The world, today, needs a distinctly new way of thinking about old problems, for quite obviously, they cannot be solved at the level at which they are asked. Therefore, they must be reframed, out into a larger context, for only through a new mind can humanity remake itself.

The ills from which we are suffering in the world today have had their seat in the very foundation of human thought. We have artificially separated our selves from nature, often experiencing it as an adversary. We have become convinced that the self is untrustworthy; that the universe it not safe. We take it for granted that the species is aggressively combative. We are told that life itself is either an accident in a cosmic game of chance, or else forever tainted by original sin.

As a consequence, we have become frightened of ourselves and the nature of our existence. We seek out leaders who will order our lives for us and tell us what is good and bad. We take it as a matter of course that we must outthink the enemy nation before we ourselves are destroyed. In the medical profession, the overall suggestion that operates is the one that emphasizes and exaggerates the body's vulnerability, and plays down its natural healing abilities. We are succumbing to an epidemic of beliefs.

The main myth through which we interpret our experiences is the one that tells us that all perception and knowledge must come to us through the physical senses. This is the myth of the exteriorized consciousness. A consciousness that we are told is open-ended only so far as objective reality is seems to be closed at "the other end". The consciousness of this myth can have no origin for it precludes anything but a physically oriented, physically mechanized consciousness. Not only can this consciousness have no existence before or after death, but also obviously it can have no access to knowledge that is not physically acquired.

SCIENCE AS A RELIGION

Religion is an activity through which man attempts to see the meaning of his life. No matter what name it might go by, it represents man's connection with the universe; man's search for "truth". In this context, I maintain that science is a religion. Though basically unrecognized as such, it provides an overall unity and philosophic structure as strong as that of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. We are as united in basic scientific philosophy as the Europe of the Middle Ages was in religious rigidity. An example would be the definition of normality thrust upon the ordinary person. Both science and religion vie for men's faith, but the literal interpretation of physical reality is as limiting as the literal interpretation of the bible: Science has contributed much to man's development, but I feel that science must reevaluate its ideals and methods. Conventional religion failed as an organized belief system by which to structure and judge practical experience. Let science beware of failing into the same trap.

I believe that while science promised, in the beginning, to provide the closest approximation to heaven on earth (potions for every ailment, solutions for every problem), it has in actuality used its knowledge to undermine the very foundations of life itself. Generally speaking, we are in the position that we are today because science has "shown'' that we are flawed creatures, spawned by a meaningless universal that left alone we will spontaneously be primitive creatures, powerless to work toward any ideal with any sureness of success. For how can flawed selves ever hope to spontaneously achieve any good? This is a direct contradiction of deep biological knowledge, to say nothing of spiritual truth. It denies the meaning of biological integrity. It denies mankind the practical use of those very elements that he needs as a biological creatures the feeling that he is at life's center, that he can act safely in his environment, that he can trust himself, and that his being and actions have meaning.

Science has stated that it is neutral in the world of values, and as a result, it does not value life. (How else could it justify in its philosophy the possibility of an accident that might kill many people, e.g., nuclear power?) Because science has divorced knowledge from emotion and understanding from identification, it is not able to understand its manifestations it looks for explanations outside of itself.

Science has denied other species any real consciousness. In its worthy pursuit to save life, its methods often lead to quite unworthy experimentation. On the surface, such methods appear sometimes regrettable but necessary, but the deeper implications far outdo any temporary benefits, for through such methods men lose sight of life's sacredness, and begin to treat it contemptuously. Science becomes fanatical when it defiles life in a misguided attempt to understand it.

Unfortunately, scientific theories and principles have been transferred to the economic area. The "laws" of supply and demand are misconceptions based upon a belief in man's basic greedy nature, for example. The land of our countries is treated as if our species, being the "fittest", has the right to survive at the expense of all other species, and at the expense of the land itself. Competition has been promoted as the ideal at all levels of activity, with each individual seeking his or her own good at the expense of others.

Science has trained itself to be unemotional, to stand apart from its experience, and to separate itself from nature, thus insuring its "objectivity"; but the classical ideal of scientific objectivity can no longer be maintained. The patterns we observe in nature are intimately connected with the patterns of our minds. The world is a system of inseparable, interacting, and ever-moving components with divisions into separate phenomena not being fundamental.

