Descripción

Urantia Symposium 1991 Oklahoma Papers

 

 

 

Urantia Symposium 1991,Oklahoma,Papers

Page 1

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA C I , OKLAHOMA

This Special Conference Publication of the Fellowship Forum is made possible by the sincere, honest,

and thoughtful efforts of the participants in Scientific Symposium 11, conducted in Oklahoma City,

OWahoma, May 17-1 9,1991.

The Editors

 

CONTENTS: PAGE

 

Foreword Melissa Wells ii

 

The Ultimate Frontier: The Barrier of Mediocrity Larry Mullins 1

 

Coming Full C i ~ l e Joy Dirham 11

 

The Second Enlightenment: Religion and Liberalism Bill Granstaff 15

 

Engineering-Science and Magick L. Dan Massey, Jr. 22

 

The Life Pattern John Lange, M.D. 31

Paradise and the Topology of Space-A Theory of Ultimate Matter Philip G. Calabrese, Ph.D. 34

 

Manned Flight: From Fandors to FANDORS Paul W. Hemck, P.E. 38

Scientific Pdictions of The Urantia Book Irwin Ginsburgh, Ph.D.

and Geoffrey L. Taylor

 

Love and Science Charles E. Hansen 51

 

Personality and Will:

Inmasing Mastery of the Inner and Outer Worlds David Elders

 

New Models of Mind, Order and Chaos Brendan CYRegan 62

 

Psychology as a Variety of Religious Experience Marta

Elders, Ph.D. 70

Cosmic Design: The Creator’s Pin Mike Wisenbaker [A Separate Volume]

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

I havediscovered that when we askGod for help with

a problem, the solution can arrive in spectacular fashion.

Such was the case with Scientific Symposium 11.

This event, dedicated to the exploration of scientific

thought by students of The Urantia Book, was to be a

continuation of the initial effort by the Nashville study

group in presenting Scientific Symposium I at Belmont

College in May, 1988. Unfortunately, an incident occurred

during a regional conference held a year later at

the school which resulted in the termination of the use

of that facility as a site for conferences by the Nashville

study group.

 

Many months passed with no progress in finding

another site in Nashville for the second symposium,

which was tentatively scheduled for May, 1991. By the

spring of 1990, the location had to be resolved so that

the symposium could be announced at the International

Conference held at Snowmass, Colorado.

I discussed these problems with Berkeley Elliott from

Oklahoma City while we wereattending the 1991 spring

regional conference in Leesburg, Florida. Berkeley mentioned

possible sites in Oklahoma City, and I asked her

to check into them. Within a week, she had located two

universities that could accommodate our group during

May.

 

This was a pleasant turn of events for me, since I had

become a member of the First Society of Oklahoma a

couple of years earlier. Scientific Symposium I1 became

a project of that society and was scheduled for May, 1991

at Oklahoma City University.

 

This symposium was a continuation of a threefold

theme based upon a passage on page 1306 in The Urantia

Book which discusses human progress in planetary

development. «Man’s Increasing Control» was the topic

for the second symposium.

Many talented speakers with a scientific background

offered their expertise, ranging in subjects from the

social sciences to hard-core physics, with one speaker

dallying in the magick of it all. The second symposium

met goals which had been envisioned in early stages of

planning the first symposium.

 

First, a comparative

analysis of scientific thought in The Urantia Book with

prevailing thought in the scientific community was the

sub* of a paper delivered by Dr. Irwin Ginsburgh, an

engineering physicist from the Los Angeles area.

 

Second, a presentation by a scientist not involved in the

mainstream of Fellowship activities was made by Brendan

O’Regan of the Noetic Institute of Sciences in the

San Francisco Bay area. Many thanks to Larry Geis for

his time and effort to recruit Mr. O’Regan.

The work of volunteers in the Oklahoma Society in

preparing and hosting the symposium was exemplary.

