Welcome
Home
welcome to the site! Read the description to the left for details regarding the theory behind this site. Some may know this section as an "Abstract"
The History of Energy
the beginning is the end
Under this section is a paper written for an Honours Psychology course, the History of Psychology. The task was to trace a topic from contemperary Psychology back through various historical stages to see how that topic has grown over the course of time. The topic I chose was energy, or Energy Psychology. Enjoy research from Feinstein (most recent) all the way back to Pythagoras.
The Future of Energy
the end is the beginning. This section includes all the previous homepage fails ;) enjoy!
Psychology
This is the major veiwpoint taken on this site in regard to these topics, but since the completion of my Masters degree in Gender Studies, I've been trying to go back and make it more inclusive. This link includes a proposed field theory for Psychology because the two major branches of Psychology (quantitative and qualitative) find it hard to see eye to eye. This (and the next) section is for members only.
Physics/Math
This section proposes a Grand Unified Field theory or "theory of everything" for Physics, backed up by a mathematical equation.
Science/Religion
This section unites all sections together to unite the branches of Science and Religion. Many different perspectives are taken and these two seemingly opposing forces are united through many different angles.
New Age/Orthodox
This section looks at the conflicts or cycles between New Age free thought and Orthodox dogmaticism. The feud between these two opposing forces revealed the truth regarding the story of Jesus, what he really taught and to whom he truly gave the rites to teach his faith. This section explores why the movie The Last Temptation of Christ was banned in other countries, looks at the Da Vinci Code and presents a controversial paper/theory showing the hidden meaning of world religious symbols.
Spirituality
This section begins with a confusing paper about taking back the spirit. If the point can be penetrated, it tells an interesting story about Modernity and the Age of Reason, with a twist by providing evidence that emotion could be considered superior to reason. It also complicates Carteasian mind/body distinctions by adding spirit back into the equation. Have fun following that one lol. I can't even follow it ;) There are other papers about explaining Mystical experiences and others comparing Western and Eastern styles of consciousness. My favourite is the book review of Kabbalah. I like how this site allows me to go back and fix/reword old papers/ideas. This section really details what it is like to have a theory in the making and shows how ideas develop over time. One day my ideas/theory will be comprehensive to others outside my wacky brain :)
Metaphysics
This section includes research done on the importance of emotional charge on ESP communication. It proposes that it is emotion communication that makes telepathy successful. The second paper in this section addresses dreams and dream interpretation. Two Dream interpretation methods (Freud's and Jung's) were analyzed to determine which method produced the most accurate results. The third paper presents research on Understanding Altered States of Conciousness and the last paper in this section is about Western Consciousness and how we are very individualized and perhaps out of balance due to us being lost in the Grand Illusion (Maya). The next paper looks at The Implication of Eastern Concepts on Western Ideals, to propose a potential balance between the two world views.
Philosophy
This section includes a paper about the subject-object dichotomy in Philosophy
Apocalypse
This section begins with a work that is a detailed analysis of the screenplay/poem found in the Art section of this site. This paper looks at the research behind the play that inspired its manifestation (or why I wrote the play). It is hard to avoid the Book of Revelations when the topic of the Apocalypse comes up, so the next paper in this section is a comparison of the similarities and differences of the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelations. Many similarities were found and the research leads one to beleive that we are in the dawning of the Age when we will see great changes in the world as we know it today.
Solutions
This section includes papers on 3 pathways to happiness (physical, mental, emotional), followed by a paper on how to end prejudice, a paper on the polarization of the sexes is next (as it is hypothesized by this site that the true or pure unification of All That is in the Universe is solved by the reunification of the energy of the sexes ;). Finally, this section ends with an empirical thesis exploring the equal validation or rational and emotional styles.
Art/Screenplay
This section contains a play or screenplay called the Grand Drama that is written entirely out of prose (the owner and creator of this website has personally written everything that appears on it). This work of art reveals a hidden message, one that may unlock the key to the mysteries of the universe! This page also includes a shortened poem of the Grand Drama and provides a link to a song that is about Plato's Analogy of the Cave (members only).
Poetry
this is a collection of my poetry - enjoy!
Songs
This is a collection of my songs - enjoy! =)
Photos
This is my photo collection
Key to the Legend
Red = Philosophy
Blue = Physics
Yellow = mathematics
green = hard sciences
grey = psychology
the parts under construction are labeled as such or blanketed by <<< ____ >>> indicating personal notes to self to improve the site, or the layout of the information presented.
Recent Videos
Implications of
Quantum Theory on the Social Sciences
Implications of Quantum Theory on the Social Sciences
Research Frameworks and Methods
Pan-experientialism/panpsychism. A pan-experientialist approach gives agency and subjectivity, not only to objects and people but also to cells, molecules, and subatomic particles (Griffin, 1997; Shields, 2001). This stance believes human experience must have originated at the subatomic level, which implies not just humans, but individual cells, molecules, and subatomic particles have ‘a capacity for feeling’ or ‘degree of subjective interiority’ (Griffin, 1997; Hmolpedia; Shields, 2001). This paper not only recognizes a ubiquitous property of emotional and experiential elements but also adds a conscious component to cells, molecules, and subatomic particles. The idea that consciousness permeates the universe is called panpsychism (Heidelberger, 2004; Skrbina, 2005). If we can conceive of the universe as an interconnected, living, conscious agent, rather than seeing the universe as hierarchically arranged, then unequal power imbalances could be diffused. This can be extremely helpful when conducting research with children because they can be seen as equal, conscious, co-collaborating agents in the research process.