EMPIRICISM VS. INTUITIONISM

Science, as we know it, requires the acceptance, without explanation, of certain concepts, which form the scientific language. Therefore, any attempt to explain all concepts could hardly be called "scientific." But inherent in man is the complete comprehension of the universe as a whole; the answers to all our questions about reality lie within us. They reveal themselves to us when we turn our attention away from physical data and look within.

The universe is a psychological reality in which "objectivity" is the result of psychological activity. All your  ideas program your interpretation of events. There is no science or psychology that comes close to even approaching a conceptual framework that could explain, or even indirectly describe, the dimension of that kind of universe. The very attempt to describe reality in scientific terms, as they currently understood, pays undue tribute to a vocabulary that automatically scales down greater concepts to fit its rigors.

Because the universe is a dynamic web of inseparable, interrelated events, which cannot be reduced to fundamental entities, all theories of natural phenomena, including the "laws" they describe, are properties of our conceptual map of reality, rather than of reality itself. We can only expect an approximate representation of reality from such a procedure with all rational knowledge being necessarily limited. This type of knowledge can be called 'relative'.

Rational knowledge is derived from the experience we have with objects and events in our every day environment, Abstraction is a crucial feature of this type knowledge, because in order to classify the immense variety of phenomena around us, we cannot take all of their features into account, but have to select a few significant ones. Thus we construct an intellectual map of reality in which things are reduced to their general outlines.

Rational knowledge is thus a system of abstract concepts and symbols, characterized by the linear, sequential structure, which is typical of our thinking, and speaking. We can only expect an approximate representation from such a procedure and all rational knowledge is therefore necessarily limited, as we define our system of concepts more precisely, it becomes even more detached from the real world. As Einstein said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." This is why we have to supplement our mathematical models and theories with verbal. Interpretations. These interpretations, using concepts, which are ambiguous and inaccurate, can therefore be understood intuitively. In fact, the rational part of research would be useless if it were not complemented by the intuition that gives science new insights and makes it creative.

Because our representation of reality is so much easier to grasp than reality itself, we tend to confuse the two and to take our concepts and symbols for reality.

I am not implying that reason is in anyway derogatory, for it is well suited to its purposes, i.e., the examination of events already perceived. Nor do I agree with the concept of using your intuitions and feelings at the expense of your reason. However, the conscious mind is meant to look both into the exterior world and into the interior one. I believe that only the proper blend of intuitions and intellect can provide true vision or understanding.

I am simply saying that there is a transcendent state in which intellect and intuition are fused; a whole-brain knowing in which the functions of the two cortical hemispheres are integrated. Science has set itself apart from nature, and in doing so, it has cut itself (mankind) off from using many of its own abilities. It has placed too much emphasis on left-brain thinking. 'Absolute', or intuitive, knowledge does not rely on the discriminations, abstractions, and classifications of the intellect. Absolute knowledge transcends the realm of the intellect from which our words and concepts are derived. It involves a direct ‘knowing’, which is beyond any explanation.

It may be suggested that my theories are merely imaginative, posturing or mental pretensions, but for that matter, are not Freudian psychology and evolutionism but a group of hypotheses that basically cannot be proven? It may be said that faith does not fall within the realm of science, yet faith in god or man or nature is imperative, or all of the facts of science are meaningless.

You cannot examine reality without examining yourself. You cannot separate yourself from your experience. The emotional realization is what is of importance, not simply an intellectual acceptance, (though the integrity of any intuitive information depends upon the inner integrity of the person who receives it.) Those who advocate "conscious-reasoning-mind-above-all" theories do not recognize their source in the inner self. They ignore intuitive inner information that is also available.

Proof for the existence of the soul and its immortality cannot be found by any assemblage of facts, but through direct experience, direct knowing, which can yield a comprehension of the psyche. Each person's life involves them in a direct confrontation with the universe in which they must ultimately trust both their own nature, and the unknown source from which they spring. Such a faith is not blind, however, for experience will prove it to be more factual than any mathematical formula.

THE MECHANICS OF REALITY

The world as it appears is like a three-dimensional painting in which each individual takes a hand. Each color, each line that appears within it has first been painted within a mind, and only then does it materialize without. In this case however, the artists themselves are a portion of the painting, and appear within it.

This great creativity of consciousness consists of a spontaneous cooperation that exists between all, and is as natural and inevitable as the fact that our breath causes a mist to form on glass if we breathe upon it. Together, we project our thoughts, feelings, and expectations outward, which we then perceive as the outside reality. It this way, the world that we see is a reflection of what we are, a reflection not in glass, but in three-dimensional reality.

