikely, that we can grasp an element of this external reality, because the processes of knowing, grasping, understanding or being aware, are such typically human qualities or capabilities, that the external reality without such qualities is completely incomprehensible and unimaginable for us.

We can go one step further and say, that, even, the quality of something existing, something being there, out in that cold, strange and incomprehensible world of external realities, is a quality, which is given to our sense-impressions and awarenesses by our conscious, thinking, human mind. Everything we think about, postulate, imagine, or are aware of, acquires the quality of existence, even, if we know, that its existence in our imagination may have no value as an image of reality. If we think about ghosts, or, if we imagine their existence, or, even, if we just question the possibility, whether or not there may exist such spiritual entities with a number of vaguely perceived capabilities resembling our own mental faculties, (but without the existence or presence of a "material body"), then, the ghost has already found a measure of existence by being an image in our mind. The only time this existence disappears, happens when we have completely rejected the existence of such spiritual creatures and have ceased to think about them. Only, then, is it fair to say, that ghosts do not exist in our particular perception of reality.

This brings us to the question, whether or not everything else ceases to exist, for us, as soon as we do not think about it, or do not imagine it. Does this mean, then, that the reality of everything around me, which I happen to have "forgotten", or, which does not play a role in the focus of my attention, does not exist anymore, until such time, when the imagery or the thoughts are recalled again into a sphere of attention and awareness? Does this mean, that, all reality as I know it, disappears the moment I cease to exist as a thinking, conscious and aware human being? Does this mean, that my sphere of reality-experiences is completely and irrevocably gone, as soon as I have died, and, would it, even, mean, that my reality and most, if not all, my experiences of existence have disappeared, when I am in a deep, dreamless sleep?

The answer is, indeed, yes, but, we should keep in mind, that it only applies to the individual, who has died, or, who is in a deep, dreamless sleep. As soon as I have died, or, when I am deeply asleep, I am not aware of any reality, not, even, of my own existence, and, we all know, that, after a deep sleep or an anaesthetic, we have no idea, how much time has lapsed. Then, there is a segment of time that does not really exist for us, because we have no recollections or experiences about it, and we are not even aware, except from indirect clues, that there is a time-gap in our physical existence; that there is a time-segment missing of which we know nothing, not, even, its existence. This sort of awareness has led to the logical conclusion, that we can not experience the fact of being dead or being completely unconscious. Time plays no role, anymore, when we are without a conscious awareness, and, this applies, even, to the situation of being asleep.

As we have discussed before, in a dream, we are not in contact with our surroundings from moment to moment, which is the essence of being aware and conscious of time. However, in a dream our mind is still active, and, we experience a somewhat involuntary and haphazard sequence of mental images. Also, we are, usually, quite easily aroused into a state of being awake, even when we are sleeping, and, there is fairly good evidence for the statement, that, during a dream, we still perceive the passage of time, in spite of the fact, that we may have the feeling that time passes by much quicker than it actually does. This leads to the sensation that we have dreamt "for hours", while in reality, the period of dreaming may have lasted only a few minutes. The same sort of observations apply to "day-dreaming", where we never lose completely contact with reality, as we do in a real dream. However, in day-dreaming, we perceive the passage of time to be slower than it really is. This enables us to carry-out a monotonous job, while dreaming our time away with thoughts that are completely unrelated to the actual situation of work.

Therefore, the experience of reality disappears, and, with it, all reality disappears, because the experience of reality is the only reality we know of. Reality disappears, when our conscious faculties disappear, and, with the disappearance of our mental faculties of conscious awareness, we also lose the ability to abstract qualities or give meaning. Existence, therefore, disappears, also, at least, for us, when we are not able to create our realities.

I am sure, that such bold statements will raise quite a few eyebrows, and, I know, that a number of pertinent questions are emerging as you are reading this text. For example; you may object to such a narrow definition of existence, by giving it an exclusively mental or conceptual quality. You may want to say to me, that the disappearance of someone's consciousness does not imply at all the disappearance of all the objects or stimuli this person was in contact with. If I look at the moon, I say; "there is the moon". I recognise the sense-impression; I give it a name that is recognised by the people around me, and, now, you say to me, or, you seem to suggest, that the moon's existence disappears, as soon as I die. That is ridiculous.

True, this is a sensible first reaction, but is it correct? When an individual has died, all existence for this individual has ceased, and, the only reason, why the moon still exists as a moon, lies in the fact, that other people, who speak the same language, are still alive. You are still in the full possession of your mental faculties, and, you can still communicate with the people around you. You can look at the moon and say; "there is the moon; see, how it exists", and the people around you, who are alive and conscious, will agree with you. Therefore, your reality-sphere and the reality-sphere of the people around you, share many common concepts, ideas, notions or observations.

The experience of reality occurs, when we agree amongst ourselves about present and past experiences, including the interpretation or classification of a particular sense-impression. Because you have seen the moon all your life, and, because you and your friends are quite familiar with the ever recurring changes and phases of the moon, you have a strong sensation of familiarity and reality, whenever you look at the moon and say; "there she is", and, there is no doubt in your mind, that the moon exists. But, what would really exist, if you were dead, and, if all your friends would be dead, too? If the whole of mankind would have become extinct, and, if there would not be living creatures around with similar mental faculties as ourselves? Then, there would be no-one around to say; there is the moon. Then, there would not be a conscious faculty of the mind that could speak, abstract or verbalise with its fellow creatures, and say; there is so and so, whatever particular verbal symbol may have been given to the moon.

If there is no more human life or human intelligence, then, there is no more mental imagery, no more concept-formation; no more abstractions, nor, the naming of qualities or attributes. No more language and no more thoughts, and, there would not exist any concept at all; not even the concept of there being a moon, of there being a "me" or "you", and there would not be a conscious, verbalisable experience or reality, nor the concept or idea of existence itself.

What about animal consciousness, you may ask. What about this moon, if a wolf, or another, non-thinking animal, would look for a moment up to the bright moonlit sky. Surely, such an animal will "see" for a moment a large, bright, yellow, disk-shaped object, and its primary sense-impressions would be very similar to our's. The animal may not have the ability to think to itself "there is the moon", and, it may not have the ability to communicate the experience of seeing the moon with the other wolfs in the pack, but does this mean, that the moon "does not exist anymore", even, if mankind and conscious awareness would have disappeared? It seems so utterly ridiculous to postulate, that the moon ceases to exist, the moment there is no conscious intelligence to give it its name. We know, now, that the moon is, probably, as old as the earth, and, you seem to imply with your arguments, that existence is a conscious abstraction or a quality of the mind that is projected onto the surrounding reality; that the moon "did not exist" until man evolved and started to look consciously around to give the moon a name. Is not the essence of this quality or concept of existence, that it applies to an object, whether or not we are around to give it a name? Did the earth, then, "not exist", until there was conscious human life? What about the long evolution of life before the emergence of man? Did this evolution not exist, or, did it not take place, because man had not developed yet?

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A look at the past, the present and the immediate future.
The past is re-created as a function of contemporary awareness.
A cultural mode for transmitting mental images.
A more limited interpretation of contemporary reality by intelligent, non-verbalising animals.
A rudimentary "anlage" to form conceptual images in anthropoids.
Comparing verbalisable and non-verbalisable forms of awareness.
When memory-recall depends on the reception of analogous experiences.
An animal can not "abstract" in a conscious or deliberate manner.
What we "see", when we look at the moon.
Projecting a large amount of mental images into whatever we look at.
An asymptotic approach to discerning the reality "as it really exists"?
We have no reason to believe, that we are any closer, now, to an absolute truth than at any time before, during our evolutionary history.
A look at past generations, and their conviction that they knew reality "as it really existed".
We always project into our sphere of reality-experiences a form of existence that appears to be independent from our own existence.
A "compromise definition", but let us be aware of the "human factor".
The concept of the unknown, or unknowable, becomes part of our sphere of reality.

Yes, I agree with you, that this line of thought and argument leads us quickly into difficulties, unless we really think through, clearly and thoroughly, the complications and implications of the concept, that the quality of existence is an abstraction of the conscious, thinking human mind. First of all, let us look at the past; the past of human and pre-human history, and, let us recall the notion, that all the images of the past and the future depend on a conscious, functioning human mind, living and operating in the present. Even, our own past, yesterday, does not exist anymore, except as an image or a memory, which may be recalled, if we look at something "now"; something, which reminds us about what happened yesterday.

Therefore, our ideas about history, the history of a nation, a civilisation, mankind, the earth, the Universe, or the history of any evolutionary development, are images, ideas or concepts that are created, again and again, by the living generations of mankind. Certainly, these images are "transmitted" from generation to generation by a process of education, and, they are facilitated by the examination of many records and artifacts that testify to the fact, that such a past has taken place. The imagery is sharpened, amplified and expanded by the continuous addition of further data, research, findings and their interpretation. This allows the "knowledge" of the past, as it is being re-created from generation to generation, to grow and evolve.

The main point, here, is the fact, that the past exists, only, as a reconstruction of events and happenings, or, situations and conditions, which take shape in the minds of living, thinking and studious human beings. We, as living human beings, inter-react with many artifacts existing in our contemporary reality, and, this inter-action allows us, after careful study and a complex process of interpretation, to reconstruct a plausible, but partial imagery of the past. As a result, we "project", from our own, living, contemporary minds, a large number of images into the surroundings we live in. We project, not only, a coherent picture of a "now-existing", or contemporary, reality, but, our education, thoughts and knowledge allow us, also, to project into the sphere of our contemporary reality a fluent, evolving imagery that connects the past with the present and the future.

An animal has a much more limited interpretation of his contemporary reality, but, animals, which share with us a heritage of behavioural flexibility, in particular, the mammals, have also developed the ability to record some of their past experiences, and, they too, have a limited ability to anticipate, what is going to happen in the future. The immediate outcome of on-going events is anticipated properly by such behaviourally flexible animals, because they recognise a familiar event, and, this recognition gives, at the same time, the existential significance of knowing the immediate future of an on-going event.

However, as we have discussed before, we have no evidence, that any of the still living species' that are closely related to us in their evolutionary history, have developed, to any significant extent, the ability of verbal or symbolic representation. Probably, there is, indeed, a rudimentary ability, or "anlage", in some of the still living anthropoid species' to form concepts, ideas or abstract thoughts, but, we know, that this ability is so intricately interwoven with the ability of a rich and fluent verbal or symbolic communication with other members of the species in a natural setting, that it is unlikely, that this rudimentary anlage of the anthropoids, which can be seen in an artificial, laboratory setting, has indeed led to a vocabulary of conscious, verbalisable awarenesses.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to state, that the human species is the only surviving species on earth, which depends for its survival, entirely, on its ablity to form verbal symbols, abstractions and ideas. It is unlikely, therefore, that any animal has a concious awareness of its own existence, its environment, the past or the future, but, as we have argued before, even, an animal without the ability to verbalise his experiences in abstract thoughts and symbols, still reacts to sense-impressions. An animal, in particular, a member of a behaviouraly flexible species, also receives sense-impressions, much like we do, and these sense-impressions are classified and given a "meaning" by the same type of cerebral classification mechanisms.

An animal will, therefore, sense a familiarity, a threat, an unknown, or, the possibilty of a reward, such as food, or, a safe place to rest, etc., but, the animal can only react with its genetically encoded cerebral mechanisms. It can not "voluntarily" recall mental images by communicating with other members in symbolic terms, or with the help of symbolic representations, nor, is such an animal able to recall mental images by "thinking"; with a mental review of a flow of such verbal representations. An animal can only "recollect" an experience, or classify an incoming sense-impressions, whenever the contemporary reality, as represented by these sense-impressions, evokes the recall of an appropriate category of memory-traces.

An animal can, therefore, react in a way that looks, outwardly, much like the way we do; it can sense a threat, or, it can give evidence for being in a good mood, whenever it recogises a beneficial stimulus or favourable circumstance. It will show a behaviour that reflects the continuous classification of incoming sense-impressions, resulting in a varying stimulation of its instinctive drives, but, an animal cannot "abstract". It can not form thoughts or symbolic representations. It does not have the ability to be aware of itself as an "I". It can remember for a few days, but, then, the memory fades quickly. It has no concept of death or existence, but, it can react instinctively to danger, and it can sense that there is something wrong. An animal does not have a conscious image of the realities it is confronted with, nor, does it have an imagery of the past or the future.

Allright, you may say to me, but, what does this have to do with the existence of the moon? Does this still mean, that the moon does not exist? You just said, that an animal has primary sense-impressions which are similar to those of a human being. Explain, then, clearly, why it is not justified to say, that the moon exists, unless there is a human being to give it its name.