It was found that a pan-experientialist and panpsychist approach can be used to resolve the measurement problem in quantum physics (also called the observer effect), which is essentially the finding that an observer can affect whether or not light will manifest as a wave or a particle during the double-slit light experiments (Buks et al., Cho, 2017; Young, 1802). The measurement problem asks the question, “[h]ow can one establish a correspondence between quantum” and material realms (Zurek, 2003, p. 716)? Or how can these realms interact or communicate.
Researcher Objectivity
Quantum physics reveals an interconnected world (Barad, 2007; Bohm, 1952; Fetzer Memorial Trust & Howard, 2020; Pycroft & Bartollas, 2014) and proves true researcher objectivity cannot occur. According to the many-worlds interpretation, the process is considered most real because the outcome of this process determines which events, phenomena, and choice become manifest. Barad (2003/2007) discusses the importance of dynamic processes in her concept of intra-action. Intra-action is the agentic process involving an entangled web of negotiations. She states that “intra-action signifies the mutual constitution of entangled agencies [which is] in contrast to the usual ‘interaction,’ which assumes there are separate individual agencies that precede their interaction” (Barad, 2007, p. 33). Within the intra-action process, all things, humans, and objects are entangled and are active players in the meta-negotiation of agency and choice. This means that not only the researcher), and the children participants are co-creators, but also the non-human elements or apparatuses used in the research process (Barad, 2003/2007; Cho, 2017).
Quantum understandings support Barad’s (2003/2007) intra-action process by stating that at a specific time, there is a unique arrangement of particles in the material realm where “unique well-defined locations for macroscopic objects can be constructed out of the properties” (Lewis, 2016, p. 163). This not only supports Barad’s (2003) intra-action process, but also her position that objects are not pre-discursive by nature and do not have stable, fixed descriptions, or identities until all the actors involved choose a specific arrangement. For example, in one situation one may use a saw to cut wood and in another use it as a musical instrument. In a better example, in ancient Huichol shamanic tradition, there is “the custom of using the hunting bow as a stringed instrument for casting a kind of musical spell to ‘charm’ the intended prey” (Furst, 1973, p. 39). Even though these are not perfect examples, they can help understand how we can produce and reproduce matter and how matter “matters” is not a passive agent in the intra-action process (Barad, 2003/2007).
The observer’s choice is important because quantum research describes the world as a “probability distribution” (Bandera, 2019, p. 5) or as a field of potentiality lying in wait for an observer’s choice to determine what becomes manifest (Arntz & Arntz, 2004). So, the world lies in potential representations of reality until we enact choice, and when we do, the world collapses into one thing (Arntz & Arntz, 2004). The process, where all possibilities lie await in potential, is called quantum potential or structure-process (Bohm, 1952; Fetzer Memorial Trust & Howard, 2020). This makes the observer’s choice a powerful influence on what becomes manifest.
If everything is interconnected and part of a dynamic process involving “interlocking systems and forces” (Coole & Frost, 2010, p. 9), then a researcher cannot separate themselves from these interconnections to be fully objective.
To help conceptualize how the self is interconnected within this entangled web of relations, I have developed a diagram showing how the observer mediates between inner/quantum influences, and contextual/outer influences. This diagram could help answer the question of the measurement problem in quantum physics because it answers the question of how the material and quantum worlds can interact, communicate, or correspond.
Another example of how the researcher or observer cannot be objective is through the ‘delayed-choice’ experiments, which are experiments testing the behaviour of light. In this diagram, the self is represented as a prism which mediates and separates white light into colour. Light is an important feature of the visible world and is important to quantum theories, especially collapse theory, which is particle-wave dualism (Pearle, 2014 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). So, before I can explain the ‘delayed-choice’ experiments, I need to discuss the double-slit experiments and particle-wave dualism.
In the Young (1802) double-slit
experiments, slits are made in an apparatus intended to measure the behaviour
of light. When photons (particles of light) are directed through the apparatus,
the behaviour or patterns light makes can be seen on a detection screen behind
(Kocsis et al., 2011). When the apparatus is static, the light patterns show a
diffraction, or interference pattern resembling ripples created by throwing
stones into a pond (Barad, 2007). What is fascinating about diffraction is that
superposition occurs where more than one thing occupies the same space (Barad,
2007; Kocsis et al., 2011).