Many travelers from the Oklahoma City airport would

pin me in thanking everyone who provided transportation

to and from the university. The spirit of serving

was beautifully demonstrated by the musicians and

singers who shared their talents during the went: Tom

Allen, David Glass, Susan Wright-Aldridge, Richard

Randall, Barbara Hester, Teny Pursell, Carol Hay, Joan

Batson-Mullins, Bill Granstaff, Phil Calabrese, Dan

Young and Waldine Stump. And Harry McMullan

deserves kudos for his gracious manner as master of

ceremonies.

 

A special note of thanks also to Kurt Cira of Milwaukee;

Dennis Bmdsky of Amherst, Wisconsin; and

Mike Hadilek of Phillips, Wisconsin for videotape

production of the symposium. Recognition should also

be given the Fellowship office staff who handled

registration and related finances. And thanks to Dianne

Menard, who has recently moved to Philadelphia from

Oklahoma City, for transcribing tapes of certain

presenters.

 

The symposium would not have been possible

without the volunteer efforts of the speakers, who invested

many hours, longdistance telephone calls, air

fares and other expenses in order to offer us their expertise.

 

My sincere appreciation for their efforts: Larry

Mullins of Boulder; Joy Dirham of Los Angeles; Bill

Granstaff of Oklahoma City; John Lange of Fort Smith,

Arkansas; Chuck Hansen of Silver Spring, Maryland;

Dave and Marta Elders of Darien, Connecticut; Michael

Wisenbaker of Dallas; Paul Herrick of Jupiter, Florida;

Irwin Ginsburgh of Los Angeles; Philip Calabreseof San

Diegd; Dan Massey of Boston; Carol Hay and Joan

Batson-Mullins of Boulder; and Brendan (YRegan of

San Francisco.

 

Scientific Symposium 111-Man’s Universe Integration-

is tentatively scheduled for May, 1994, at Oklahoma

City University Hope you can pin us!

-Melissa Wells, largo, Florida

 

MAY 17-19.1991 OKLAHOMA CITY. OKLAHOMA

 

The Ultimate Frontier:

The Barrier of Mediocrity

It is good to be back in Oklahoma. There is

no in my mind that it is here where

many of my spiritual roots lie, where they were

fostered and tested, and I hope dweloped to

some degree. About a year ago my daughter

Kathleen graduated from Oklahoma University

as an engineer, to my great joy. She was also

elected president of the Engineering Club.. .a

remarkable achievement in a man’s profession.

Kathleen used to kid me, saying that it took

twice as much for a woman to achieve the same

status as a man.. .that she would have to be

twice as good to achieve the same mgnition-«

But that is not very difficult,» she would

add. Kathleen was declared learningdisabled

when she was thirteen. It was because of Kathi

that I became passionately interested in the

science of motivation and human consciousness.

At Snowmass last summer I told the story

of how Kathi had lost her mother to cancer and

had lost an older sister to drugs, and my own

struggles to find God and walk with him.

Our theme today is «h4an’s Inapasing Control.»

There is no doubt that man has achieved

great strides in controlling his environment on

this planet. We are no longer wholly at the

mercy of the fickle elements. We can communicate

in nanoseconds with people all over the

world. There has been stunning progress in – –

virtually all the sciences.

 

But there is another frontier wherein humankind

has not been so successful. That is the

frontier of mediocrity that seals us off from 90%

of our potentiality. closely associated with the

frontier of mediocrity is the one area in which

humankind has total–or at least potentially

total–control. And that is the area of moral

choice.

 

And, yet, it is here where we have failed most

consistently. Here where we lag far behind our

material successes. This ultimate frontier-the

barrier of mediocrity that holds sway over most

of humanity-is the pb of all of us. You need

no special training to involve yourself with

work in this field. The laboratory of the ultimate

frontier is life itself. No one individual

has an advantage of any kind over another in

this study.

 

Some people have asked me over the years if

I have any special technique for approaching

the creative work I do. This is difficult to

answer; it would be like asking Dan Massey,

‘Wow do you think?»