I will do my best to satisfy your desire to have a clear and comprehensive answer to your question. However, we have to analyse, more in detail, what we really mean, and, what is happening, whenever we look at the moon and say; "see, there is the moon, and it exists". If you and I look, now, in our contemporary reality, at the moon, we do not just "see" an object that fluctuates between the shape of a bright-yellow disc or a small, sickle-shaped rim, but, we see a sphere. We see a large ball of rocks with impact craters, and perhaps, extinguished volcanoes, lit by the sun from varying angles, encircling the earth about once a month, always presenting the same side towards the earth. We see this large object, and, we project it to be several hundred thousand miles away from us, and yet, we imagine and picture it as the only satellite of the earth, quite close to us, compared to the sun and the other planets. We imagine the earth, together with its satellite, as just one of the partners in the planetary system of our star, the sun, and, we imagine, how this whole complex solar system is only an infinitessimal small speck in our galaxy. In addition, we imagine, how this galaxy is only a tiny speck in the entirety of the Universe, together with billions and billions of other galaxies.

The point is this; when we look at the moon, we automatically project into the imagery we are aware of, a whole host of ideas, notions and concepts, which do not derive directly from the primary sense-impressions, but, they stem from the totality of our knowledge, based upon education and cultural transfer. This knowledge and insight has been absorbed during our life-time. Therefore, if we look around us, or, even, if we look at ourselves, we continuously project into the primary sense-impressions, a vastly enlarged imagery of coherent ideas and concepts, forming together, the totality of our reality-perceptions.

If we think about this fact in some detail, it is obvious, that this process of projecting a mental imagery upon our environment is indeed taking place. I kow what you want to say. You want to argue, that it is not really a projection of our mind into the external environment, but, through the processes of science and education, we are now beginning to see the reality "as reality really exists". Previously, in our ignorance, we were only aware of dim sense-impressions, but, now, with the help of modern science and sophisticated instruments, we are able to perceive reality, or nature, "as it really exists".

My answer to such an attitude of optimism is simply this; people of all ages were convinced, that they saw reality "as it really existed", and, yet, this reality-image kept changing, continuously. Do you really think, that we "know it all, now?" It is naive and simplistic to think so, because there is no evidence, whatsoever, to believe, that the scientific reality is not changing any further. Besides, if you want to say, that our knowledge and interpretations of reality are now approaching a reality "as it really exists", we have to know, or, at least, we have to have some idea, what this absolute and final reality looks like. We have argued several times, now, that we can not know anything about such a final reality, and, we can, therefore, not come to any valid conclusions about the possibility, or the probability, that our contemporary knowledge may be approaching a reality as "it really exists".

I feel strongly, that we are on much safer and surer grounds, if we accept the fact, that our contemporary knowledge and interpretations of reality are just one particular moment in an evolutionary process. We have no reason to believe, that we are any closer to an absolute truth than we were at any time before. As a matter of fact, our vastly increased knowledge, together with our ability to trace a beautifully coherent picture of reality, makes it much clearer to us than ever before, that our mental imagery is a product of life; that it is a product of a particular trend in the evolution of the living organisation of matter, and, it becomes ever more clear to us, how peculiarly human and human-dependent this whole field of realty-interpretations really is.

I prefer, therefore, to say, that we project the reality, "as we see it" in the form of a mental imagery. We project this imagery upon the surroundings we are continuously inter-acting with, and, we should relinquish the temptation to call this reality, the reality "as it is", because we have finally discovered this reality as solid scientific knowledge. Let us just remind ourselves, that a thousand yours ago, people were just as confident, that they knew the reality "as it really existed". This reality was not the product of human thoughts and efforts, but, it had been revealed, directly, to man by his God and Creator.

You may want to answer me this way; "I grant you, that we are projecting our particular sphere of knowledge and interpretation upon the realities around us, because it is quite obvious, that, someone, who has been educated and exposed to the sciences, will have a much more detailed and broadly coherent perception of the reality, compared to some-one who has not had much schooling. For an uneducated person, the reality-interpretation will be much more "primitive", and, it remains dependent on primary sense-impressions and the interpretations of the local cultural environment. But, does this mean, that we have to deny the quality of existence to this external but unknowable reality?".

"I grant you, that I do not know the absolute reality of my external or internal environment, but, I know, that it exists, in whatever form it may exist, otherwise, I could not be inter-acting with this environment. The fact that something "out there" exists, seems so undeniable, in spite of the fact, that I agree with your observations that we create or re-create the past and the future in our living, thinking minds. I maintain, that I exist now, in an environment, which I interpret according to my particular circumstances and the sense-impressions. I interpret these sense-impressions according to the biological make-up of my body, and, according to the images and ideas which I have learned and absorbed from my social environment. Yet, I exist, you exist, and all the myriad of forms of matter and energy exist in one form or another. Therefore, I can not agree with your notion, that the fundamental quality of existence depends on a creative act of the human mind".

I share your feelings, and, I agree, that we always project into our comprehension of reality, a quality of existence that does not depend on our own existence. If we imagine the Universe, the stars, the development of the solar system and the planets, or, more specifically, the earth and the evolution of life, we work in our minds with a time-span of many billions of years, while the existence of the human species is only measured in a few million years.

In the sphere of reality we create around us, the imagery of our mind makes the quality of existence quite independent from our own existence, and, yet, we know, that the entire existence of this sphere of reality-perceptions is only a creation of a particular mind, at a particular moment in time. We project this sphere of reality so convincingly around us, and, we have become so familiar with an imagined reality that goes far beyond our own existence, in time or space, that we believe in those reality-images as representing an unquestionable, absolute, external reality. Therefore, as long as we acknowledge, or realise, in the back of our minds, that we are dealing with concepts, ideas and images that are created by our own mind, we may, indeed, say, that the content or the entities we imagine as realities, do have an existence that is independent from our own existence, but, as soon as we believe, that the projected sphere of reality-perceptions and interpretations is a reality "an sich", independent from our existence as a conscious human mind, we are in trouble.

Let us examine, for a moment, how closely the quality of existence is related to the conceptualised existence of an entity. We can not visualise, really, "pure existence"; we can only visualise the existence of something, even, the existence of the unknown or unknowable, because the unknown, or unknowable, becomes then the overall conceptualised concept of something, we acknowledge, we can not define or describe. Yet, as a concept, we grasp the idea that something is not known or can not be known. The concept of the unknown or the unknowable becomes, therefore, a part of our "known" and projected sphere of reality.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

A discussion of the unknown and the unknowable.
Existence disappears quickly, whenever an entity dissolves itself.
It is easy to lose a familiar reality.
The moon and the pen.
The focussing effect of a conscious mind.
Questions of relevance.
Our reality perceptions and interpretations are geared towards the activities we are engaged in.
Practical attitudes, when diagnosing problems.
Relativistic interpretations are helpful, when solving situations of conflict.
The impact of modern scientific insights on the perception of reality.
One could have taken issue with the opening statement.
Another look at the definition of existence.
The "reality overlap" between people is often greater than we think.
The function of "translation".
The limits of a sphere of reality perceptions.
Why the "unknown" is, to a large extent, "knowable".
Existence exceeds the sphere of what is "the known"; it extends into the unknown and can not be just a product of our mind.

I believe that it is important to grasp, clearly, the concept that has been discussed at the end of the previous chapter. We grasp, and, thereby, know, the concept of the unknown, or unknowable, by defining or outlining an area of existence, which we do not know, or, perhaps, can not know anything about. By defining the existence of such an area, it becomes a part of our sphere of knowledge. However, we keep looking at it "from the outside", so to speak, and, we may, even, grasp a reasoning, that makes it logical to us, why the contents of this unknowable area or sphere will always remain closed to us.

Yet, we should not forget, that such a concept or conclusion is a contemporary interpretation of reality; tomorrow, we may think differently about it. Tomorrow, we may come to the conclusion, that the unknown is not unknown anymore, or, we may decide, that the unknowable can be known after all, or, we may, even, decide, that our interpretation of a sphere of the unknown or unknowable, was wrong and never existed.

The point is this; the concept of the unknown, or the unknowable external reality is a concept of our mind, and, it forms, then, part of our overal sphere of reality-perceptions. Therefore, it has the quality of existence, because it is a conceptual entity, created and given a quality of existence by our mind.

Let us see, how quickly existence disappears, when an entity dissolves itself; whenever we shift the focus of our attention, or, when we look at the same reality from a different angle. Look at an object of daily use in your immediate environment. I am looking at the pen I am writing with. However, I know, that I can look at it with a microscope, or, I can imagine myself to be a molecule, and, if I look again at my pen, I see only a strange, huge world of matter; molecules of different sizes as well as some living organisms such as microbes, and, if I still imagine myself to have the same faculties as a human being, I could very well think to have landed on the surface of a strange planet. The whole entity of the pen as I knew it, and used it, has disappeared, in spite of the fact, that I look at it, essentially, with the same human faculties, but, I look at it from a different dimension of magnitude. This shows us, clearly, that the entities of any of the familiar objects in our environment are a product of our conceptualising minds, and, it shows, that the entity of existence, the unity of being a pen, or any other named object, is an entity, that has been given to a piece of matter by our mind. Without this named entity, the entire concept of the pen is gone, and the pen does not exist anymore. Yet, nothing has changed in the external reality that comprised my pen; only my way of looking at the pen has altered, and, I notice, that I lost completely the for me so familiar reality.

This example illustrates the fragility of our world of reality, and, we should, therefore, look, once again, at the question, whether or not the moon exists, out there, independently from our sphere of reality-perceptions. We have seen, already, how the moon is heavily "coloured", or altered, by what we know about it; what we know about the stars, the Universe, the development of the solar system, etc. It was not so long ago that the universally accepted reality-perception of the moon was, indeed, a strange and changing disc-shaped object that was carried across the heavens by an unknown, or, at least, un-seen force.

Our interpretation of reality, together with the mental contents of what we see when we look at the moon, change dramatically, according to what we know, or, according to what we believe to be true, yet, the moon has not changed appreciably ever since man started to look at it with a measure of conscious awareness, and tried to give it a name that would explain, to some extent, the regularly recurring changes that were there for everyone to see. If we repeat the experiment and look at the moon, just as we looked at my pen, from a totally different angle of reality-perceptions, we see, once again, that the familiar aspects and concepts of the moon are dissolved into a strange world of completely unfamiliar and somewhat frightening experiences.

It is, therefore, not so easy to say, that the moon is "really there", independent of the fact, whether or not you, or I, or, any other human being, are looking at it. We have seen, that the content of what we actually see, is extremely variable, and, that the existence of a particular concept of the moon may disappear completely, if we look at the moon from an unusual or unfamiliar angle.

In any possible conceptualisation of an external reality, we have no reason to postulate the existence of such a "focussing" effect by a conscious mind. We have no reason to postulate the existence of such an "entity-giving", summarising or conceptualising function of the human mind, where we give the totality of the sense-impressions of the moon, the name of "moon"; or, where we give the totality of the sense-impressions and useful manipulations of a tool, such as my pen, the name of a "pen". We have to learn to acknowledge, to what extent we are bundling, focussing and summarising a very large variety of actual or potential sense-impressions, by giving them an overall conceptual name, and, by making them into an entity which can be grasped conceptually. This entity is, thereby, given automatically a quality of meaning and existence.

I am anticipating, now, another question from you, because you may want to concede that you can agree with this type of reasoning. "However", you may say, "even, if we have to agree, after studious thought, that a lot more of our reality-perceptions seem to be created by the functions of our own mind than we thought, why should we concern ourselves with this type of reasoning? Obviously, our mind "wants" us to believe, that this reality-projection is a truthful and accurate reflection of the external reality, and we get a slightly annoying feeling of irrelevance, if someone is painstakingly pointing-out, that we should not take these reality-projections of our mind at "face value".

"Is it really relevant to make a distinction between the reality "as is", and the sphere of reality-perceptions and interpretations, which we believe to represent, accurately, this unknowable external reality? What practical benefits do we gain, or can we gain, from making such a fine, theoretical and somewhat academic distinction between our sphere of reality and the "real reality"? We rely heavily, often implicitly, on the accuracy of our sense-impressions and their interpretations, and, if we notice a discrepancy, then, we look for an interpretation that suits the facts better. I fail to see, therefore, any sort of usefulness for this distinction between a conceptual or "created" reality we think exists, and, the natural tendency to accept this created reality as the reality we all live in".