Remembering contextualism and how elements are fluid and able to overlap, these concepts could be a potential mechanism for how interconnectivity can take place. When the apparatus is on springs as the photons go through, light no longer behaves like a wave, but rather shows patterns of particle behaviour (Barad, 2007). This is why Barad (2007) stresses the importance of objects in the intra-action process, because the apparatus also has some power here to influence whether or not light will manifest as a particle or a wave.
During these experiments it was discovered that both the momentum and the position of a particle cannot be known simultaneously (Kocsis et al., 2011). This is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which acts as a “practical limitation on the possible precision of measurements” (Bohm, 1952, p. 180). So, depending on what is being measured, velocity or position, light can sometimes behave like a particle and sometimes like a wave (Kocsis et al., 2011). This is called particle-wave dualism. But I would rather call it particle-wave complementarity (Barad, 2007; Buks et al., 1998).
During the double-slit light experiments, an observer can affect whether or not the light will behave as a particle or a wave and “an observer can make that decision even after a photon has made its way almost completely through the experiment—seemingly well past the point at which it would become either a wave or a particle... thus proving the photon’s behavior isn’t predetermined” (Cho, 2017, para 3). Like how Barad’s (2007) objects are not prediscursive. Buks et al. (1998) found the more an observer watched, the more influence they had over what manifested. The measurement problem in quantum physics therefore complicates researcher objectivity because an observer can manipulate the outcome of these experiments and control whether light will manifest as a particle or a wave (Bohm, 1952; Cho, 2017; Kocsis et al., 2011). This shows that humans, including children, are co-producers of life (Barad, 2003/2007; Cho, 2017).
In the ‘delayed-choice’ experiments, light somehow ‘knows’ it is being watched. How would light ‘know’ when to behave like a particle and when to behave like a wave? How is this decision made in a split second, more than halfway through the experiment? Between the particle and wave manifestations is the structure-process, or quantum potential Bohm (1952) describes as the mechanism that guides or organizes the energy (also see Fetzer Memorial Trust & Howard, 2020). Like the intra-action process, the observer can manipulate the structure-process when the particles approach the slits and guide them into a particle or a wave manifestation.
Simultaneous communication can be supported by observations of quantum entanglement, where “quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated” (ScienceDaily, n.d, para 1). In quantum entanglement, when one particle in the singlet state is measured, it has instantaneous effects on the other particle entangled with it (Calosi, & Morganti, 2018). Here, quantum entanglement shows that instantaneous communication is possible. Einstein describes quantum entanglement as ‘spooky action at a distance’ (as cited in Bohr, 1949) and his explanation was that the particles must decide ahead of time which action they were going to take so the other particle can act accordingly. Whether his suggestion is correct or not, it implies conscious, particle agency like pan-experientialism and panpsychism suggest. If we think of consciousness as a field which permeates the universe, it could be possible the field has properties that allow for instantaneous communication of conscious elements and beings across levels of realities, such as between the levels of the physical and quantum realms. Therefore, the observer or researcher is not objective but entangled within different levels or fields of varying degrees of consciousness.
To incorporate quantum understandings into research, the role of the researcher, the processes behind the phenomena, and the context are important. When conducting research in the social sciences we must acknowledge the self as an interconnected participant within a process, not an objective observer. Barad (2003) says the world is in a state of becoming or an “ongoing open process” (p. 817) and things are not “things in themselves” or independent, stand-alone objects” (p. 817). The idea that humans are interconnected with the universe and are not objective observers may be a new concept for positivist research in the social sciences but is not new to Indigenous beliefs that have long understood the world to be cyclical, reciprocal, relational, and interconnected.
Indigenous Knowledges
Indigenous “paradigm comes from the fundamental belief that knowledge is relational” (Wilson, 2008, p. 56). For example, the Maori peoples of New Zealand’s worldview is based on the principle of Whakapapa which “turns the universe into a moral space where all things great and small are interconnected, including science and research” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 11). Similarly, Mi’kmaq “teachings are based on the interconnectedness of all things” (Marshall as cited in Moore, 2017, p. 24). These understandings see human beings as interconnected with the living and non-living and immersed in many relations and connections (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012). Indigenous knowledges therefore have interesting implications for the measurement problem because even if there are no humans observing phenomena, any number of conscious elements such as non-human animals and plants can be considered an observer, even the environment itself (Zurek, 2003). Therefore, the environment as a personified observer can explain quantum contradictions of how elements remain intact and manifest, even when we humans are not observing.
According to Indigenous understandings, the relationship of the human to the environment (other animals and plants etc.) is reciprocal. Sylvia Moore (2017) discusses how we are part of the circle of life and connected to the trees, the water, and even the salmon. What was important about the salmon project in her book was the process of teaching and bringing back the salmon to the stream. So, the process is important in Indigenous contexts as well, much like the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. There is no separation between the human and other humans or animals or the environment but if there are distinctions, then they are an I/We distinction and not an I/You (Chilisa & Kawulich, 2012). These distinctions represent the difference in worldviews between Indigenous peoples and western, dominant society. This brings us to the difference between organismic and mechanistic worldviews.