 

The truth is that I don’t know anymore about

how the creative process works than anyone

else does. But I do know the means to set up the

circumstances by which the cmtive process

seems to happen. Actually, we know very little

about how the brain and the mind operate. If I

asked you a specific phone number that you

know, you would reply instantly. Yet, you do

not know what looked for the number nor where

or how it looked.

 

I will share with you the method I use to do

creative work. I also encourage you to share

your own ideas on the subject of development

of consciousness. As I said, the question of the

control and development of our consciousness

is the pb of us all.

 

I won’t make a lot of pkes this evening,

because this will be a serious talk. It is based

upon a very serious premise.

 

Irnmanual Kant said: «Do-and then be.»

Gurdjieff said: «Be-and then do.» And Frank

Sinatra said: «Shoo-be do be do.»

Today I am going to talk about the ultimate

frontier, that frontier we call mediocrity.

Mediocrity. Someoneonce said that it is not that

most people live lives of evil, but rather they

live lives of such utter innocuousness. Why?

 

Why do most of us here have the vague feeling

that we are using but a fraction of our total

powers, or personality credits, as The Urantia

Book might say? What can we do about it?

 

Just about a week ago Joan and I had a fantastic

week at ~ozumela, n island off Mexico,

nestled in the Caribbean Sea. Now, granted, we

were on our honeymoon. But there is no way

even a casual visitor could not be struck by the

glory for the senses.. .in the rich blues and turquoises

of the waters, the sky and the clouds,

the fresh, very temperate air.One day we took

a snorkeling trip on a big catamaran, along with

a couple of dozen other people.

I noticed one man sitting near us. He wore

dark glasses, and like most males on this planet,

he seemed to be trying to look as dangerous as

possible. But as he became more relaxed, he

began to talk in a friendly way. His name was

Joe. Joe was soon complaining about America:

it «isn’t what it used to be,» and taxation, and

this and that.

 

I gently and tactfully admonished him, and

Joe quickly modified his remarks. Later, he

would find other people to talk to and began to

harp upon his negative themes again. And

 

BY

Lany Mullins

A reader of The Urantia

Book for over 20 years,

Mullins is president of a

marketing and management

consulting firm in Boulder,

Colorado.

«Someone once said

that it is not that

most people live lives

of m’l, but rather

they live lives of such

utter innocuousness.»

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

Contrary to popular

belief, the greatest

moments of our lives

are not the times

when we were the

most receptive and

relaxed; our happiest

moments are usually

those times when we

stretched mind and

body to the limit in a

voluntary and successful

effort to

achieve something

worthwhile.

Why do we not enter

into some kind of

partnership with

God and go forth to

meet our destiny,

rather than seek to

avoid it all of our

days, only to be run

over by it in the end?

 

–William James

these other folks tended to agree with him and

began to chew a cud of negatives and petty gripes.

I ignored this discussion, but it occurred to

me: How is it that this man can talk in negative

terms about life, his country and all, when he is

engaged in activities and enjoying luxuries that

the richest man on the face of the earth could

not have duplicated a century ago? How can he

rail and be bitter about real or imagined wrongs

in such a setting, and a Viktor Frank1 can stand

in the freezing rain at three in the morning at a

Nazi death camp called Dachau, and make the

decision to create positive experience out of his

situation?

 

Or, how could a Lou Cehrig stand on wasted

legs in Yankee Stadium, his career cut short by

multiple sclerosis, and declare himself to be the

‘luckiest man on the face of the earth»? Or how

could a little black child named Wilma

Rudolph, who was born prematurely and was

crippled by disease as an infant, at twelve years

of age shed her braces against a doctor’s warnings

and eventually become the first woman to

win three gold Olympic medals in track?

Were these people gifted with a special ingredient

that Joe lacks? Or did they simply

access something that is available to us all-at

least to those of us who dare to go for it?