The answer to your question about the relevance of this mental excercise, where we emphasise the human, creative aspects of our reality-perceptions, is fairly straight-forward, because it all depends on our level of functioning, whether or not it is necessary, or beneficial, to be aware of these theoretical objections to equate the reality we believe in, with the reality "as is". For example, if we are engaged in routine, "practical" activities, we rely, constantly, on the accuracy and certainty of our sense-impressions, as well as on the cerebral and mental classification mechanisms that are taking place continuously.

If we are going about our daily bussiness, move from one point to another, take care of the many chores and little problems we face, we hardly need to think about the varying aspects of reality, and, we apply, more or less automatically, the knowledge and experiences we have acquired. Even, when we are faced with a more complex practical problem; when we have to repair or make a tool, or, if we are faced with a specific problem how to overcome a difficulty in a complex task, we rely upon our ability to think and reason, to try out a variety of approaches, and, we observe and think as logically as we can.

However, if I would approach somebody who is busily fixing his automobile, or, who is designing or making a new part for a piece of machinery that has broken-down, and, if I would start to talk about the fact, that he is dealing, only, with a conceptual reality, which is a product of his own mind, as well as the mind of those people from whom he has learned, this individual will look in astonishment at me, and, if I tell him, that the reality he is dealing with, has nothing to do with a reality "as it exists" outside the conceptualising human mind, I am sure, that he does not know, what I am talking about.

Even, the practical task of diagnosing an organic function that has gone wrong, and classifying it into some sort of a disease process or mechanism of damage, requires a careful knowledge of the causes and effects that constitute the function and the structure of a living organism. If we want to devise a course of action, that will alleviate, in one way or another, the major symptoms of the abnormalities that have developed, or the injuries that have been sustained, we are only concerned with the application of practical knowledge, as well as the acquisition of practical results. Any thoughts about the differences between the realities as we visualise them, and, the many realities that could be seen, if we look at the same phenomena from different and impractical angles, will be dismissed as a waste of time.

However, if we are inclined to be reflective and think deeply about the capability to think and speak, to be aware of a reality, and, to experience a large variety of contrasting and, often, contradictory sensations, then, it becomes important to look behind the apparent congruence or identity between the reality "as we see it", or, as we believe it to be, and, "the reality as it exists", or, as it could exist, whenever we look at it from different angles. Then, it becomes important to look at reality from the point of view of other people, or, from a point of view that tries to exclude the specific accidentals of a particular belief or reality-perception.

We can not avoid to ask ourselves questions about the way we have learned to perceive or believe in a particular reality, especially, if we want to have a measure of understanding about the way we function, or the manner in which other people function, believe and react. In particular, when we become concerned with the question, why human history has such a dismal record of wars, atrocities, bloodshed and senseless devastations, we have to come to grips with the question, why we believe in a certain reality; how it is possible, that many other people are just as convinced about their paticular beliefs and realty-perceptions, while these reality-perceptions may all be so glaringly at odds with each other.

It has only become possible since the emergence of a well-documented theory of natural evolution and an extensive scientific imagery of the biological sciences, to answer, somewat intelligently, the many questions we may have about the nature of our own existence, the mechanisms of thought and awareness, the nature, as well as the evolutionary background of the faculty of conscious awareness and conceptual communications. Only recently, have we developed a reasonably sound basis for the idea, that the phenomena of conscious thought and awareness can be "explained", or made plausible, by explaining these faculties on the basis of a process of natural evolution. Only recently, have we been able to see, to what extent the realities we perceive and believe in, are products of the human mind; products of the collective as well as the individual human being.

Therefore, to answer your question about the relevance of relativistic reality-interpretations more succinctly, reflecting a summary of these concepts, we can say this; as long as we function on a practical, pragmatic level, we do not need to concern ourselves with these considerations, but, as soon as we want to have a few satisfying answers about the nature of conscious awareness, the nature of man's behaviour, or, the pragmatic goals of trying to create a social environment of harmony and justice, then, it will become very important, if not "asolutely necessary", to think about these aspects and features, which we have discussed so frequently and so extensively before. In particular, when we are confronted with the problems of clashing beliefs, as well as the serious, or, even, deadly conflicts that follow, so often, a clash between rigid and incompatible attitudes, we will be forced to look for an interpretation of reality that will be able to explain, much better, why people are so prone to come into conflict with each other.

However, let us abandon, here, the considerations of relevance, and, let us go back to the main topic of our discussion. I am somewhat surprised, that you gave-in, so easily, to the arguments that have been advanced about considering existence an abstraction and a quality that is exclusively a product of a thinking and conceptualising mind. For example, you could have taken issue with the opening statement by saying, that you do not agree at all with the definition of existence as a quality and an abstraction. You could have argued, that, existence is a principle of logic that does not depend on the conscious creation of a sphere of reality-perceptions.

Most of us will agree, without too many difficulties, that the sphere of our particular reality-perceptions does not take-in the totality of everything that exists. It is quite easy to demonstrate, how restricted and confined each reality-sphere really is. We share most, or, at least, a majority of reality-perceptions with the people in our environment, and, therefore, we can communicate with them, because we have a common ground about which we can talk and exchange ideas. However, if we come into contact with someone from a foreign culture, with a foreign language, we may find it difficult to find a common ground.

Certainly, the "reality-overlap" is, often, greater than we think, because the same, or, at least, very similar reality-experiences have been given a different name, and, if we do not share the tools of a common language, we will have to find someone, who can "translate" for us. However, the fact, that, many, if not most, of the language symbols can be translated fom one language into another, means, indeed, that we are dealing with, at least, a partial overlap in reality experiences.

Nevertheless, it is clear to all of us, that each reality-sphere, regardless, how educated we are, contains only a small fraction of the humanly knowable reality, and, we also agree, that, even, the totality of human knowledge does not encompass all possible knowledge. Besides, there may still be a very large, hypothetical field of existence or reality that is closed to us now, because we have not evolved far enough yet on the road of knowledge and insight, nor, have we developed the mental or physical equipment to master this reality at the present time.

If our reality-sphere contains only a tiny fragment of entities and forms that do exist, and are, therefore, potential items of knowledge, we see, that the "quality" or the characteristic of existence, extends always much further than a particular reality-sphere. Therefore, "existence" can not be just a product of the human mind, because it could, then, never be seen to project beyond the reality-sphere of a human being".

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The reply to a clever argument.
A further discussion of the function of the "unknown".
Are we getting irrelevant?
The periphery of our sphere of awarenesses.
Re-emphasising the quality of existence that is being given, by our conscious mind, to whatever we think of.
Differences between the quality of existence, and the quality of reliability or truthfulness.
The difficulties associated with imagining "non-existence".
The element of "change".
The qualities of regularity and predictability.
A comprehensible "snap-shot" in the chain of causes and effects.
Let us look around, and see, what we can observe.
The phenomenon of gravitational attraction.
The practical need for a comprehensive system to classify mental images.
Common denominators, and a structure of explanatory relationships.
The logic of an anthropomorphic interpretation of reality.
Central in the sphere of reality stands man's "will".
The art of controling anthropomorphic force-fields.
The functions of sacrifice and appeasement.

Indeed, this is a good argument against accepting, without intense scrutiny, the notion, that existence is purely a product of our mind. However, let us agree, first of all, that the concept or idea of existence remains a mental image, and, we feel often compelled to extend or extrapolate the quality of existence to areas that fall outside our sphere of knowledge or awareness. We can also put the dilemma in this way, or, rather, we can reduce the dilemma to the following question; if I am aware of the fact, that there is a large field of the "unknown", which may be a combination of knowable and unknowable existence, can we, then, consider this field of the unknown as a "void", enclosed by our sphere of conscious awareness, or, do we have to consider it as a borderline between the sphere of our reality-perceptions, and, whatever lies, for one reason or another, outside it?

I have the feeling, that this question, or, the discussion of this question, becomes rather nebulous and seemingly irrelevant. Let me just say, therefore, that I am inclined to consider the awareness of an area of the unknown, indeed, as belonging within the sphere of our reality-perceptions, in spite of the fact, that we know nothing about this "void", not, even, its precise boundaries with the sphere of the known or vaguely known.

Let us not make the mistake to see the sphere of reality-perceptions, indeed, as a sharply outlined, geometrical structure, but, let us consider it to be more like the slowly attenuating, but, essentially, never-ending sphere of gravitational attraction, or influence, which exists around all large heavenly bodies. The more peripheral we are in our reality-sphere, the less precise our awarenesses are, and, they blend, slowly and imperceptibly, with the areas of notions, vague feelings, subconscious awarenesses and those forms of existence that have no influence at all upon our focus of awareness or our patterns of behaviour.

At the present time, I favour the idea, that the awareness of existence is an abstraction of the mind, and, that it is actually the most fundamental common denominator shared by all items or entities of awareness. As we have discussed, it does not matter, whether an idea is only a mental entity, an imagination, a fantasy, a hypothesis, or, a highly reliable image of reality. Everything our mind can think of, acquires the quality of existence, and, this applies, also, to the realisation, that there may be a "void"; a large area of existence that is essentially or intrinsically, outside the sphere of our knowledge and awareness.

As we have discussed on several occasions, this imagery creates for us, living in the present, a past history, as well as a future of anticipated images, but, both, the past and the future, exist "now", as a conceptual entity, or, as a series of images, which we can evoke, more or less at will, into a focus of conscious awareness. This quality of existence is also given to any imagery or idea we may form about being dead, and, we know, how this quality of existence makes it so difficult, if not impossible, to imagine, what "non-existence" will be like.

The quality of existence is the most fundamental common characteristic, or denominator, shared by all conceptual entities, just like the quality or characteristic of gravitation is shared by all entities of matter-energy, but, we also know, that the images of our reality-perceptions are classified into a variety of categories. Perhaps, one of the most important classifications is the distinction between entities of awareness that are subject to change and those that are not. Certainly, we have learned, that, perhaps, none of our entities of observation are entirely static, because we know, that, even, rocks, continents and stars will change, eventually, as time goes by.

However, from a practical point of view, we are aware of the fact, that we can be dealing with a large number of more or less static objects, or situations, such as the tools around us, the rocks, the landscape, the familiar people or items, but, we know, that we also have to deal with a large variety of "events". Many events are familiar and recurrent, such as the procession of day and night, the tides of the sea, the changing faces of the moon, the march of the stars across the sky, each night, the changing seasons of the year. Many events are repetitive, but not identical or strictly periodical. Children are born, people die at all different ages, the animals have their young, and, they too, are subject to the progression of time, the process of getting old and weak, as well as the predatory pressures of man and beast.

When our powers of observation became more sophisticated with modern tools and instruments, and, when we learned to see regularities or predictabilities, where, initially, no such predictabilities or regularities existed, we became capable of creating a beautifully coherent, enormously vast panorama of events, guided by predominantly static laws or principles of operation. This panorama formed, then, a comprehensible moment or "snap-shot" in the chain of causes and their effects.

Indeed, one of the most fundamental conscious awarenesses of a human being, living anywhere in the world, is the realisation, that we have to deal with so many changes and events, which are only partly periodic and predictable. From this realisation or awareness stems another basic abstraction or quality; the perception of time. We can safely state, that we would not be aware of time, if we would not be experiencing the phenomenon of change. Therefore, we should first analyse, thoroughly, the phenomenon of change, and, we should examine the question, how the experience of change has influenced, or, even, shaped, our existence as a living organisation. After we have accomplished these objectives, we will discuss, in more theoretical terms, the idea and concept of time, in contrast to the perception of change.

Where do we start? As we look around us, we see so many events and happenings, that we are completely overwhelmed, if we want to consider them all. Events take place on so many levels of existence, from cosmic explosions or expanding and contracting galaxies, to microscopic, molecular, atomic or sub-atomic events. It is obviously impossible to know or consider them all, and, yet, we want to come to grips with the essence of an event. Let us look around us, and see, what we can observe.

We see, and experience, first of all, that everything has a tendency to fall to the ground. If we take an object in our hands, and then let it go, it falls, crashing onto the ground or the floor, and, the stresses it is subjected to in a crash, or an event of sudden deceleration, may be stronger than the bonds that hold the parts together. Then, we see it break, crack or shatter.

We see leaves and rain-drops fall to the ground, but we see the smoke rise in the still air, forever changing form and showing all sorts of sudden spurts and whirls. Now, we can "explain" all these happenings with the concept of gravity, but, we should not forget that man had to master the awareness of each of these happenings without the benefit of a unifying concept. Only long and persistent questioning, a steadily more precise and detailed series of observations, as well as the awareness of the overwhelming quantity of happenings, events or changes, led to the intuitive, and, later, conscious search for such unifying concepts or "principles of operation".