Organismic vs Mechanistic Worldviews
One’s worldview is one’s “philosophy of life” (Jung as cited in Koltko-Rivera, 2004, p. 4) and one’s worldview can influence one’s research and it can skew findings at every stage in the research process (Lincoln et al., 2011). The two major worldviews discussed here are that of a mechanistic worldview and an organismic worldview (Harris, et al., 1977; Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Organismic thinking, also called organistic (Harris, et al, 1977), organicism (Koltko-Rivera, 2004) and ‘system thinking’ (Angyal, 1965), sees the world in terms of complex patterns with an implicit order of unification. An organismic worldview, however, goes against traditional positivist understandings of reductionism that tend to produce a mechanistic worldview. A mechanistic worldview thus focuses on linear relationships and individual elements or parts (Harris et al., 1977). In this worldview, the sum of the parts is assumed to equal the whole. This is called reductionism, which is “the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms or “the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like, especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it” (Dictionary.com).
In order to present a strong case for a shift to an organismic worldview versus a mechanistic worldview, reductionism needs to be falsified. Reductionism can be falsified in several ways. One example is through General Systems Theory (GST). This is when the various branches of science grew so far apart in their specialities that they could no longer communicate (von Bertalanffy, 1972). The only way the different branches of science could communicate, was to develop a theory they could all agree on. The scientists eventually agreed there was such a thing as a ‘system,’ and proceeded to created two hypothetical systems as starting points on a continuum (von Bertalanffy, 1972). On one end is the purely open system and on the other is the purely closed system. These are hypothetical because they cannot exist in the physical universe. For example, every part in the purely open system communicates equally at the same time and intensity, which would end up crashing the system. In the purely closed system, none of the parts communicate, this is also not physically possible. However, in the hypothetical, purely closed system, reductionism is technically possible (von Bertalanffy, 1972). Only in a purely closed system can the sum of the parts equal the whole because there is no novel or new information being created because there is no communication between the parts. General Systems Theory can, therefore, be used as evidence against reductionism because reductionism can only happen in a hypothetical situation.
Reductionism is important to falsify because it can lead to the objectification of the Earth and seeing the Earth as a machine with a bunch of parts, thus turning a dynamic, living, organism or process into a static, lifeless machine. The world is not just a bunch of parts for human consumption. It could be argued that the objectification and dehumanization produced from a mechanistic worldview is more likely to lead to the justification for the destruction of the planet and justifies inequalities among people. Having an organismic worldview that aligns closely with actual research in quantum physics, makes more sense than a mechanistic worldview based on a false premise.
A mechanistic worldview produces a short-sighted understanding of complex systems, If we could see the universe as interconnected, then we might be more likely to see the Earth, other animals, plants, and children as living, dynamic co-producers of life and research, not static, pre-discursive, fixed elements for our manipulation. An organismic, interconnected worldview is therefore more likely to diffuse power relations in a research setting and promote equity among everyone involved.
Quantum theories confuse reductionistic, simple, fixed categories because “realistic quantum systems are never isolated but are immersed in the surrounding environment and interact continuously with it” (Schlosshauer, 2004, p. 1268). According to String Theory:
Thinking of physics in terms of elementary building blocks appears to be wrong, or at least of a limited reach…we can no longer distinguish the individual particles. Instead they dissolve into an entangled mesh of energy like the ingredients of a cake in a hot oven. (Dijkgraaf, 2018, para. 11)
This is closely aligned with transdisciplinarity because we cannot reverse engineer the cake. The cake is indistinguishable and different from the ingredients or disciplines (Choi & Pak, 2006) and we cannot separate out the eggs from the flour and sugar and say the sum of the parts equals the whole. Also, we cannot say just the eggs ‘caused’ the cake because none of the ingredients ‘caused’ the cake, the person making it did, and there were non-human elements involved such as mixers, spoons, measuring cups, etc. We also cannot say the eggs are superior to the flour or sugar. Therefore, when one is conducting research in the social sciences, a researcher must acknowledge complex, dynamic systems and to reduce a system to its parts and fixate static labels onto a person or phenomenon is to distort reality into something it is not.
The Quantum Self: Identity, Agency & The InterconnectedMess
of All Things Presentation Part 1
These aspects, of course, are important to identity and identity formation. Stressing the dynamic aspect of the diagram, the situation also has power over the negotiation of identity because these characteristics also may vary in salience depending on the situation. (SLIDE) For example, Sundar (2008) discusses “identity capital” (p. 253) which is a strategic negotiation of identity, that is dependent on the situation. In her interviews with Asian-Canadian youth, in some situations, like in a dominant, mainstream setting, it was strategic to “bring down the brown'' to gain social acceptance, but in other situations, like a family wedding, it was better to “brown it up” (Sundar, 2008, p. 265). This research shows that identity is fluid. Therefore, negotiating identity via the situation, one can gain the most out of whatever situation they are in, showing the complementarity of identity and the situation. Not antagonism.