If Joe could meet Jesus, could Jesus turn him

around in a single conversation the way he

transformed Fortune? Why is it that it is

generally agreed among psychologists that we

achieve only ten percent or less of our potential?

Or, to put it another way, ninety percent or

more of our potentials never become actuals in

time and space upon this planet? Or why is it

that we use but two percent of our creative

powers when, at two years of age, most of us

utilized about eighty percent of those creative

powers?

 

Finally, why is it we share, as mortals of the

realm, a vague feeling that we ~IE not doing

what we need to be doing? Why is it that we

strive harder to avoid and escape our destiny

than we might have to if we sought to fulfill it?

As William Jamesonce said, «Why do we not

enter into some kind of partnership with God

and go forth to meet our destiny, rather than

seek to avoid it all of our days, only to be run

over by it in the end?»

 

I became interested in the process by which

we create our consciousness when I was a man

of about eighteen. It was then that I was presented

with the startling concept that we can

control our thoughts. I reasoned that if this is true,

and it seemed possible that it was true, we

could do virtually anything. No matter what

the situation, we could transcend it. With a

mind as clear as a mountain stream we could

achieve a kind of precise objectivity about ourselves,

as though our human personalities were

merely a subject of some noble experiment, and

wecould learn to dance thedanceof the human

condition with grace and skill.

 

This personal revelation about thought came

when I discovered a book called Raja Yoga or

Mental M o p m e n t , by Yogi Rarnacharaka. In

it the author asserts that we should be able to

discard an unwanted thought with the ease

with which we cast a tiny annoying stone from

our shoe. But, he laments, how rare indeed it is to

meet such a man. Instead, we watch the careworn

faces go by, faces haunted by bat-winged

phantoms that torture their minds, by this fearthought

and then another, or ruled by appetites

that have long supplanted their natural hungers.

 

People with whom we cannot carry on a

casual, relaxed conversation because the overbrooding

human ego is always there, suspicious,

watching, listening. I had no idea at the

time how difficult the task to control my mind

would be. It seemed impossible at times, and

success came very slowly. Today, after more

years than I wish to admit, I am a few inches

from where I started. But I was heartened when

I read that Jesus did not master his human mind

fully until he was nearly thirty.

 

Today there is an emerging school of psychology

that is based upon the optimal experience;

its premise is, essentially, that we create

our own experience. Understand that this is not

simply positive thinking. The process involves

reframing each and every situation that confronts

us in a manner that empowers, rather

than defeats, us.. .so that troubles invigorateus,

obstacles challenge us, and disappointments

spur us on.

 

Contrary to popular belief, the greatest moments

of our lives are not the times when we

were the most receptive and relaxed; our happiest

moments are usually those times when

we stretched mind and body to the limit in a

voluntary and successful effort to achieve

something worthwhile.

 

Last summer my six-year-old daughter,

Michelle, demonstrated this principle. She suddenly

swam the widthof the swimming poolwhat

we call the «big» pool. All summer long

she held the edge and would not attempt it.

Then she made a decision on her own to go for

it, and she did. When I lifted her out after her

triumph, she was spitting water and wasout of

breath. But she was ecstatic! Why? She made a

conscious decision to stretch herself to achieve what

she deemed an important milestone, and she

succeeded.

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

Now let us examine four premises that are

key to what The Urantia Book says about the

question of dominion of our conscious mind.

The first three premises will be easy for you to

accept.

 

First of all, The Urantia Book presents a model

of the human being that is unlike any theory

ever forwarded by psychology, religion, or

philosophy. The Urantia Book asserts that the

human creature is indwelt by God in two different

ways: by the prepersonal Thought Adjuster

and the Personality essence. These two

endowments of God seek to find each other in

time and space and are wholly dependent upon

the decisions of the human personality in this

quest.