We have discussed, on several occasions, the fact, that the ability of conscious awareness and symbolic representation would have remained un-developed, or, at least, under-developed, if man would not have succeeded in developing a mental classification system, where all awarenesses could be grouped-together, according to common denominators or common characteristics. These common denominators would slowly gain clarity as a conceptual entity. Classifying principles, common denominators, or, shared characteristics of the awarenesses that have been grouped-together, become abstractions and concepts, which let us see and communicate such abstract ideas as qualities, feelings, sensations, principles and unifying concepts.

We will not repeat or recall these discussions, here, but, let us be aware of the fact, that man has tended to "find an explanation" behind each and every change he observed. Some of these changes and events were so commonly experienced, and, they were so much a part of his daily awarenesses, that the details of these events escaped conscious scrutiny, and remained tied into the more important events and objects or circumstances that were encountered. The experience of falling was such an "unchanging" aspect of all movements and manipulations, that its existence was, probably, completely taken for granted, and, the cause of the forces behind the falling motion of an object towards the ground, did not become a subject for questioning or thought by the members of early mankind.

Many other events were far more important. First of all, there were all those changes taking place within the environment. The changes and periodicity of sunlight and darkness, the varying faces of the moon, the stars, the clouds, the rain, snow, wind, floods, lightning, earth-quakes, etc. It is not surprising, that the entire panorama of climatic and daily environmental changes to which a small nomadic group of early mankind was exposed, were extremely impressive, and, the forces behind these changes were, obviously, so much stronger than man's own, that he bowed his head in fear and awe for the forces of nature.

It was completely logical, and unavoidable, that man attributed these natural forces to the actions of "willing deities", who acted very much like man himself. Man experienced, at all times, the willed actions of himself and others around him, and, the complex world of changes, events and happenings associated with the inter-actions of the wild-life around him, also showed a force-field or a field of action that had strongly "willed" characteristics. Therefore, the sudden changes of thunder and lightning, but, also, the regular "tasks" of carrying the sun and the stars across the sky, were attributed to entities, able to exert a willed force, just like man's, but incomparably more powerful. The most natural way of explaining the phenomena of changes and events, was to postulate the existence of forces that were similar in nature to man's own ability to initiate an action or a movement.

Let us not forget, that, central in the reality-sphere of man stood his own will, his own ability to go out and hunt, or, to gather fruits and other edibles, or, to get into a fight with someone else. Just as man could destroy and kill in a fit of anger, so was it logical to explain catastrophies such as floods, or, even, the threatening appearances of a thunder-storm and a heavy rain-fall, as a manifestation of the anger of the gods, and, we should not be surprised to learn, that, man's attempts to influence these events always took the form of a magic ritual, where an effort was made to appease the offended gods. Just as a quarrel between people could be settled by acts of appeasement, atonement and sacrifice, so could the gods be appeased by similar attitudes and offerings.

Man's early attempts to grasp and influence the myriad of changes, happenings and events around him, can be seen in the construction of a framework of "anthropomorphic", or manlike, "willed" force-fields. These deliberately willed forces acted or reacted along mechanisms of motivation, reflecting man's subconscious experiences with his own changing moods and varying motivations. The earliest attempts to control the anthropomorphic force-fields of nature were an exact parallel of the early attempts to control the emotions and behaviour-patterns of the members of a small community. Because the forces of nature, as well as the gods who controled or initiated these forces, were so obviously superior to human beings, it was logical to see, almost invariably, an attitude of awe, reverence, submission or blind obedience, as well as an attitude of offerings, sacrifices, and appeasements.

Just as a strong, offended individual could only be appeased, if he was offered something of great value, so took the act of sacrifice to the gods, often, an extreme form, such as the offer of human life. Later, we see "sneaky" attempts to "fool" the gods, when a prolonged period of prosperity, together with a relatively easy grasp over the circumstances of life, diminished, to some extent, the importance and awe of the godly domain.

Even quite late in the evolution of civilisations, we see, that the basic structure of beliefs and explanations remains anthropomorphic in nature, in spite of a remarkable level of technical expertise. It is so tempting to interpret the realities of the myriad of changes and forces man is exposed to, in an anthropomorphic manner, and, we should not be surprised to see, that, even, today, most people find it difficult, or, even, impossible to let-go of such essentially religious structures of explanation and belief.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The evolution of "static principles" to explain the occurrence of events; the force of gravity.
Analysing an event in terms of causes and their effects.
Learning to use tools.
Chains of predictability.
The emergence of a belief structure that reflects man's intuitive perception of himself.
A complex reality perception that is not very attractive, emotionally.
A "hybrid" frame of reality perceptions.
The inter-play between God and natural laws.
The problems of explaining ourselves.
The concept of Original Sin, and an All-knowing God.
There are still many gaps in our networks of explanation.
A return to the concept of change.
Enlarging the grasp over reality with tools and instruments.
Dealing with a variety of "worlds" that do not flow logically and overseeably into each other.
Summarising processes of the mind; examples.
The perception of space; a short discussion.
The experience of non-homogeneity.
The space-time continuum.
Scientific and mathematical extrapolations, and the problem of "imaginability".

Man was evolving culturally, and, this led to an improvement in the ease of his existence and his mastery over the environment. An important trend started to take shape. The overall concept of a variety of divine, anthropomorphic forces remained intact as an explanation for the existence of all changes, events and entities, but, it became slowly obvious to man, the observer, that some events were so predictable, so "static" in the sequence of events constituting a particular happening, that the idea of an anthropomorphic, willed force started to fade somewhat.

Perhaps, the experience of the force of gravity was so familiar and predictable, that it never required a "god" to explain its actions or existence, and, it is likely that man, eventually, associated the flow of water through a rapid or a river with this same principle of gravity. Water would always flow quite predictably, and, in small quantities, quite controllably, from a higher to a lower level, and, with this element of predictability and manipulability, man, eventually, learned to construct a different mental framework of explanations. Rather than attributing an event or happening to the arbitrary, willed and essentially unpredictable impulse of an anthropomorphic force-field, man learned to analyse an event in terms of a constellation of factors or conditions, which would "cause" an event or happening. What is even more important, man learned, that, a careful and accurate observation of the factors and conditions, present at the beginning of an event, would lead to the ability to predict, accurately, its outcome.

In essence, this was nothing new, because on an intuitive or pragmatic level, man had learned, already a long time ago, that it was possible to predict and manipulate an event in such a way, that it could be useful; that the results of such a manipulated event would help him to survive in his struggle against hostile elements in his environment, or, help him in his need to obtain something to eat. For example, when man picked-up a club, a branch, a bone or a stone, and threw it at a prey or a competitor, or someone he intensely disliked, he learned, that he could kill a prey or an enemy much easier in this way, than, by trying to fight or capture his enemy or prey, barehanded. Certainly, we see, here, the intuitive manipulation of a complex series of events, and, only recently, have we been able to explain, quite clearly, and in great detail, what, actually, is happening, whenever we use tools or weapons, and, why we can then obtain results we can not obtain without these tools and weapons.

However, with the advent of a framework of causes and their effects, man started to learn, for the first time, in a conscious, conceptual sense, that it was possible to predict and manipulate some of the forces and events around him. Not only, led such a shift in emphasis of explanation to a lessened fear for the unknown, or the unpredictable, superior will-power of the gods, but, man also started to realise, that the manipulation of an event on the basis of an explanation in terms of causes and their effects, could be far more predictable and certain, compared to an attempt to appease the divine powers with rituals, magic manipulations, prayers or sacrifices.

It was clear, that man's successes at manipulating his environment were spectacular, especially, when we look at the creation of tools and weapons, and, lately, at the ability to analyse and quantitize the physical environment, but, man's ability to understand in terms of causes and effect remained severely limited, whenever he was dealing with his own behaviour. Now, we know more about man's behaviour. We know more about the way he functions, as well as the nature of his behavioural flexibility, including the faculty of his voluntary choice. We know, now, why man started to explain the environment around him in terms of anthropomorphic mechanisms.

Ironically, man started to see around him a pantheon of forces that operated the observable world in a manner that reflected man's intuitive perception of himself, but, as man progressed, slowly, on the path of constructing a sphere of more reliable reality perceptions, (where the phenomena of changes and events were grasped in concepts of cause and effect), man became more and more "isolated", as he turned-out to be the lonely bearer of a faculty developed by natural evolution. Man found himself to be the lonely bearer of the faculty of a conscious awareness, with the ability to form and communicate in conceptual symbols, as well as the ability to initiate a voluntary, deliberately willed and arbitrary act of behaviour.

This is, indeed, a remarkable development; from a reality interpretation, where virtually all changes and events were considered to be the result of a voluntary, willed, behavioural choice by a god or spirit, we have gradually formed an imagery of reality, where everything, even, the existence of life, the myriad of species', the Universe and its countless galaxies, and, even, thinking, wondering and conscious man himself, is explained in terms of causes and their effects; in terms of natural, essentially predictable paths of evolutionary change.

Let me hasten to add, that, only a small minority of people in our modern, scientific times, have come to such an audacious conclusion, which lets them see this vast framework of causes and their effects, without the help of a Creator or a Prime Mover. This is not an easy picture of reality, and, the concepts of natural evolution, as well as those of detailed scientific mechanisms, are far more difficult to grasp than the concepts of Creation by a Divine, anthropomorphic Force.

Most people, who have been widely exposed to the sciences and the technological mastery of our modern era, have formed some sort of a "hybrid" frame of reality interpretations. All the correlations of the accepted sciences with their vast, inter-connecting chain-links of causes and effects, are accepted at face value, but, the idea of an overall Creator, or a God, who has revealed Himself, to some extent, in a set of Holy Scriptures, remains a powerful and persuasive form of belief.

Indeed, it is the most logical conclusion for most people, because they feel, rightly, somewhat skeptical about the claims of the sciences that there is nowhere any evidence for a willed, anthropomorphic force, and, many of the sciences, together with their technological offspring, seem to deteriorate into chaos and danger, whenever the sciences and their human manipulators are carried-away by over-confidence in their ability to master nature.

Yet, such a hybrid belief-structure remains difficult, because it always leads to conflicts. These conflicts are primarily of an intellectual nature, when the insights of evolutionary development become incompatible with the divinely revealed images of a "Creator", and, these conflicts become deeply emotional, when such a hybrid belief-structure has to reconcile the belligerent and destructive nature of man with the belief, that man himself is responsible for his "Fall from Grace", absolving an all-loving, all-knowing God from the responsibility of having created "man" as a fallible creature, in the fore-knowledge that man would fall into a state of disgrace or "Original Sin".

The hybrid belief-structure comes, now, also increasingly into conflict with the insights that are slowly developing about man's nature, his behaviour, his biological background or heritage, as well as the possibilities created by a conscious awareness. This conscious awareness has a tendency to form a structure of beliefs and interpretations with communicable concepts and ideas about the nature of man's beliefs and his conscious awarenesses.

Let me not give the impression, that a belief-structure, based entirely on the ability to construct a coherent network of cause and effect, does not lead to difficulties. There are still so many gaps in this network of causal relationships, and, there are so many difficulties in believing the accuracy of these complex links of causes and effects, that we have a long way to go, before such a vast panorama of potential predictabilities becomes an attractive way to look at reality. As we have discussed earlier, we can certainly not hope to construct such a vast and coherent framework of structural and functional relationships between causes and their effects, if we hold-on to the belief, that such scientific images represent "the truth" as it really is. Only, if we are willing to examine, very carefully, the influence of our particular, and, perhaps, peculiar characteristics of existence on the shape and form of our reality-perceptions, only, then, can we hope to increase the value and the persuasiveness of such a vast network of coherent relationships.

However, we are straying somewhat from a discussion of the "change", or, the vast panorama of changes, events and happenings, which we can see around us. Let us accept the fact, that, indeed, in the sphere of the "physical" realities, we have been extra-ordinarily successful in creating such a network of coherent causes and effects, and, we see, that we can, indeed, grasp the phenomena of nature around us in concepts of predictability.

These concepts represent, then, a "natural law", or principle of predictability, which takes the anthropomorphic features out of our experiences and interpretations. None of us will really consider thunder and lightning to represent the temper of an angry god, and, nobody will interpret the sudden devastation of an earth-quake, a land-slide or a flash-flood as "God's punishment" for our sins. However, we realise, that we come, here, already much closer to anthropomorphic interpretations of reality which are still current amongst many religious segments in contemporary societies.