"Our conscious and unconscious thoughts alter and form our physical image." This is fairly easy to understand. It is not as easy, however, to realize that our thoughts and feelings form our exterior experience in the same way. Consciousness creates form. It is not the other way around; we create the world that we know. Mankind has been given perhaps the most awesome gift of all the ability to project his thoughts outward into physical form. Individually and enmass, physical reality is created in perfect replica of our inner beliefs, thoughts, desires and emotions. Our physical bodies are created by ourselves as a direct result of our, inner conception of what we are. It is only by comprehending the nature of this constant translation of thoughts and desires into physical objects that we can realize our true creativeness. However, this gift brings a responsibility, everyone is learning to handle this energy; and since we are still in the process of doing so, we often misdirect it.

We must enlarge our definitions of reality. We must realize that reason alone cannot provide any true insight. The universe is of good intent. It is automatically predisposed toward the creation of good events. We must learn to trust the nature of our own being.

We cannot separate our system of values and our most intimate philosophical judgments from the other areas of our private and mass experience. We have taught ourselves to look outward into physical reality, but the inward vitality of our being cannot be found there only its effects.

I believe the more tolerant a religion is, the closer it. Comes to expressing inner truth. Man cannot mistrust his own nature and at the same time, trust the nature of god, for god is his word for the source of his being, and if his being is tainted, then so must be his god.

There are two main ways of relating to the phenomenal world. One, we react to events and to the environment using logical thought to interpret a reality that is understood to exist “Out There", regardless of our perception of it. The other approach involves identification with nature and events. Here we have the belief that thoughts and emotions not only have a direct effect upon matter, but direct events in some invisible or automatic fashion (a fashion that can be deduced through trial and error.) Using this method, man explores nature's inner workings by projecting his consciousness into it, not by examine it from the outside.

Science only examines results. By its insistence upon the priority and superiority of matter's dominance, it fails to investigate and understand those nonphysical properties of mind that give those objects their appearance of solidity. The concept of "provable facts" shuts out from science, province the very unpredictability from which the predictable world arises.

An objective investigation quite often tends to destroy the sense of basic interrelationship that exists in the world. Such an approach results in the gaining of information but the loss of knowledge, the accumulation of particular ­details and the diminution of the overall living picture in which the specific conditions exist. If man does not relate emotionally to the natural world and its creations, then his information concerning it becomes anti-information in that while it provides facts, it also evolves a framework in which those facts become ultimately useless.

It is more than possible that the meaning of the universe cannot appear within the measurements of logic alone, and that the very mental techniques used in logical thought - the categorizing, the precision and separating, the searching for cause and effect - may themselves break up an overlying unity in which that meaning might otherwise make itself known. The psyche cannot be explained, only experienced. I do not believe in the concept of absolute, fixed, unchanging "truth." I do not believe in the concept of certainty, i.e., that there is always one and only one "right" answer. I do not believe that anyone can be a "recipient" of knowledge, for knowledge is always actively produced.

The mechanistic worldview of classical physics has proved to be extremely successful as a basis for science and technology, but it is inadequate for the description of physical phenomena at more basic levels. While modern physics has begun to show that the constituents of matter and the basic phenomena involving them cannot be understood as isolated entities, but only as integrated parts of a cosmic whole, the general way of thinking continues to see the natural environment as a multitude of separate objects and events. This fragmented view is further extended to society, which is split into different nations, races, religious and political groups. The belief that all these fragments are really separate can be seen as the essential reason for the present series of social, ecological, and cultural crisis.

We must realize that what we think of as being characteristics of reality are but our beliefs about reality. Often they appear in our minds as statements of fact, (self-explanatory and far too obvious for examination), but they nevertheless color and form our personal experience. In actuality, facts are statements about the world as perceived by human beings. They are therefore, as tentative as all human judgments.

We must realize that no one can change our beliefs for us, nor can they be forced upon us from without. We accept beliefs and ideas given by others only if they fit in with our own ideas about the nature of reality in general and our concepts about ourselves in particular.

I believe that there is one belief that automatically pierces false and inhibiting beliefs, and that is: The self is not limited. The only limitations are in our perceptions. Even when it seems that your self stops where your skin meets space, your environment is an extension of yourself. It is the body of your experience, coalesced in physical form.

Culturally, in our society, we have neatly divided the intellectual and intuitive abilities. To that degree, we have isolated portions of ourselves and limited the practical benefits that could otherwise be provided by the intuitive parts of the self.