Regarding agency, posthumanist research discusses an “active, dynamic agency” (Taylor, 2013, p. 688) making agency, like identity, also fluid and dynamic. A posthumanist understanding of agency places an emphasis on the “mutual entanglement” or “entangled process[es]” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2012, p. 156) that involve many variables such as history, materiality, the body, culture, nature etc. These are “intertwined practices of knowing and becoming” (Barad, 2003, p. 812) and cannot be parsed out. Therefore, identity and agency are fluid, dynamic and a compounded part of the InterconnectedMess of all things. Thank you.
References
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes
to matter. Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3), 801-818.
Biffle, C. (1992). A guided tour of Rene Descartes. Mayfield Publishing Company.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies:
Theory, applications and praxis. Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4),
785-810.
Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010). New Materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Duke University
Press.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. The
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), 139-167.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, R. (2012). Reading Rosie: The postmodern disabled child.
Educational and Child Psychology, 29(2), 53-66.
Harris, M., Fontana, A. F., & Dowds, B. N. (1977). The world hypotheses scale: Rationale,
reliability and validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(5), 537-547.
James, W. (1982). The varieties of religious experience. Penguin Group.
Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2016). What’s so “critical” about critical disability studies?
In L.J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader, pp. 175-194. Routledge.
Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2012). Acting with the clock: Clocking practices in early childhood.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(12), 154-160.
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge.
Prout, A., & James, A. (1997). A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance,
promise and problems. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and Reconstructing
Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Children, (2nd Ed.)
pp. 7-32. Routlege.
Raithelbuber, E. (2016). Extending agency: The merit of relational approaches for childhood
studies. In F. Esser, M. S.
Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.), Reconceptualizing agency and
childhood: New perspectives in childhood studies, pp. 89-101. Routledge.
Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization. Penguin Group.
Santrock, J. W., & Mitterer, J. O (2004). Psychology. McGraw-Hill
Shildrick, M. (2016). Critical disability studies: Rethinking the conventions for the age of
postmodernity. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of
Disability Studies, pp. 30-41. Routledge-Taylor and Francis Group.
Sundar, P. (2008). To “brown it up” or to “bring down the brown”: Identity and strategy in
second-generation, South Asian-Canadian Youth. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity
in Social Work. 17(3), pp. 251-278.
Taylor, C. A. (2013). Objects, bodies and space: Gender and embodied practices of mattering in
the classroom. Gender and Education, 25(6). 688-703.
Tong, R. (2009). Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction (3rd ed.) Westview
Press: Boulder, 2009. Print.
For S.A.P.S
The Grand Patchwork
Sandra Kroeker
Chapter 1: May 20/16
A Proposed Field Theory for Psychology: A Postmodern Response to the Age of Reason.
Diagram 1: Kroeker, 2009
Diagram 2: Paul MacLean’s Triune Brain, 1990
Adding Freud to Diagram 1: the body represents the id, emotion the superego and mind, the ego.
Adding Freud to Diagram 2: the reptilian brain (brain stem) = the id, the paleomammalian brain (limbic system) = superego and the neomammalian brain (cortex) = ego.
Both Freud and MacLean agree that the mind develops last. According to the Grand Patchwork, the mind is the mediator between the first two and each layer has its own field or level of consciousness. Different combinations of the fields are possible that can sway or influence various actions, thoughts and/or emotions. Activating all of them simultaneously in balance towards a common goal can produce a higher level of consciousness or being. In the Grand Patchwork, the variables of the environment (space) and situation (time) are added to the body side/field of Diagram 1.
A Proposed Field Theory for Psychology
Part 1 of the Grand Patchwork outlined an important history of the study of energy. It was found that many researchers, both famous and obscure have arrived at similar conclusions regarding characteristics and patterns of energy at its essence. They have all also detailed compatible theories as a result of their efforts. Part 1, the History of Energy, outlines a progression throughout time of the study of energy, from the most recent (so far as of 2008) to the earliest known. Click here to read Part 1.
Many branches of study such as philosophy, physics, hard sciences, mathematics, and psychology have explored the idea of energy at its simplest form. Upon studying the many works on the topic it was postulated that these researchers may have all been describing the same phenomenon or type of energy, but using different terminology. Conclusions led to the recognition of a pattern that had began to emerge between all the different theories.
Energy in its simplest form according to Energy Psychology is referred to as subtle energy (Feinstein, 2008) and its characteristics are almost identical to that of Quantum Physics’ zero-point energy (Einstein, 1956), and Miller’s idea of ether that permeates the universe (DeMeo, 2004). These have striking resemblance to Reich’s (1960/1961), orgone/bioenergy energy and the permeating Panpsychism described by Fechner (Skrbina, 2005). The energy that these researchers are referring to are also compatible with Leibniz’s (1965) theory of monadology and Pythagoras’ music of the spheres. Thus, this paper (Part 2) will focus on the pattern that unites these similar theories discussed in Part 1. Can they be brought together parsimoniously? If all these different theories are really taking about the same thing, or same type of energy then there might be a way to aggregate them or bring them together into one Unified Theory. One that unites the topic of energy at its essence, creating a New Unified Field. This paper will thus outline and discuss a theory that could potentially unite similar theories of philosophy, physics, hard sciences, mathematics and Psychology.