Since the beginning of the era of modern science, we have learned to "see" much more of reality than we can see or experience with our naked senses. Many tools and instruments have enlarged our sphere of reality to the point, that we can focus our attention upon the magnitude of the entire Universe, and, we can expand, at least, in our imagination, the space of the Universe to such an extent, that we can even ask ourselves, what there is "beyond" the Universe. On the other hand, we can also focus our attention upon the details of sub-atomic structures, and, while, even, our most sophisticated instruments do not let us "see", directly, the existence of atoms and sub-atomic structures, we have so much indirect evidence for their existence and behavioural characteristics, that nuclear scientists have been able to agree, to a remarkable extent, about the mental images that let us visualise these worlds; each with their own constellation of events.

Reality exists, therefore, on many different planes, from the extremely large scale to the world of sub-atomic events, and, it is, indeed, remarkable, that, in the mental imagery of the cosmos and its happenings, the very large and the very small worlds of existence blend harmoniously to give us a mental imagery of reality that is more comprehensive and more detailed than has ever been possible before. Yet, the fact, that our reality-perceptions are, now, structured into a variety of "worlds", with several layers of perception that do not flow completely logically and overseeably into each other, gives rise to an unusual and peculiar feature in our atempts to grapple with the realities that surround us. The layering of reality into a large number of different worlds, each with their own peculiar vocabulary of concepts and images, has been made necessary by this vast expansion of knowledge and "information".

Even, before the enlargement of the sphere of reality by scientific instruments and investigative techniques, we have employed, many times, the processes of "summary"; of summarising a large variety of observable but variable phenomena into a new, single and apparently uniform or homogeneous concept, which, then, starts to function, together with many others like it, as a building-block in the next layer, or, the next "world" of our sphere of reality perceptions. For example, when we see the myriad of droplets of water falling out of the sky, we say, that it has started to "rain", and, we summarise, thereby, the myriad of events of falling water droplets into the concept of "rain."

We have seen in the discussion about the classification of sense-impressions and concepts, how a particular sense-impression is constantly referred to its proper classification by emphasising, or abstracting, the qualities that make it suitable for inclusion into a particular, known category. For example, when man started to make a large number of individual instruments to do a particular job, he invented the term "tools" by abstracting a common characteristic of all these instruments; nl. that they are all used to help him accomplish a particular objective or task. If these tasks become a defense against enemies, the category of "tools" changes to the category of "weapons", but the same summarising principle applies; now centered around the idea, that these "tools" and implements are used, specifically, in a fight with those considered to be enemies of the small society that is applying generalising or classifying principles to the vocabulary of conceptual entities.

Other examples of summarising concepts, or word-symbols, are, e.g. a forest, where a large number of trees, bushes and other forms of vegetation are grouped-together under the single concept of a "forest", but, at the same time, these summarising concepts leave a large margin of flexibility in their meaning. The meaning can later be made more precise or specific, if necessary or relevant, by specifying, or describing, additional qualities or specifics. For example, we can describe the forest by saying, whether it is large or small, dense or sparsely populated with trees, what sort of trees are predominant, and, we can indicate a particular region within the forest, or, we can indicate a particular forest, and in what direction and at what distance this forest is situated.

Here, we touch upon another basic characteristic, or quality, which is almost invariably associated with the existence of our awarenesses, in particular, the awareness of a specific event or circumstance. We have seen, that the quality of existence applies to all entities of awareness, and, we know, now, that the quality of a "time-interval" applies to all phenomena of change. So is the quality of the perception of space apparent to all entities of awareness that take place, or are located, in a particular area of our sphere of reality-perceptions.

Just as we would have no need to abstract the quality of time, if we would not be exposed to the phenomena of change, so would we not be aware of the quality of space, if we would not experience the fact, that a variety of differing events or circumstances could exist simultaneously, but geographically, or spatially, separated from each other. In other words; the perception of space is an abstraction, based on the experience of non-homogeneity, or, the experience of a multitude of differences and varying awarenesses existing, simultaneously, in different locations. This, of course, was made possible by the capabilities of stereo-vision and stereo-hearing.

Some of my readers will feel, again, some difficulties in accepting the idea, that the perception of space is an abstraction, created by the human mind, just as we experienced a measure of resistance and doubt, whenever we were asked to believe, that the fact of existence was merely a quality or abstraction, dependent upon an intact and functioning human organism. Let us, therefore, discuss, in detail, the perception of space. Let us analyse the reasons, why we can perceive space, and, why we perceive space only in three dimensions.

We should, then, discuss such ideas as the "space-time continuum", where, for a variety of reasons, time is considered to be a "dimension", just like the others. We will discuss our fundamental objections to such an equation between time and the three dimensions of space. We hope to argue, convincingly, that time is a fundamentally different perception, compared to a spatial dimension, and, we will see, why the absence of reciprocity, of sliding arbitrarily forwards or backwards on the scale of time, must make any notion of the reversibilty of time, interesting and, perhaps, even, exciting "science-fiction".

At the same time, we will also discuss the notion, that we can "expand" the dimensions of space arbitrarily, because we have learned to expand the mathematical manipulation of space with three dimensions to a formulation, in mathematical terms, with any number of dimensions. We will see, that the "imaginability" of the sphere of reality is the crux of the entire existence of a sphere of reality, because, after all, we are the creators of such a sphere of reality. At the end of this discussion, we will come back, again, upon the summarising functions of the human mind.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Two different forms of mental summarising; grouping awarenesses together, and, shifting from one world of complexity to the next.
The concepts of a cell, atom, earth, galaxy, Universe, etc.
A step-wise progression of our mind through the various worlds of reality.
A short discussion of topics to come.
Three-dimensional space.
The perception of space, and the "body-plan" of an organism.
The development of head to tail, dorsal to ventral, and left to right, axes.
A point in space and time.
The dimension of time is not reversible.
A trap of unwarranted philosophical speculations.
The lure of symmetry assumptions.
The imagery of the Universe as a "closed system".
A gigantic "cosmic egg"; infinite, yet finite.

We have briefly mentioned two different forms of mental summarising; one form is the classifying or categorising action of the human mind, as we learn to group awarenesses with similar characteristics together, and, the other "summarising" function is the shift from one world of complexity to the next. For example, if we start to look at the myriad of phenomena we can see and describe within a cell, we are likely to lose sight of the many functions in the cell because of the enormous complexity of the structure as a whole, and, in many of our efforts to create a workable sphere of reality-perceptions, we just have to summarise a whole world of existence into a single concept or word, such as a "cell", an atom, the earth, a galaxy, the Universe, etc.

It is important to have a clear understanding about this step-wise progression of our mind through the various worlds of reality that are potentially within our sphere of understanding, because on this step-wise progression from one world to the next, (with the help of summarising concepts), depends our interpretation of the degree of randomness, or the degree of guidance, to which an event is subjected. This step-wise progression from one world to the next, with the help of summarising concepts, is made necessary by an unmanageably large number of awarenesses and facts of knowledge, and, this brings us, at the same time, to the concept of infinity, which plays such an important role, when considering the qualities of existence, time and space. We will see, how the concept of infinity plays havoc with our imagination, and, how important it is to understand, clearly, what we mean by infinity, when discussing such questions as; "where does the Universe come from? Did it "always" exist? Where does matter and energy come from? Where does God come from? Did God always exist? Why can we not really grasp the concept of "always", or the concepts of an "infinite span of time or expanse of space?"

We will see, how important the concept of infinity is, especially, when we discuss the ideas of a "curved" or "closed" Universe; infinite, yet finite, etc. Finally, we want to come back to the question, whether or not an event is "always" guided, meaning, that it always takes place under the influence of forces and circumstances existing in a particular environment. We will round-off the discussion with a review of the ideas about the nature of the voluntary human will, and, we will discuss the question, whether or not this will is "free". What do we understand under the concept of a "free will", and, does it mean, that our "will" is still determined by the factors and conditions that exist at the time we make such an apparently "free" decision?

When man started to look around him in a conscious manner, he noticed, that an item or event could take place in a specific location, and, that a different object, item of awareness or event could exist, or take place, at the same time, somewhere else. The experience of the simultaneous existence of different items or events, in different locations, gave man the conscious awareness of space, and, he learned, eventually, to refer a point in space to three planes of reference, which are located at right angles to each other

However, the place, where these planes would intersect, would, or could, vary, and, even the angle of one system in relation to another could be different. Yet, regardless, how we look at the space we experience around us, this space is defined, always, by a reference to three planes existing at right angles to each other. It is not possible to define space with two planes, nor, is it possible to visualise a sort of space that has to be determined by four planes at right angles to each other. Regardless, how hard we try, we can only imagine three planes at right angles, and, if we add a fourth plane at right angles, it will always be parallel to one of the existing planes.

Of course, long before we developed a conscious awareness of "space", and, long before we learned to define a point in space with three coordinates to a system of reference, man, as well as all living organisms, had developed a behaviour-pattern that reacted "appropriately" to the space in which he existed. (Let us remind ourselves, here, that the imagery we are developing is our particular perception of reality, and, that we see other organisms react to their environment in our particular sphere of reality).

However, we see an interesting phenomenon, here. The more primitive animals do not have the physiological capability to orient themselves completely into the type of space we know. If we look at a single-celled organism, we see, that it does not really have a front or a rear-end, an upper or lower side, nor, a left and a right side. These organisms drift through the water and they can only react towards or away from a stimulus, but, this movement away may be upwards or downwards, to the left or the right, or, even, forwards or backwards, as seen in our sphere of reality. We have to postulate, that this primitive organism does not have any appreciation of "space", not, even, in a behavioural meaning of the word.

We have to assume, that its environment is uni-directional, where there is a gradient between positive and negative stimuli, if it is experiencing positive or negative stimuli. If there is no such stimulus, this gradient falls-away. The environment is, then, essentially homogeneous, and, there is nothing in the sensory apparatus, or "appreciating mechanisms" of such a primitive cell, to suggest the existence of "space". Quickly, (in an evolutionary sense), the multi-cellular organism develops an "axis" in its body, which differentiates between fore and aft, but, even, the more primitive multi-cellular organisms may not have such a differentiation into a fore and aft, but, only, a differentiation between "inside" and "outside".

The next step in the evolution of spatial orientation is the combination of fore and aft with an inside and an outside, but, there is really no evidence for an up and down, or a left and a right side. Only in the more complex multi-cellular organisms are we beginning to see a full spatial orientation, when the organism develops a front to back axis, with a differentiation into a head and a tail, a dorsal and a ventral side, or a "back" and a "belly" side. The last symmetry to be differentiated, is the difference between right and left. However, all organisms remain remarkably symmetrical in this respect, except for some noted exceptions, and, even, in the human being, this differentiation, at least, the conscious awareness of a differentiation into a left and a right side, requires a measure of mental concentration, aided by a few mnemo-technical mechanisms. This differentiation between right and left is also facilitated by the fact, that we develop a specific preference in using our right or left arm or leg, for a variety of functions.

In short, our body-plan reflects the three dimensional orientation or the three perpendicular planes of reference, when we consider the axis of head to tail, dorsal to ventral and right to left. It is, therefore, logical, if not inevitable, that we have learned to see space as defined by three perpendicular planes or axes, where the planes inter-sect each other at right angles. When we use an algebraic or geometrical technique to define a point in space by its distance from the three planes of reference, we see, that, any point can be represented by three numerical values, and, if we specify a particular point also in time, when this point existed, we note, that the point is completely defined by the three "space-coordinates" or spatial constants, and one time-coordinate.

The fact, that these mathematical values can be manipulated with great dexterity, combined with the fact, that these manipulations have led to remarkable insights and a strong feeling of "reality", has led to the concept, that time can be considered another "dimension" or coordinate, and, that we may consider a "space-time" continuum as an example of a four-dimensional space. Mathematical manipulations and techniques let us expand the number of spatial dimensions to any particular value, and, these mathematical manipulations, with an arbitrary number of dimensions, have acquired an aura of mystical authority in some circles. However, let us examine closely, whether or not such a mathematical tour de force has any relevance for the perception of reality. Is it really useful to extrapolate the mathematical representations of space to four or even more dimensions?

As a matter of fact, we have to examine, very carefully, whether or not it is justified to consider time a "fourth" dimension, which can be manipulated and moved back and forth arbitrarily, like the three dimensions of space. The fact, that we can do so mathematically, does not prove, for one moment, that the resulting mathematical conclusions have any basis in reality. Ironically, we see, that our modern times have fallen into the same trap of unwarranted philosophical extrapolations, which led to the break-away of the sciences from old-fashioned philosophy, because the art of "knowing" had deteriorated into interminable and largely useless philosophical speculations about a possible reality, without making an effort to verify the validity of these philosophical conclusions with direct observations and experiments.