 

The second premise is that somehow, upon

this mysterious enchanted loom between two

unchanging realities, the human creature

weaves-or fails to weave-its own universal

identity. The degree of success achieved by this

effort to achieve cosmic birth is the measure of

actuality achieved by the human creature. That

is to say, we become more and more real, in a

cosmic sense, as wedevelop our own potentials

into actuals. For most of us that means a success

ratio of under ten percent.

 

Third, the finite tool we are loaned to achieve

our own actuality is a dual-hemisphered instrument

known as the human brain. This instrument

is specifically designed to apprehend

finite reality. Because of its dual nature, the

brain is able to grasp and evaluate fact, or the

way things are, and also grasp the emerging

patterns of the Supreme, which together represent

the way things ought to be. It is the synthesis

of fact and value that produces a grasp

of ever-changing, everemerging reality.

Please note that I am saying here that fact, or

things, are not, nor could they ever be evaluated as

though they represent an intrinsicdity, however

popular this concept is with people. I have

heard intelligent Urantia Bwk readers casually

equate the material finite world with reality,

rather than seeing material reality as a necessary

but not adequate tenet of reality. Reality is a

living, organic synthesis of facts and values.

 

The human brain was specifically designed

to synthesize facts and values. Four billion messages

go back and forth between the hemispheres

each second. A better thoughtinstrument

would have a third brain to do the

pb of synthesizing. And we know that such

three-brained creatures exist and are superior

to one- and two-brained mortals in their

spiritual development.

 

My fourth and final premise is that the teachings

of Jesus for this day and this generation

1 can be summed up in three words: serenity,

receptivity, and action. Without question this

premise could bechallenged. Some might point

out that selfless, loving service is the essence of

the message of Jesus. My answer is that some

of us need to work to achieve a state of mind

that makes loving service possible. Also, if the

mind is serene and calm, and the heart is turned

to God and receptive, the action that follows

will be attuned to the service of God and

humankind. So let’s be patient and examine

this formulation.

 

Serenity is the first requisite. A turbulent, immature,

emotional mind cannot be receptive of

the mind of Jesus. Much of the teachings of the

Master focused upon thecleansing of the mind,

the removal of resentments, the mastery of fear,

and the achievement of clarity. Receptivity is

possible once the mind has achieved serenity.

But to be receptive one must be humble, devoid

of preconception. Action, or the completion of

decisions, follows upon the wise formulation of

a decision-plan. Without action, all the rest is

vain.

 

These four premises form the basis for what

I have to say: The Urantia Book presents a unique

model of humankind, a cosmic playground of

mind and decision existing in the intervening

finite between the Thought Adjuster and Personality.

Second, we create our own cosmic

identity in this area of human personality

dominion; we make ourselves cosmic actuals

based upon our decisions. Third, the twobrained

human tool of thought is the finite

dual-brain–one brain designed for reasoning,

logic and the analysis of fact, and the other for

receiving patterns and concepts. The living and

continual synthesis of these two factors constitutes

emerging reality, or relative truth.

 

Finally, the essence of the teachings of Jesus can

possibly be summed up as serenity, receptivity

and action. With these premises in mind, follow

 

me in exploring four questions.

First, if the mind of Jesus emerges in advanced

and spiritually mature mortals, is there

any clinical evidence of it? Has psychology or

science found any viable proof that intrinsic to

the healthy mortal is a set of clearly defined and

associated principles that correspond to the

mind of the Master?

 

Second, if modem psychology is accurate,

and we use but a tiny fraction of our creativity

and our potential, does The Urantia Book offer a

clear path to breaking the frontier of mediocrity?

Or are most of us doomed and sealed

behind this barrier?

 

Third, if our survival as realities, or universe

citizens, is predicated upon decisions,

My answer is that

some of us need to

work to achieve a

state of mind that

makes loving service

possible.

Serenity is the first

requisite. A turbulent,

immature,

emotional mind cannot

be receptive of

the mind of Jesus.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

First of all, let me

say that the mind

of Jesus has been

clinically discovered

and defined in people

who are, or were,

clearly superior

mortals.