Individually and as a whole, mankind makes errors, but these can be seen as a by-product of the learning process. Illness and suffering, war and destruction are the results of the misdirection of this creative energy, but they are a part of the creative force, nevertheless. Therefore, through observing our creations, we can learn how to use these abilities better. We can check on our inner progress by seeing the physical materializations of our work, but until we realize that we are the creators, we will refuse to accept this responsibility.

Since consciousness forms matter and not the other way around, then thought exists before the brain and after it however, in physical life, your conscious mind is largely dependent upon the workings of the brain. You have a conscious mind whether you are in flesh or not, but when you are physically oriented, and then it is connected to the physical brain. The brain to some extend keeps the mind to a three-dimensional focus. It orients you toward the environment in which you operate.

You are not your consciousness. Your consciousness is an attribute to be used to perceive the various dimensions of reality. Consciousness is not dependent upon physical matter, though you are aware of your own consciousness through the medium of your physical mechanism. There are no real divisions to the self, but we speak of various portions. Simply to make the basic idea clear, the outer ego can be defined as a psychological "structure" composed of characteristics belonging to the personality as a whole, organized together to form a surface identity. It enables us to manipulate in the world that we know. However, a sense of identity and continuity are not dependent upon the outer ego. The inner ego organizes and manipulates with an inner reality. It maintains those delicate inner perceptions and functions without which physical experience could not be possible. The energy of this inner self upholds the outer ego with its support. It forms from itself - from inner experience - a material counterpart with which the outer ego then deals. Using these concepts, it can be said that the subconscious, in psychological terms, is the meeting place between the two.

Inner, intuitive knowledge then comes from the very source of our being. As this "inner universe" is also the source of our world, it therefore contains not only all knowledge physically available, but also far more. In fact, the information available in this inner psychological medium is in our terms, infinite. Therefore the communication between the inner and outer egos should obviously be as clear and open as possible.

The main ideas  that we create our personal reality through our conscious beliefs, is demonstrable in that altering the state of the psyche automatically alters the physical circumstances. There is no other valid way of changing physical events. Realize that for a time, physical materializations of the old belief may still hold, but the new belief will quickly begin to show itself in your experience.

To understand yourself and what you are, you must learn to experience yourself directly apart from your beliefs about yourself, for these will automatically cause you to feel and think in certain fashions. You are not nearly as familiar with your own thoughts as you may imagine. An examination of your conscious thoughts will tell you much about the state of your inner mind, your intentions and expectations, and will often lead you to a direct confrontation with challenges and problems. You must realize that any idea you accept as truth is a belief that you hold. Usually when you do examine your conscious mind, you do so looking through. or with, your own structured beliefs; therefore, the knowledge that your beliefs are not necessarily reality will. allow you to be aware of all data that is consciously available to you.

Recently a Stanford neuroscientist, Karl Pribram, proposed a super-theory that says our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by interpreting frequencies from a dimension; transcending time and space and that the brain is a hologram, interpreting a holographic universe. David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein, said, "What appears to be a stable, tangible, visible, audible world is an illusion." He calls this phenomenon the holomovement. This concept of the universe as a hologram is not new-A Hindu sutra proclaims, "There is nothing in the moving world but mind itself."

GOOD AND EVIL

Our experience follows our expectations. We perceive from the available field of reality certain data carefully selected in accordance with our ideas of what reality is. We tend to see what we want to see. If you believe all man is evil, you simply will not experience the goodness in mankind. If you are obsessed with the idea of evil, then everywhere you will meet with evil conditions. As long as we believe in the basic evil of man, then we will project upon ourselves punishment. Nothing will destroy us unless we are convinced that we are so evil that we must be destroyed. The simple fact is that as long as we believe in the concept of evil it is a reality in our system, and we will always find it manifested. A belief in it will, therefore, seem highly justified.

There is no evil in basic terms, though this does not mean that we do not meet with effects that appear evil. Ideas of right and wrong are always guidelines that help us recognize the sacredness of existence, the responsibility of consciousness, but all acts, regardless of their seeming nature, are a part of a greater good. That is, the one supreme drive towards creativity. God, if that is what you want to call it. We must believe in the power and glory and strength of our being. However, we must know that problems are challenges to be solved. It is only when we do not know ourselves that we believe that we are flawed or evil, and are afraid to trust our feelings. Only true compassion and love will lead to an understanding of the nature of good, and only these qualities will serve to annihilate the erroneous and distorted concepts of evil.