When we look at a point in space, we see, that, indeed, its three spatial coordinates can vary in any direction, depending on its location in relation to the planes of reference, or, vice versa. However, if we look at the fourth coordinate, time, we see, that, each and every point in space progresses simultaneously along this fourth axis. Certainly, some points in space may have started their existence earlier than others, but, we can not visualise any point in this framework of space moving "backwards" in time, nor, can we see the entire system moving backwards. Besides, even if we manage to "imagine" a backward movement of the coordinate of time, we see, then, that all events proceed from a lower level of energy to a higher one. This means, that we would see water flowing up-hill, or, a stone falling towards the sky, etc.

Scientists, in their eagerness to explain the phenomena and happenings of atomic and sub-atomic events, which is the world of nuclear physics, have been rewarded with a remarkable level of success, when they assumed the occurrence of symmetrical events, such as the creation of a photon and anti-photon complex in the annihilation of particles in a head-on collision, or, the formation of other elementary particles as mirror images of each other. The arbitrariness of a direction of spin suggested, logically, the creation of particles with a spin in opposite directions, and, from these considerations and observations, nuclear scientists and theoretical physicists, have built-up a remarkable imagery of matter and anti-matter, photons and anti-photons, etc.

It was logical, that this symmetry would be expanded to the concept of time, in particular, when a sophisticated consideration of the effects of light, traveling at a finite speed between systems of reference that were moving at a great speed in relation to each other, showed, that such fundamental constants as the perception of time and space, would be altered by these shifting and speeding systems of reference.

The attempts to unify the coordinates of time and space, have also led to the idea, that the Universe is a "closed" system, meaning, that, in essence, the volume of matter-energy contained in the Universe, is unimaginably large, yet finite, and, that the expanse of the Universe is, similarly, "infinitely large", and, yet, finite. The idea is roughly this; if we imagine our coordinates of space, (and time?), to extend indefinitely in all directions, they will eventually "curve" and meet each other, because there is no such thing as perfect or infinite linearity. The Universe, then, becomes something like a gigantic "cosmic egg" that would appear infinite to us, but, in essence, an indefinite extension along the coordinates of space and time, would lead us to return to our place, (and time), of origin.

On the one hand, this imagery is a clever attempt to combine the difficult concepts of the unimaginably large with the infinite, and, it seems to give an answer to the problem, when "time began". The imagery of our present concepts about the origin of the Universe consists of a gigantic explosion and a radiating ball of light, streaming into all directions, where the photons turn, gradually, here and there, into elementary particles or inter-stellar "dust", giving rise to galaxies that are spreading at a speed close to the speed of light. This leaves us with the problem, that the origin of this Big Bang, must have been preceded by another Universe, which, eventually, contracted and collapsed into this gigantic Primordial Explosion.

We see, then, in essence, an Oscillating Universe, alternating, in perpetuity, between an expanding phase and a contracting phase. Then, the slowly increasing predominance of "matter-energy" over radiant energy, leads to an ever increasing gravitational contraction and the eventual collapse of most, if not all matter results into this gigantic conversion, where all orbital or matter-energy is again transformed into radiant energy. This is the concept of a gigantic "Universal" explosion, or Big Bang.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The imagery of an oscillating Universe.
An infinite Universe in three-dimensional space.
Clever and persuasive claims to have "broken through" the limitations of our three-dimensional reality perceptions.
Problems with the imagery of general relativity.
A "mind-boggling" time-span has nothing to do with the concept of infinity.
A look at the "red-shift".
Why we can not imagine something to come from nothing.
Matter and energy can not disappear, but can only be transformed into another form of matter-energy.
Rotatory or orbital forms of energy, called "matter".
Inter-locking and radiant energy-forms.
The concept of predominance in the balance between radiant and inter-locking energy-forms.
A pendulum, swinging through its moment of maximum kinetic energy.
The Universal pendulum flashes through its most concentrated point at the time of the "Big Bang".
The impact of this imagery on our daily reality perceptions.
Energy relationships.
The absorption of a photon of light by an electron encircling an atom.
The need for solid structures.
A river flowing through its bed; the phenomenon of fluidity.
Sudden transformations; the phenomenon of "rain".
The phenomenon of "scatter"; the characteristic bell-like curve around a "mean" or average.
The unstable nucleus.
Scatter or haphazard events disappear, when viewed at the level of mini- or sub-events.
Increasing the element of predictability.

The image of an Oscillating Universe leaves us with a repetitive event that our imagination can grasp, but, it also leaves us with the distinct feeling, that such an Oscillating Universe takes-in only a finite mass or energy-content, as well as a finite amount of space, even, at its most expanded moment during the oscillatory cycle.

Here, we see the logic to imagine the Universe as a gigantic volume of space, yet finite. The imagery of the "other" dimensions becomes, then, a way to "explain", why it can be finite and infinite at the same time. Just as the surface of a sphere is infinite for someone who exists, only, in the two dimensions of a flat surface, we, as inhabitants of a three-dimensional world, see, how, and why, the world of a flat surface appears infinite to the two-dimensional world, and, yet, it is finite, for us, living in a three-dimensional world.

Similarly, we see, that the Universe is infinite in our sphere of three-dimensional reality, but, for an intelligence that can exist in a multi-dimensional sphere of reality, the finite nature of our Universe may be quite obvious. Unfortunately, such a reasoning immediately opens the door to para-scientific or meta-physical speculations. There are always clever and persuasive people, who will come-up with a variety of claims to have "broken-through" the limitations of our three-dimensional reality-perceptions.

The scientific concepts of a relativity in the perception of space, distance and time, has led to very remarkable insights, and, these insights have given us another "dimension" of precision in understanding the perception and measurement of essential phenomena, such as time, mass, gravity, etc. However, in an effort to unify the concepts or constants that we are aware of, the attempts to equate the concepts of mass and inertia have led to cramped conclusions. It is quite true, that the identical value of mass, as determined by the attraction of gravity, and, as a resistance to a constant force of acceleration, make it seem plausible to equate the concepts of inertia and gravitation. However, the resulting imagery with the "dents in space", caused by the presence of matter, together with the explanation that light is affected by gravity because of "local dents" in space, caused by the presence of matter, are images that are not valid, so far as I am concerned. Neither can I accept the imagery of a space-time continuum; a "closed", or egg-like volume of infinite, yet finite, Universal Space, nor, do I accept the reality of time as an equivalent fourth coordinate, or, the reality of multi-dimensional space, in spite of clever mathematical manipulations.

We have argued these topics quite extensively in the essay "Oscillations", and, we will not repeat the arguments here. I would only like to discuss, here, in more detail, the implications of the concept of "infinity". We should reserve the concept of "infinity" for a true infinity, which means, that we can not imagine anything beyond whatever is considered to be infinite. If we say, e.g., that the Universe is unimaginably large, we may still think or imagine it to be even larger, and, then, by definition, the Universe is not infinitely large.

At the present time, we have the idea or concept that this "Big Bang", or the primordial explosion of the Universe, took place approximately fifteen billion years ago. Let us assume, that we are about half-way through this last oscillation. (an assumption made plausible by the fact, that the galaxies in our "neighbourhood" are not expanding anymore, because they are not anymore flying-away from each other. As a matter of fact, they may already have started to contract, and, we may be somewhat beyond the "half-way" point or the point of maximal Universal expansion.)

Let us assume, that the Universe has a total life-span of about thirty billion years; at least, the oscillating period is, then, considered to be about thirty billion years. For our imagination, this is a mere trifle, because we can easily grasp and express mathematically, a time-span that would include thirty billion oscillations of the Universe. While this is "mind-boggling" or straining the imagination, it has nothing to do with the concept of "infinity". Therefore, thirty billion oscillations of the Universe still does not take up an "infinite" amount of time, because we can easily imagine and express an even longer period of time.

Let us apply the same arguments and examples, when we look at the size of the Universe. The further we look in space, the further we look back in time, because the speed of light is finite, and, it is, therefore, logical that the further away the light comes from, the further back we look in time. Therefore, the furthest galaxies still seem to be receding at a speed close to the speed of light, (the red-shift), but, the galaxies are actually contracting now, if we accept the hypothesis, that the space, or, at least, the portion of the Universe which we can see, is representative for the Universe as a whole.

We can not see any difference in the density of the Universe, regardless in what direction we look, and, therefore, we have no idea, how large the entire Universe is, compared to the sample-area we can see. As long as we have no idea, what percentage of the Universe we can "see" with our instruments, we do not know, how large the Universe is, and, we do not know, whether it is finite or infinite. It is, therefore, useless to speculate, whether or not we have to imagine the Universe as limited in mass and expanse, with something "beyond it". Perhaps, we have to accept, at least, for the time being, the concept that, indeed, the Universe extends as far out as we can imagine.

Let us have another look at the imagery of an Oscillating Universe, because it gives us a remarkably coherent basis for the construction of a satisfying sphere of reality-perceptions and interpretations. While we visualise each oscillation as definitely finite in time and concept, we have to imagine or accept the origin, or "beginning", of such an oscillating system of matter-energy, as going back "infinitely" in time. The reason is simple. We can not imagine something to come from nothing, at least, we see, nowhere, in the field of scientific knowledge, that such an event is possible, and, the maintenance of an "energy-balance" in all the happenings and events we can observe, has become a fundamental corner-stone in the concepts of our reality-perceptions.

If matter and energy can not "disappear", but, if they can only be transformed into each other, as well as into an inexhaustible variety of combinations of matter-energy, we can not imagine the existence of a time-period that pre-existed the existence of the matter-energy we see and experience to be oscillating in the Universe. The image of an Oscillating Universe gives us an overall, "universal" image of the continuously alternating states of matter and energy, where energy exists, either, in a radiant, electro-magnetic form, or, it exists in an orbital, rotating or inter-locking configuration, where it forms, under a variety of specific circumstances, ever more complex types of rotatory or orbital forms of existence, we call "matter".

As an overall concept, we visualise, how the original explosion or Big Bang, is entirely composed of radiant energy, which radiates into all directions at the speed of light. In our concepts of an expanding "ball of light", this rate of expansion is still rather "slow", seen on a cosmic scale. As the light or radiant energy expands, its concentration becomes less, its frequency drops, and the expanding ball of light "cools". Eventually, (we do not know, precisely, how, but there are many speculative images), eventually, the radiant electro-magnetic wave-fronts become "unstable" and develop a tendency to "inter-lock". Then, they form rotating di-poles or tri-poles, which could be the earliest and most primitive particles of matter. We visualise, then, a whole complex of evolutionary changes, where matter-particles seek, not only, a variety of complex forms or possibilities of existence, but, the essential characteristic of the locked-in or rotating electro-magnetic energy-unit, is the fact that this locked-in state of matter-energy is associated with the phenomenon of "gravitational attraction".

The reader will find an extensive speculative discussion of the phenomenon of gravitation in the essay "Oscillations". Let us just recall, here, an overall view of this subject-matter, which is not really speculative, but is supported by scientific evidence, so far as I know. If energy exists in a radiant form, it "expands" at the speed of light, until it becomes "unstable", or, until it collides with another electro-magnetic or orbital form of energy. Then, it forms, spontaneously, elementary, rotating energy complexes or particles of matter, or, an electro-magnetic wave-front may be absorbed in a variety of ways by existing matter particles.

It is probably accurate to say, that, not all matter and energy exists in either one form or the other. Even, at the time of maximal contraction, during the explosive primordial "Big Bang", there was, probably, some matter-energy around which was not contracted into this vast, gigantic fireball, and, even, at the time of maximum expansion, not all energy has been converted to matter particles of one sort or another.

As a matter of fact, the image of the primordial "Big Bang" is reflected in the gravitational contraction of a large mass of inter-stellar "dust", made-up, primarily, of hydrogen atoms. We see, how quicky the gravitational contraction leads to a "hot center", where thermo-nuclear reactions begin to break-up the elementary, rotatory energy complexes and transform, at least, in part, matter back into a radiant form of energy. The Big Bang idea of a primordial explosion is, therefore, mirrored in the countless stars within countless galaxies, until we see, that, throughout the Universe, almost from the start, and, certainly, close to the end of an overall Universal Oscillation, matter is converted into radiant energy and radiant energy is converted into, or absorbed by, matter.

This imagery gives us a good basis to start considering, finally, the nature of an event that is taking place within our sphere of reality, and, without going into a great deal of physical details, we should be able to formulate a coherent answer to the questions of guidance and randomness in the occurrence of events. But, before we do so, I like to elaborate one more image of the Universe, which may help us to understand its mechanisms. Like a huge pendulum, the matter-energy content of the Universe oscillates, continuously, between a contracting form, where the gravitational energy becomes more and more predominant, until it reaches a critical point, and, then, the stability of nearly all matter becomes impossible.