 

To simplify Maslow’s

remarkable insight,

imagine that you

wanted to know

about baseball

players. lf you

studied only those

who failed, who

languished in the

class D leagues, your

idea of baseball

players would be

rather dismal.

 

1 decisions and more decisions, and a decision is

not complete until it is acted out, is there a

methodology in The Urantia Book that leads us

to right action?

 

Finally, how can weapply this information to

our everyday lives? ~mmediatelv~i,v idly, and

with clear results?

 

Fist of all, let me say that the mind of Jesus

has been clinically discovered and defined in

people who are, or were, clearly superior mortals.

The discovery was made and validated by

an atheistic Freudian psychologist named

Abraham Maslow. Just before World War I1

hundreds of the best Jewish minds fled the

terror of Nazism and came to New York City.

Many of these intellectuals joined the staff of

New York University where a young Abraham

Maslow taught. Maslow enjoyed rubbing

elbows with these brilliant people.

 

As a Freudian psychologist, Maslow had

learned that the human mind is programmed

with a social system of values, and th&e values

restrain us. That is to say, we repress our normal

instincts to, for example, push an old lady out

of our way because society has instilled a conscience

in us. Freud called this conscience the

super ego. Much of our psychological stress,

according to Freud, is the effort of our conscious

ego trying to reconcile the pressures of

our unconscious natural instincts, called the Id,

with the repressive pressures of our super ego.

 

According to this model of humankind, we

are essentially ruthless animals without conscience

or values until we are artificially

programmed by society. Freud’s studies and

analysis of people who were seriously malfunctioning

seemed to verlfy this model.

 

~ a s l o w b e ~ taon n otice two special people

among the body of brilliant minds at New York

University. They were Ruth Benedict and Max

~ortheikerl.% ese two did not seem to fit into

the ordinary human pattern of mediocrity.

 

They loved their work and threw themselves

into-it. They were gracious, warm, creative and

confident. They laughed freely and were accessible

under most conditions. They were bigbrotherlike

in their attitudes toward their less

able and adjusted brothers and sisters.

Being a kind of guy who liked to analyze

things, Maslow began to take notes and generally

observe these two unusual individuals.

 

~ b raend more he became convinced that they

did not fit the Freudian model. Late one night

Maslow had an insight that was to eventually

revolutionize psychology. He looked over his

notes on Ruth and Max, and in a single flash

saw that he did not have a profile of two people

before him. Although they were totally unique

and individual, the two profiles before him

represented a new kind of person.

 

Maslow was studying something that had

never been studied before. He was studying

psychological health. And most important of all,

it seemed that when a human entity reached a

degree of health and maturity, it began to manifest

a system in intrinsic values-including

truth, beauty, and goodness. Not stuff programmed

into the mind to repress it, not reins

to hold it back. But rather horses to pull and

allure it forward.

 

Maslow did not refute Freud. Nor did he

contend that Skinner and his behaviorism were

false. He simply said that the concept of a

human creature totally under the sway of antecedent

causation was incomplete. It seemed that

as a human emerged from the confines of

immaturity into relative degrees of maturity,

she or he became more and more able to exercise

free will.

 

Maslow conjectured that the human, as he or

she approached maturity, became more and

more real. This is to say that the potentials of the

human being began to become actuals. Such a

maturing individual began to make his self

ACTUAL. Thus Maslow arrived at a concept of

the process of self-actualization. Self-actualizing

humans did not fit the model of Freud or

Skinner.

 

Maslow came to the conviction that Freud,

by studying only the ill and failing misfits of

humanity had created a sick science, incomplete

and inadequate. To simplify Maslow’s

remarkable insight, imagine that you wanted

to know about baseball players. If you studied

only those who failed, who languished in the

class D leagues, your idea of baseball players

would be rather dismal. But if you studied the

great and super achievers in the sport, you

would collect a totally different body of information.