The universe is of good intent. It is automatically predisposed toward the creation of "good" events. I realize that it seems almost an idiocy to say that man is good, when everywhere we met with contradictions, but we have been taught not to trust the very fabric of our being - our selves. How can we expect to act rationally or altruistically in any consistent manner if we believe that we are automatically degraded. or that our nature is so flawed that such performance is uncharacteristic. When we see evil everywhere in man's intent, we focus upon the gulf between our ideals and our experience, until the gulf is all that's real. I truly believe that each individual is innately driven by a good intent, however distorted that intent may become, or however twisted the means that may be taken to achieve it.

PERCEPTION

Our perceptions come from us; we "see" things not as they are, but as we are. An example of our language habits producing perceptions is in the process known as “projection”. "Projection" as semanticists use the term, means that we transfer our own feelings and evaluations to objects outside of us. For example, we say, "Gumby is disgusting," as if "disgusting" is a characteristic of Gumby. A more literal translation would be "When I perceive Gumby's behavior, I am disgusted." The point is, when we say, "Gumby is disgusting," we are talking about ourselves much more than we are talking about Gumby.

Therefore, we do not get our perceptions from the "things'' around us. Our perceptions come from us. Whatever is "out there" can never be known except as it is filtered through belief system. Nature reflected through one's mind becomes something different than it is when it's not being perceived.

This means that knowledge is not "given". Knowledge is what we know after we have learned. It is an outcome of perception and is as unique and subjective as any other perception. Therefore, what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our methods of questioning. We cannot separate our perceptions from our selves. We are the "meaning-makers."

I am not saying that there is "nothing out there," but I am saying that this "something" is far more plastic, manipulatable, and giving than conventional practical psychology would lead you to believe. It is as if the private cast of consciousness works upon the objective world landscape by giving it its final, private, definite form; as if before the individual perceives objects, there is instead a field of pliable, malleable, pseudo shapes. The perceptions themselves bring these into focus and form, adding all the dimensions of actuality, depth, color, etc.; these being projected outward onto that landscape according to each persons particular cast of consciousness.

IN CLOSING

New perspectives are nearly always received with coolness, even mockery and hostility. It is understandable that even such a possibility “mind affecting matter” should disturb science for it shatters the foundations of its philosophical stance. But cultures have failed because they were incapable of changing their old concepts and ways of thinking. Technologically wrought changes in the environment render virtually all of our traditional concepts (and the institutions developed to conserve and transmit them) irrelevant. If we fail to detect the fact that they are irrelevant, these concepts themselves become threats to our survival.

I believe that modern physics is beginning to show that there is a different reality behind the superficial mechanistic appearances of everyday life; that phenomena can be understood only as links in a change of processes, the, end of which lies in the consciousness of the human observer. In this sense, I believe that the "laws of physics" are, in actuality, broad enough to account for both normal perception and simultaneously take the "paranormal'' experiences out of the supernatural by demonstrating that they are, also, a part of nature.

The "idea as reality" is an ancient concept which was formalized early in Western civilization by Plato and which has been retained by many philosophers down thru the ages. But rather than discuss this concept in abstract terms only, I choose to develop it to its logical conclusion. For if an idea is an event, is it not therefore logical to assume that any idea, (in whatever sphere of activity, whether ­physically materialized or not) would have an impact upon our lives?

For example, we have divorced ourselves from levels of awareness that have to do with the health of our own bodies, turning such problems over to specialists and further separating ourselves from our own corporal competence, denying any responsibility for the state of our health.

The body's main purpose is not only to survive, but also to maintain a quality of existence that promotes health and fulfillment. Whenever the conditions of life are such that its quality is threatened, the beliefs that foster such despair can become biologically destructive. Thus, mass physical epidemics can be seen as biological protests against appalling social and political conditions.

No person becomes ill unless that illness serves a psychological reason. The body has its own integrity, and illness is often simply a natural sign of imbalance. We may also utilize illness as a method of teaching ourselves some important truth or as a means of developing certain abilities. The causes are never biological. Biology is simply the carrier of a "deadly intent." The dynamics of health have nothing to do with inoculations. They reside in the consciousness of each being.

One of the most hampering beliefs of all is the idea that the clues to current behavior and experiences are buried in the unconscious and therefore inaccessible. This belief itself closes to us the contents of our conscious mind and prevents us from looking there for the answers that are available.