At this point of maximal contraction, the matter-energy content is converted into a radiant form. However, as the speed of expansion slows, a process of matter-condensation is taking place. This process is taking place widely spread throughout the Universe, and, this widely dispersed matter has, again, a high potential of gravitational energy.

Just as a pendulum stands "still" at its highest point, with a maximum of "potential" energy, so is the Universe at its most expanded moment, full of "potential" gravitational energy. As matter starts to coalesce in larger and larger bodies, eventually, a speedy collapse into a highly dense center of matter-energy occurs, with a sudden transfer of gravitational energy into radiant energy. At this point, the Universal "pendulum" flashes through its lowest, or most concentrated point, and, just as a pendulum suddenly changes its descent into an ascent, so is the contraction stopped and replaced by an expanding form of radiant energy.

As we mentioned, we can divide the entities of our awarenesses into two broad categories; those that change, and, those that stay the same. However, we know, now, that, even, the apparently most immutable status-quo does change, eventually, if we could observe such a status-quo over a very long period of time. Rocks and continents change, but, also, species' and atomic elements have a tendency to change, even, if we would have to wait for the next "Big Bang" before some of the most stable matter-energy complexes will again be transformed into radiant energy. From a practical point of view, this division into entities that remain more or less stable and those that are characterised by a profound change, is still valid.

Interestingly, our modern views about the oscillation of energy between a state of radiant existence, and, a state that is characterised by orbital, inter-locking forms of energy, allows us to interpret our everyday realities quite well. We can, indeed, classify the forces of nature into two broad categories; those, resulting from the presence of matter, and those, that are associated with the presence of radiant energy.

The force of gravitation is a clear example of a matter-oriented force, while those of heat, light or radio-waves, are due to the presence of a radiant form of energy. Somewhat in between are the forces of "electricity" or electrical charge. These force-fields depend on the existence of an orbital form of energy, but, we know, now, that the charged matter-particle, the electron, has also a tendency to behave like, or convert into, an electro-magnetic wave-front.

Many of the potentials, pressures or affinities to form bonds between atomic elements, depend on the acquisition of some sort of force; for example, when an object is elevated, it acquires a greater degree of potential energy, because it can release more gravitational energy when it is lowered over a longer trajectory, before it comes to rest at a point of gravitational stability. Then, it can not release anymore gravitational energy, unless the circumstances of "rest" change. This type of energy is closely related to the increase in kinetic energy an object of matter can release, (such as a pendulum), if its speed of propagation in relation to a particular frame of reference, has been increased. On the other hand, an object can increase its energy-content, also, because its temperature has increased, and this is due to the absorption of radiant or electro-magnetic energy.

A molecule may also absorb energy by having some of its electrons "knocked out" into a more distant orbit, and, this energy can be released again as light, or, it can be used to fuel a variety of chemical reactions. This is, again, an example of an electro-magnetic or radiant form of energy, because the initial electron-excitation is usually the result of the absorption of a photon of light. Chemical pressures or tendencies to form bonds depend on the possibility to share electron-pathways, and, if the shared electrons "fall" or descend into lower-energy orbits when forming such a chemical bond, a certain amount of energy is "liberated", nearly always in the form of heat.

We see, also, that "electro-static fields" can move susceptible particles such as electrons, and the same mechanisms apply to changing magnetic fields. Gases and liquids can form pressure-differentials, resulting in a flow of molecules, but, pressure differentials in solid substances create a "stress", because if these pressures are not exceeding the structural strength, or integrity, of a solid object, the crystalline structures of a solid object will resist these pressures or "shearing forces".

If it was not possible to have "solid" structures that could resist a fair amount of pressure, especially, gravitational pressure, we could not live on land, because we need bones to support our structure, and, the large plants find their strength in a variety of cellulose structures.

If we look at a river flowing in its bed, or a rapid, where the river suddenly "drops" much faster, or, if we look at the rain coming-down from the sky, we see the common denominator of a gravitational force acting upon a fluid or slippery substance. The molecules of water are sliding and slipping in relation to each other, as each of them responds to the gravitational pull of the earth. If we look at the evaporation of water from the seas and the lakes, we see, how water-molecules absorb thermal or radiant energy, and, eventually, escape from the water surface. They become air-born, and later, they form clouds, as they begin to coalesce again because of a gradual loss of thermal energy. Sometimes, the concentration of water molecules becomes too great for the ability of the air to keep the water-vapour suspended as water-molecules. The water molecules begin to coalesce into droplets and, then, they begin to fall rapidly as "rain".

Other phenomena, such as the wind, thunder and lightning, the tides, floods, earth-quakes, volcanic eruptions, yes, all the observable phenomena around us can now be grasped, at least, in outline, by such a series of predictable causes and effects. However, the pattern of causes and effects is often so complex, and so beyond our grasp, that we can only name the overall effect. If an event is, in reality, made-up of a very large number of similar but not identical sub-events, then, the results or the effects of a cause, will show a degree of "scatter", where the results are not always identical, but tend to vary in a characteristic bell-like curve around a "mean" or "average", which is the most common value or result for this group of sub-events.

However, it is important to realise, that, at least in theory, we could know the outcome of each of the many sub-events, if we had the means to record or study them all. For example, when rain starts to fall from the sky, we see the drops fall, then here, and then there, and, we have no way of predicting, when, or where, the next droplet will fall, but, this does not mean, that the event of the formation of a rain-drop, its growth to a particular size, its descent through the air, and its eventual impact somewhere on a solid object, on the ground or in the water, occurs "haphazardly", randomly, or without an internal series of causes and their effects.

No, each mini- or sub-event is guided by a large variety of circumstances, from moment to moment, which determine what is happening with this rain-drop as it is forming and falling through the air, but, in the overall concept of "rain", we say, that the drops are falling "randomly" over a certain area.

There are many examples of such apparently random events; for example, the nuclear disintegration of a piece of radio-active material occurs extremely haphazardly, then here, then there, and, we can predict with a remarkable degree of accuracy the number of disintegrations over a specific period of time, for a specific type of radio-active material, but, we say, that the actual disintegration processes happen "randomly" or haphazardly through the material, because we have no way of predicting, which atom is going to disintegrate.

This does not mean, however, that the processes that lead to a disintegration, occur randomly or haphazardly. A nucleus is constantly subjected to strains and stresses, as its particles whirl and twirl, but a "stable" nucleus is characterised by the fact, that these stresses never really exceed a critical breaking point under the prevailing conditions. In radio-active materials, however, these stresses fluctuate so intensely, that, within a measurable period of time, they will exceed the binding forces of the nucleus, and lead to a nuclear disintegration. We can not predict this moment, because we can not follow these stresses, as they take place within the nucleus. However, if we had the means to monitor these internal stresses, we certainly could see the beginning of a nuclear disintegration, and, we would not call this process "random".

Somewhat similar mechanisms are at work in a volcanic eruption. As we learned more about the warning signs and symptoms of volcanic eruptions, and, as we learned how to measure geological stresses and movements of the earth, the ability to predict a volcanic eruption increased markedly, and took the randomness out of such an event.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

An event or happening takes place in accordance with its causative forces.
Statistical correlations; another summarising concept of the mind, making a large number of sub-events manageable and overseeable.
The linkage between smoking and lung-cancer; a short discussion.
Questions about the regulatory mechanisms of a multi-cellular organism.
Complex control and feed-back mechanisms.
The problem of complexity.
The concept, that, nowhere in our sphere of reality, events are influenced by an arbitrary or willed force-field.
Reflecting on how far this assumption has strayed from a religious or anthropomorphic reality perception.
The tendency to design a reality-image in accordance with the mechanisms of the voluntary human will.
The algebraic summation of positive and negative factors.
The concept of pre-destination in religious reality perceptions.
The crux of human viability seems to be the ability to influence the course of an event.
The increasing predictability of biological phenomena, and the concept of the "free will".
The "voluntary choice" is still an outcome of a large number of subjective evaluations, which may become "predictable" for an intelligent observer.
The "free will"; a predictable excercise of the voluntary choice?
What we need to live in peace and harmony with each other, and, in balance with our terrestial environment.

We can state, therefore, the following; every event or happening takes place in accordance with its causative forces. This includes the characteristics and force-fields of the participating materials, as well as the guiding forces of surrounding circumstances or objects. When an event is, in reality, made-up of a large population of similar but not identical mini- or sub-events, we see the phenomenon of "scatter", or randomness, where the results are clustered in a characteristic way around an average or mean value.

As a matter of fact, we can be sure, that, each and everyone of our observations and awarenesses is, in essence, a "summarising" concept, and, that every conceptualised happening is made-up of several layers of sub-events. Even with the help of our microscopes and other instruments, we are still seeing events that become a unity of existence in our minds, but, these events could, probably, be analysed further into a large variety of sub-events, if we wanted to, or, if we had the means to do so. If these sub-events form, indeed, a rather homogeneous population, then, the results are quite manageable, because we have learned to handle this phenomenon of scatter, or statistical variability, with the help of mathematical concepts and tools. However, if a perceived event is made-up of a very heterogenous population of events, we may not, even, be sure, that there exists a valid correlation between an apparent cause and effect. The relationship becomes then a hypothesis, which we may try to prove or disprove.

For example, if we ask ourselves, whether or not smoking causes a cancer of the lungs, we are in deep trouble, so far as the perception of a clear-cut event is concerned. We aks ourselves, whether there is a link, because, if we can establish such a link, it has important consequences for our decisions, regardless of the fact, whether or not we have a clear idea of the many steps that may be involved in such a linkage between smoking and lung-cancer.

We notice, first of all, that smoking does not cause, invariably, a cancer of the lungs, but, if we look at a large population of people who smoke regularly and inhale the smoke into their lungs, we come to the conclusion, that such a large group as a whole, has a much greater chance to develop lung-cancer, compared to a similar group of non-smokers. We try to keep these groups comparable in all aspects, but one; the smoking of cigarettes, and, we study these two groupings over a period of time. If we see, after ten or twenty years, that the smoking group has, for example, three times as many individuals with a cancer of the lungs, we come to the justifiable conclusion, that smoking cigarettes is a contributing factor to the development of a cancer of the lungs. This does not mean, that it is the only factor, and, it certainly does not mean, that we know, how cigarette smoking contributes to the development of a lung-cancer.

We may, then, decide to carry-out an experiment on animals by applying a certain tar-like substance, produced during the smoking of cigarettes, on the skin of an animal, or, rather, a large group of similar animals, (similar amounts of tar, over a similar patch of skin, at identical intervals, etc.). We may establish, in this way, a much closer link between the contact of certain chemicals on the skin and the cellular reactions which these chemicals are causing. If we see, again, that a fairly large percentage of the tarred skin-patches develop a cancer, we may conclude, that there is a chemical in this tarry paste, which has the ability to cause a cancer. How? We still do not know.

In this way, we can isolate a number of chemical agents with varying tendencies to cause cancers in a variety of exposed tissues, but, we still do not know the actual chain of events that leads to a cancerous growth. The reason is, that we still have only vague ideas about the mechanisms that operate within normal body-cells. We know very little about the mechanisms that make these cells "obey" the "laws" for the common good of the organism. Why, indeed, do cells only grow, or proliferate, "as much as is necessary"? What induces newly formed cells to become well-developed, fully differentiated adult members of the tissues they belong to, and, what happens, when a cell, or a group of cells, "escapes" from such control mechanisms and starts to grow and multiply without any regard for the surrounding tissues?

Obviously, we are dealing with complex control-mechanisms or feed-back regulations from the surrounding tissues, which guide the metabolism of cells in such a way, that they function harmoniously according to the needs of the body as a whole. Therefore, the "damage" done to such control mechanisms may take many different forms, and can be caused in many different ways. The damage may be due to a chemical agent, that, eventually, destroys a part of these mechanisms, without damaging the ability to live and multiply. We also know, that certain strong electro-magnetic radiations have a disrupting effect on the gene-structures of cells, and, we know, that these regulatory codes of the cells within a multi-cellular organism play a crucial role in the appropriate behaviour of a cell during its adult existence. The genetic code functions, not only, during the division of a cell or during the mechanisms of embryological differentiations.

It is easy to see, then, how far we are still away from a reality-perception that lets us see, clearly, each sub-event with all the influences, causative mechanisms and characteristics of the matter particles and force-fields participating in such an event. Yet, the fact, that we do not know most, if not all, the many sub-events, does not prevent us from postulating the principle, that such sub-events are precisely determined in their happenings by the circumstances of the moment, as well as by the characteristics of the participating forces and substances. Of course, we can not prove such a statement, but we can point to the fact, that the entire field of scientific research and scrutiny has been based upon the accuracy of this assumption.