Not only is the description of this simplest form of energy similar in the theories discussed in Part 1, but also the idea of the need to unite two major opposites. For example, Pythagoras desired to unite the opposites of limited and unlimited (and/or self and the universe). Fechner desired to unite science and religion (and/or body and mind/spirit). Plato desired to unite the forms (or the everlasting principles of life) with actual objects on earth. Aristotle tried to locate within the earthly self where the forms (or spirit) resided. Many researchers throughout history have explored the topic of uniting two major opposites, such as Matter and Spirit, or mind and body (also see Heidegger, Lo Tzu, & Confucius). But, Psychology was born from those who desired to unite Spirit with Matter (Fechner) or Science and Religion (James). Therefore, Matter could represent the seen and the unseen could represent Spirit). For example, Pythagoras desired to unite the opposites of limited with the unlimited. The concept of “limited” could represent matter because matter is subject to decay and/or erosion and eventually dies. Unlimited could represent spirit because it is conceived to be immortal or eternal.
Following these lines, self could represent matter and its connection to the universe - the spirit (also representing a microcosm and macrocosm distinction). Science could thus be matter and religion could be spirit. The body could be seen as made of matter and the soul connected to spirit (soul being the individual's link to the collective spirit), and thus potentially being a particle or part in the larger unified field of humanity.
When considering Psychology,the rational part of the human personality could represent matter because its focus is on the detail and the material "seen" world. The emotional, creative or intuitive side of our personality could represent spirit because it has a holistic focus that oversees. If there is one thing that all Psychologists can agree on when it comes to Left and Right Brain distinctions, is that one side of the brain is better oriented toward detail (the left) and the other (the right) processes more holistically.
From a physicist’s point of view, General Relativity (which includes gravity) could represent matter or the seen because it deals with how objects are affected in the material world and the Standard Model (which includes quantum physics) would represent spirit or the unseen because it focuses on forces that underlie or even have downward control over matter as it is an "emergent capacity". Thus, matter could represent all that is seen and spirit could represent all that is unseen. But, this will be discussed in more detail in the Physics/Math section which is next. This section will focus on a field theory for psychology. In Part 1, Psychology was united with Religion/Spirituality and in this section, the opposites will be Matter and Spirit. For this demonstration, Matter will be operationally defined as all that is seen and tangible and Spirit will be operationally defined as all that is unseen or elusive.
The Two Become Three in Order to Solve the Problem
In order to unite two major opposing forces, one may need a solution to bring them together, such as a translator or a mediator. In order to resolve a debate, there needs to be an impartial third party, one that is on neither side, but can understand both.
Proposed Field Theory for Psychology: Resolving the Mind-Body Problem
To tackle the body-mind problem it needs to be known that the problem is not between the mind and body, but between the body (matter) and emotion (spirit). It is the mind that mediates between these forces and acts as a translator or mediator between the two. The mind is needed because spirit and matter cannot understand each other, yet desire to. Body, mind and emotion can also be referred to as id, ego and superego respectively. Freud agreed the mind was a by-product of the interaction between the id and the superego (Benjafield, 2005), thus mind is the newest addition to the brain and is thus the last to develop.
Pythagoras claimed things unfolded in threes, making three a reoccurring theme. Paul MacLean’s (1990) Triune Brain theory also backs up the rule of threes and an evolutionary progression of the brain because according to this theory the reptilian brain (id or desire) developed first, then the emotional centre, followed by the cortex. MacLean’s theory supports the notion of evolution because it provides evidence for a progression of the mind, which could reflect a desire or progression towards perfection. The id or raw urges, being first gives rise to a more refined emotion, but one that is in opposition; the superego dictates what is absolute or refined (the highest rung on the ladder that can be climbed). that the limbic system or emotion, then the cortex or mind coming up behind. This mind-body problem or confusion may have also tripped up Fechner, because he could not decide between the terms sentience, consciousness, and soul, and used them interchangeably (sentience = body, consciousness = mind, soul = emotion, see Part 1). Perhaps Pythagoras is correct that there are three major forces in the universe that influence us (not two).
Why Three?
The prospect of three is that there can be a solution between opposing forces. If two forces cannot agree, then a third or a mediator is needed. If there really are three major categories then perhaps there would be more solutions to problems. Splitting topics up into pros and cons or for’s and against’s tends to lead to a draw because the one side is always right about something (but not right due to another), likewise for the other. But the truth is both are correct in sum way; because each makes up for the other’s weaknesses (Hunt, 2005). Therefore, if opposites could be seen less as opposing forces and more as compliments, unification of the opposites may be easier.