Let us remind ourselves, how far this assumption has strayed from an anthropomorphic or religious reality-perception, and, because scientific investigations tend to dismiss all arbitrary or "willed" events as an illusion of the mind, we should ask ourselves, once more, how we have to interpret the phenomenon of the voluntary, deliberate human will.

There is, indeed, a tendency amongst various scientific schools to deny the reality of a voluntary human will, because psychological studies in human beings and animals show, that behaviour becomes increasingly predictable, as we understand it better. Indeed, it seems, that the appearance of a voluntary or arbitrary choice is undermined, whenever we know and analyse all the factors playing a role at the time such a voluntary decision has to be made. The more accurately we enumerate and evaluate all the factors and circumstances that influence the voluntary will, the more predictable this will or voluntary choice becomes, until we arrive at the concept, where the voluntary choice becomes, in essence, nothing more than the "algebraic summation" of a series of positive and negative factors.

The accuracy of predicting such a voluntary choice, or will, becomes, then, a matter of mathematics. As an example of a mini- or sub-event, scientists have learned to see, that, e.g., the brain is made-up of billions of nerve-cells, which are influenced by positive and negative, or, facilitating and inhibiting electrical impulses. The crucial "decision", whether or not a brain-cell "fires", or discharges, depends, then, upon an algebraic summation of these electrical impulses.

Even in religious circles, the voluntary nature of man's decision-making processes has been questioned by the logic of theological interpretations. For example, the concept of an all-knowing God, (which was the inevitable conclusion of the concept of a perfect God), also led to the conclusion, that, therefore, the future of events and happenings was foreseen in God's Mind. If this is the case, then, the future is going to happen the way it has been foreseen or pre-determined by God. This takes the wind out of the sails of the voluntary human will, and, it even takes the meaning out of a life-long struggle to obey the Will of God. The ultimate consequence of such theological reasoning, is the dreary outlook, that the ultimate fate of each human soul has already been predestined from the beginning, and, it does not seem to deter the theologians or the faithful that God would, apparently, work in such an extremely wasteful and cruel manner, where the Creator allows the development of billions and billions of human souls, all to be damned to a life of eternity in Hell.

Such reasoning seems to become completely untenable when thinking about it closely, and, even, the scientific tendency to deny the existence of a free voluntary behavioural choice, seems to negate the evolutionary development of behavioural flexibility, which is such a large and undeniable factor in the evolution of sophisticated multi-cellular life.

The crux of human viability seems to be, precisely, this capability to influence the course of an event or happening, and, to alter, thereby, the outcome of an event. This means, that the belief in a precise pre-determination of the future, is a fallacy. Certainly, when we look at the cosmic periodicity of expansion and contraction, or, the birth of a large star and its rapid development, or, the gigantic explosions that are associated with the evolution of very large stellar bodies, we are dealing obviously with phenomena we can only look at from a great distance; with a great deal of respect and awe. No-one would suggest, that the course of such events is, in any way, influenced or determined by our human behaviour. Yet, so far as our reality, here, on earth is concerned, almost none of the phenomena and events around us are completely immune from alteration or manipulation by collective or individual human behaviour-patterns.

Our scientists will readily agree with the observation, that human behaviour has a great deal of influence upon the happenings and events taking place in our terrestial environment, just as the existence and behaviour of all life has an enormous influence on terrestial conditions. The presence of life has had, and still has, an influence on the composition of the earth's atmosphere, and, the presence of many fossils and petro-chemicals under the earth's surface show, how far-reaching the influence of life has been.

However, scientists may still adhere to the concept, that the behaviour of all life, including human life, becomes predictable, if, and when, we know, how to analyse and evaluate all the factors and influences that play a role in the life-processes or decision-making processes of the human being. This may, indeed, be the case, and, it may change, to some extent, the concept of an entirely "free will". After all, our voluntary choice is part of a conscious instrument that is designed to work in our favour, and, if we are asked to make a voluntary choice, we are, indeed, weighing the disadvantages against the advantages of a particular choice.

If someone is analysing our behaviour, and, if this person has a clear picture of this balance between favourable and unfavourable factors, the observer will be ale to predict, by and large, what our decision is going to be, because we are not likely to make a choice that is going to harm us. However, we may still "make mistakes", and defy, thereby, the logical choice of an analysing observer. Besides, we should not forget, that the assignment of qualities and significance to our sense-impressions and evaluations, may change rapidly, and somewhat unpredictably, for ourselves, as well as for an intelligent observer, who is trying to predict our behavioural choices.

Let us put it this way; our voluntary choice is a conscious function of the mind, where we choose, "voluntarily", an apropriate response out of a possible range of responses, and, before we are able to determine, which is the most suitable and appropriate response under the circumstances, we have to analyse and weigh, just like our intelligent observer, a large number of factors and influences. If we happen to "think" much like our intelligent observer, we will, indeed, come to an evaluation and a choice that corresponds with the predictions of such an observer, but, the act of evaluating and weighing these factors consciously, and, choosing or shaping the most appropriate, deliberate and intelligent response, is felt, subjectively, as an activity of our "free will".

We have argued, on many occasions, that the intelligent, beneficial and, perhaps, predictable excercise of the faculty of the free will, is going to make the difference between a rather sudden extinction of human life in a disaster of our own making, and, the experience of a long, blissful and, perhaps, rather uneventful period of longevity, where we live a wise and frugal existence, in peace and harmony, with each other, as well as with our terrestial environment.

.......

Summary

1. Existence is an abstraction of the mind.
   The quality of existence can be given to a "ghost".
   The stamp of familiarity.
   A short review of the mechanisms of perception.
   The difference between a mere existence in our mind, and a belief-structure we rely upon as "truthful", whenever we inter-act with our environment.
   The central, life-giving role of individual existence for the sphere of our reality perceptions.
   What happens, when we are asleep.
   Dreaming and day-dreaming.
   Does the moon exist?
   The factor of agreement in the experience of reality.
   The conscious awareness of flexible, intelligent animals.
   A wolf, looking at the moon.
   
   
   
2. A look at the past, the present and the immediate future.
   The past is re-created as a function of contemporary awareness.
   A cultural mode for transmitting mental images.
   A more limited interpretation of contemporary reality by intelligent, non-verbalising animals.
   A rudimentary "anlage" to form conceptual images in anthropoids.
   Comparing verbalisable and non-verbalisable forms of awareness.
   When memory-recall depends on the reception of analogous experiences.
   An animal can not "abstract" in a conscious or deliberate manner.
   What we "see", when we look at the moon.
   Projecting a large amount of mental images into whatever we look at.
   An asymptotic approach to discerning the reality "as it really exists"?
   We have no reason to believe, that we are any closer, now, to an absolute truth than at any time before, during our evolutionary history.
   A look at past generations, and their conviction that they knew reality "as it really existed".
   We always project into our sphere of reality-experiences a form of existence that appears to be independent from our own existence.
   A "compromise definition", but let us be aware of the "human factor".
   The concept of the unknown, or unknowable, becomes part of our sphere of reality.
   
   
   
3. A discussion of the unknown and the unknowable.
   Existence disappears quickly, whenever an entity dissolves itself.
   It is easy to lose a familiar reality.
   The moon and the pen.
   The focussing effect of a conscious mind.
   Questions of relevance.
   Our reality perceptions and interpretations are geared towards the activities we are engaged in.
   Practical attitudes, when diagnosing problems.
   Relativistic interpretations are helpful, when solving situations of conflict.
   The impact of modern scientific insights on the perception of reality.
   One could have taken issue with the opening statement.
   Another look at the definition of existence.
   The "reality overlap" between people is often greater than we think.
   The function of "translation".
   The limits of a sphere of reality perceptions.
   Why the "unknown" is, to a large extent, "knowable".
   Existence exceeds the sphere of what is "the known"; it extends into the unknown and can not be just a product of our mind.
   
   
   
4. The reply to a clever argument.
   A further discussion of the function of the "unknown".
   Are we getting irrelevant?
   The periphery of our sphere of awarenesses.
   Re-emphasising the quality of existence that is being given, by our conscious mind, to whatever we think of.
   Differences between the quality of existence, and the quality of reliability or truthfulness.
   The difficulties associated with imagining "non-existence".
   The element of "change".
   The qualities of regularity and predictability.
   A comprehensible "snap-shot" in the chain of causes and effects.
   Let us look around, and see, what we can observe.
   The phenomenon of gravitational attraction.
   The practical need for a comprehensive system to classify mental images.
   Common denominators, and a structure of explanatory relationships.
   The logic of an anthropomorphic interpretation of reality.
   Central in the sphere of reality stands man's "will".
   The art of controling anthropomorphic force-fields.
   The functions of sacrifice and appeasement.
   
   
   
5. The evolution of "static principles" to explain the occurrence of events; the force of gravity.
   Analysing an event in terms of causes and their effects.
   Learning to use tools.
   Chains of predictability.
   The emergence of a belief structure that reflects man's intuitive perception of himself.
   A complex reality perception that is not very attractive, emotionally.
   A "hybrid" frame of reality perceptions.
   The inter-play between God and natural laws.
   The problems of explaining ourselves.
   The concept of Original Sin, and an All-knowing God.
   There are still many gaps in our networks of explanation.
   A return to the concept of change.
   Enlarging the grasp over reality with tools and instruments.
   Dealing with a variety of "worlds" that do not flow logically and overseeably into each other.
   Summarising processes of the mind; examples.
   The perception of space; a short discussion.
   The experience of non-homogeneity.
   The space-time continuum.
   Scientific and mathematical extrapolations, and the problem of "imaginability".
   
   
   
6. Two different forms of mental summarising; grouping awarenesses together, and, shifting from one world of complexity to the next.
   The concepts of a cell, atom, earth, galaxy, Universe, etc.
   A step-wise progression of our mind through the various worlds of reality.
   A short discussion of topics to come.
   Three-dimensional space.
   The perception of space, and the "body-plan" of an organism.
   The development of head to tail, dorsal to ventral, and left to right, axes.
   A point in space and time.
   The dimension of time is not reversible.
   A trap of unwarranted philosophical speculations.
   The lure of symmetry assumptions.
   The imagery of the Universe as a "closed system".
   A gigantic "cosmic egg"; infinite, yet finite.
   
   
   
7. The imagery of an oscillating Universe.
   An infinite Universe in three-dimensional space.
   Clever and persuasive claims to have "broken through" the limitations of our three-dimensional reality perceptions.
   Problems with the imagery of general relativity.
   A "mind-boggling" time-span has nothing to do with the concept of infinity.
   A look at the "red-shift".
   Why we can not imagine something to come from nothing.
   Matter and energy can not disappear, but can only be transformed into another form of matter-energy.
   Rotatory or orbital forms of energy, called "matter".
   Inter-locking and radiant energy-forms.
   The concept of predominance in the balance between radiant and inter-locking energy-forms.
   A pendulum, swinging through its moment of maximum kinetic energy.
   The Universal pendulum flashes through its most concentrated point at the time of the "Big Bang".
   The impact of this imagery on our daily reality perceptions.
   Energy relationships.
   The absorption of a photon of light by an electron encircling an atom.
   The need for solid structures.
   A river flowing through its bed; the phenomenon of fluidity.
   Sudden transformations; the phenomenon of "rain".
   The phenomenon of "scatter"; the characteristic bell-like curve around a "mean" or average.
   The unstable nucleus.
   Scatter or haphazard events disappear, when viewed at the level of mini- or sub-events.
   Increasing the element of predictability.
   
   
   
8. An event or happening takes place in accordance with its causative forces.
   Statistical correlations; another summarising concept of the mind, making a large number of sub-events manageable and overseeable.
   The linkage between smoking and lung-cancer; a short discussion.
   Questions about the regulatory mechanisms of a multi-cellular organism.
   Complex control and feed-back mechanisms.
   The problem of complexity.
   The concept, that, nowhere in our sphere of reality, events are influenced by an arbitrary or willed force-field.
   Reflecting on how far this assumption has strayed from a religious or anthropomorphic reality perception.
   The tendency to design a reality-image in accordance with the mechanisms of the voluntary human will.
   The algebraic summation of positive and negative factors.
   The concept of pre-destination in religious reality perceptions.
   The crux of human viability seems to be the ability to influence the course of an event.
   The increasing predictability of biological phenomena, and the concept of the "free will".
   The "voluntary choice" is still an outcome of a large number of subjective evaluations, which may become "predictable" for an intelligent observer.
   The "free will"; a predictable excercise of the voluntary choice?
   What we need to live in peace and harmony with each other, and, in balance with our terrestial environment.

.......