The interesting thing about antagonistic pairing is that once one opposing force or side is satiated, the other rises up to balance. Perhaps those diagnosed with Bipolar disorder have no set-point or baseline and swing back and forth without grounding or balance within themselves. Perhaps the reason it is hard to discern between whether positive (emotions) or negative (emotions) reside on a continuum or are separate concepts is that they are both. They are linked through a connection or continuum, but are antagonistically organized, making them different yet act like they are separate. Perhaps they are the same, but mirror each other (see Leibniz, Fechner, & Spinoza) and run in opposite directions, same principles, but opposite directions, manifesting their own particulars and patterns (see Plato). Therefore there is a translator between positive and negative, but it lies in the mirror, the mechanism that mediates between the two. So, there are three forces because the mirror or mechanism is both (and neither) and therefore represent different forms and thus two opposing sides. These two sides may need a mediator that resides between the two acting as an impartial deliberator.
How Body Mind and Emotion Interact
It is proposed that each of these forces (body, mind and emotion) has a level of consciousness of its own that influence one another (like dynamic reflections of levels of the monad, see Leibniz in Part 1). The body has consciousness, the mind has consciousness and emotion has its own consciousness. The mind is most commonly associated with having consciousness, but so is the body. Body consciousness can also be referred to as kinaesthetic memory. For example kinaesthetic memory would be when studying for exams; if the lecture or answer to a question is written out it acts as a form of studying because the hand remembers what is being expressed. Your hand seems to remember what was written when it comes to the exam. Likewise when one practises getting a bull’s-eye on a dart board the body remembers the motion. When one is thinking too much about the action or movement, mistakes tend to happen. This may demonstrate or provide evidence for separate consciousnesses or functioning in the different layers of what it means to be human (id, superego & ego).
The body consciousness or (kinaesthetic memory) may be considered to be on a mathematical principle level, much like what one might call “auto pilot.” Once action patterns are learned, such as walking and riding a bike, that information becomes an understanding and jumps fields (like light) and becomes unified with the body consciousness or auto pilot system. When the person wants to access that pattern or “memory” again, then it is there, stored in the quantum computer called the body consciousness; in the cells.
The second force of emotion must thus also show it has its own consciousness. Paul MacLean’s Triune brain can also be used here as a way of understanding why for instance one may get up, go to another room to do something and completely forget what you were doing (Personal communication, J. Mitterer, 2008). This could be an example of the reptilian and limbic parts of the brain activating to create behaviour without the cognitive regions being consciously aware of the purpose of the movement. Much like the idea that cognition comes up last in an evolutionary way, it can also be the last to comprehend.
The reptilian and limbic parts of the brain may be older than the cortex, but they are more fully developed. The cortex has not yet been polished or completely grown to its maximum potential.
*******expand*******
This is why the term primitive can be misused, because sometimes it comes with it the idea of stupidity or inferiority, but primitive merely means older in age and those things older in age are usually considered to be wise. So, perhaps these three sections of the brain have their own type of consciousness and influence each other in an equal valid way. Communication or information coming from each of these layers is valid. Sometimes they agree and sometimes they do not. The idea would be to find a balance (inspired by Mitterer & Introduction to Psychology). Or the answer may lie in Jung's idea (1974) that the way back is the way forward and the waking conscious must relent to children's land.
The causal argument. In order for something to be considered real and to have its own level of consciousness, it must show that it has causal influences. Some believe that mind is more real than the body (Descartes in Biffle, 2001). Others believe the body to be more real (Wundt in Heidelberger, 2004). Leibniz (1965) would suggest they are equal. The Ontological issue of what is real and what is not, body or mind, is a lasting issue in the mind body problem. As said before, the Philosophical perspective would try to resolve this issue through reasoning called the causal argument. The causal argument states that if a substance can cause observable effects then it could be considered real. So, in order for emotion to be truly accepted as a third equal force, its reality must be determined through this causal argument.
An emotion can have its own influence on behaviour or “cause” behaviour because an emotion may arise without reason, such as fear (James-Lang as cited by Mitterer, 2004). This can influence behaviour because an individual may start running (the mind coming up last again). Emotion can have its own influence over the mind because an emotion can arise without reason and can change the focus of thought to appraising the emotion and why it is being felt, thus affecting the “stream of consciousness” (William James). Perhaps the force of emotion is real (also see Biopsychosocial model of health).
The body evolves as one force, emotion creates the opposing force as it evolves over top, then the mind comes up last and mediates between them, taming them both. Therefore, the proposed mechanism that unites body (matter) and emotion (spirit) is the mind that acts as a translator between the two. The body and emotion do not understand eachother, but desire to. These opposing forces need to be united and balance reinstated. See Figure 6 for a topological map of the relationship between the body mind and emotion. This diagram oversees the person as a whole, like Lewin’s (1936) topological map and field theory. Not only did Lewin (1936) include the person and the environment into his topological map or “life space,” but he made room for the situation at hand. Thus he recognized the situation as an important force in the decision making of behaviour.
If there is a third force of time in the person-environment dichotomy, then the number three comes back into play (space, time and gravity = 3). The situation is an important third force; it reminds us of spontaneity and what it means to be alive. It is the situation that determines what an appropriate course of action is and what is not. It is also the most important because it is the most real. Ontologically speaking, out of the three (past, present and future) the present is the most real because it is where you are right now, so get in the flow. For example a lot of people spend their day thinking about what happened in the past or planning their future, like what they are going to have for dinner. The now is where one should be to really feel alive and connected. This is where your antenna is located (see Part 1).
Using the topological map in Figure 6, behaviour would occur in the bottom left portion of the triangle. The body (tool) has desired to reach out to the world or the environment creating a body-environment dichotomy. The third force mediating this equation becomes time or the situation.
The situation works as a code or format that mediates between the body and the environment and because it mediates or translates. The communication between these two forces is forced into the parameters it demands at that time. In one situation an action may be completely absurd, but in another that action may be the most appropriate. After the body makes communication with the world, and the world communicates back, it communicates with the triangle as a system (you).
When we dream, we venture off to the other side of the triangle, the bottom right. The triangle means that communication can occur between emotion and mind and mind and emotion. Communication can also be made between body and mind and mind and body, but when communication is made between emotion and body and body and emotion, the mind is not directly aware of this communication and the mind may need catching up (or that person may be in the flow). It is thus proposed that all three forces of body mind and emotion should be considered equal forces and all taken into consideration when doing research in psychology.
To unite the branches of Psychology vicariously through uniting matter and spirit, the branches that lend themselves to nomothetics would be operationally defined as matter or observable space and the branches of psychology that are more ideographic would represent spirit.
Unifying the Self with the Universe
Going back to Energy Psychology’s idea of the auric field, it was also mentioned that we are like antennas and can pick up on other people’s energy. For example, you walk to into a room and meet someone for the first time and for some reason you are put off by them, or perhaps drawn toward them instead. This is your energy field feeling out and communicating with the energy field of the other person (P.C. M. Becker, 2008). Fechner believed that all forces in the universe could be narrowed down to repulsion and attraction (Heidelberger, 2004). If this is true, and we add Pythagoras’ knowledge to the theory, then perhaps we can use this antenna to tap into the frequency of the music of the spheres. This antenna could be the mechanism that that mediates between the self and the universe. One can tap into the energy of the universe through meditation or creativity or any act that produces a balance between body mind and emotion such as flow described by (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). The combined energy or union of the opposites of the body mind and emotion levels could create the catalyst necessary to transcend.
If things run in mirrors (Leibniz), then the self must reflect the universe and the universe must be represented somehow inside the body. This creates what is called a microcosm (self) macrocosm (universe) dichotomy because they body reflects the universe and the universe is represented in the body. If microcosm and macrocosm are reflections of one another, then the highest possible frequency (God) must have a comparable counterpart in manifest form. Well, the lowest possible frequency has been defined as subtle (EP) or zero-point energy (Einstein, 1956). Thus making the term “God particle” apt. Another example of this microcosm-macrocosm pairing would be the zygote and the female egg (smallest and largest).
Our pathway to enlightenment would thus be to learn how to harmonize with the frequency of the universe. Since there are about 6.6 billion people on Earth, not everyone will have the same frequency that harmonizes at the same level. For each unique individual, there could be a unique vibration, each adding their own layer or “track” of harmony on top. Much like how the receptor layers in the eye add new layers of information according to the constructivist approach. Therefore, in order to resonate with the music of the spheres or with the Supreme Music, we have to find our own sound vibration or frequency that mirrors the music of the spheres on our level and in our own interpretation.
On a different macrocosmic level, we can also become enlightened as a collective. For example, raising the frequency is a term used by the ancient Mayan culture referring to a process of collective enlightenment (Coe, 1999). So, it is proposed that to unite the self with the universe is to engage in activities that produce flow (Csikzentmahalyi, 1999) or reflections of dynamic patterns (Leibniz) of the universe and reciprocate (Fechner) with gratitude (P.C. S. Sadava, 2008) . Through meditation or activities that create flow, one can reach a level or frequency by using our “antenna” or auric field to tune into the music of the spheres so we can resonate with the universe in reciprocal gratitude; Therefore uniting the self with the universe.
The next section is geared more toward quantum physics that wishes to unite General Relativity (gravity, space and time) with the Standard Model, which involves the forces of particle physics including electromagnetism, strong and weak interactions. According to quantum physics a particle and/or mechanism is needed to unite these two forces. For the next section General Relativity will be operationally defined as matter and the Standard Model, spirit and a mediating mechanism will be proposed.
Figure 6: Topological map of the human.
References
Biffle, C. (1992). A guided tour of Rene Descartes.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychologist,
54, 821-827.
DeMeo, J. (2004) A Dynamic and Substantive Cosmological Ether, Proceedings of the
Natural Philosophy
p.15-20.
Feinstein, D. (2008). Energy Psychology in Disaster Relief. Traumatology. 14, 124-
137.
Heidelberger, M. (2004). Nature from within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and his
psycholphysical worldview.
Jung, C. (1960). The structure and dynamics of the psyche.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology.
Company Inc.
Reich, W. (1961). The function of the orgasm.
Reich, W. (1960). Wilhelm Reich: Selected readings.
Skrbina, D. (2005). Panpsychism in the west.