Maslow determined that he would study

healthy people. He began a long and arduous

effort that flew in the face of the elite and

accomplished high priests of psychiatry. He

looked for historical examples and contemporary

individuals who manifested the remarkable

qualities that he had discovered in Ruth

Benedict and Max Wortheimer.

 

The resulting study included nearly 2500

people. These were by no means perfect people.

They all had faults and areas of immaturity, or

lack of development. But they were achievers

who had made important contributions to the

planet, and they were relatively happy and

well adjusted. Most of all, they seemed to

manifest qualities of healthy behavior that

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

were beyond the ability of ordinary mortals.

 

Maslow published his findings in a paper entitled,

Self-Actualizing People, a Study in Mental

Health.

 

In this historic paper Maslow showed that

healthy, self-actualizing people, regardless of

their social backgrounds, are a different type of

human than the vast majority of their brothers

and sisters. Not simply different in degree, but

rather different in kind. There were not many of

these people, probably less than one and a half

percent of the population. But they were clear

models of what we human beings could become.

These self-actualizers showed parallel

characteristics that were impressive and beautiful.

Humanity had a new standard, a new and

encouraging potential to strive toward.

 

The emerging profile of self-actualizers reads

like a partial description of the personality of

Jesus.. .creative, expansive, generous, devoted

to a cause. There follows a very brief synopsis

of these characteristics. Read Maslow’s Motimtwn

and Personality if you want to learn more

about this study.

 

The Self-Actualization Touchstones

Religious: Self-actualizers seem to accept the

religious experience, the Peak Experience.. .

they have a devotion and a commitment to

higher values.

 

Active Agents: Without exception, self-actualizers

are committed to some high-minded

cause that they hold to be more important than

themselves. They tend to have a capacity to

lead, an ability to commit.

 

Independence of Culture, Opinwns, Social Formalities:

Self-actualizers are less enculturated

and programmed. They tend to think and act

on their own.

 

Creative: Self-actualizers are creative.. .they

get things done. They are spontaneous and

unpdctable, less concaned with sodal mores.

(They seem indifient to these mores, they do

not seek to violate them. People who consistently

go against social standards are consided

conformists in reverse.)

 

Brotherhood: Self-actualizers have a tendency

to help those around them … they have unorthodox,

unhostile senses of humor.

 

Clarity: They seem to perceive reality with

clarity, with fewer hang-ups and ego concerns.

Problem Solver: Self-actualizers are problemcentered

rather than ego-centered. They tend to

focus upon the important situations at hand,

sometimes to the exclusion of their own immediate

needs.

 

Maslow determined that a human being

could not achieve the self-actualizing process

until he had satisfied certain deficiency needs. It

was in these areas of deficiency, or pemeived

deficiency, that the ideas of Freud and Skinner

seemed to bevalidated. But once the human being

no longer saemed to need to talQ things from his

environment to satisfy his needs, once he began to

give things back to his environment, Freudian

psychology and Skinnerian Behaviorism no longer

adequately explained his behavior.

 

Maslow’s pyramid or hierarchy of needs is

well known. His two key premises related to

this pyramid of needs are: a lower need must

be satisfied before another or higher need is felt;

and a satisfied need no longer motivates. Let’s

look at this hierarchy of needs.

 

1. Biological needs. The entity must have food,

air, water, etc., before it will seek to satisfy

another need.

2. Safety Needs. When a human feels biological

needs satisfied, he will seek to establish

security.

3. Social Needs.Once the entity feels safe, he

seeks out social companionship, approval, acceptance.

4. Hazing satisfied these needs the mature now

craves estern, recognition, power and control. The

ego operates in various arenas of life to satisfy

these needs. Once the human has achieved the

rare status of satisfying his esteem needs, he

passes into a new area: the area of relative

maturity.

5. Self-Actualizing. This is the area where the

entity &eks to become real-an actual rather

than a potential. This is not a conscious pursuit

in the way one might seek social acceptance or

power. Self-actualization seems to be the byproduct

of the pursuit of some cause greater

than oneself. All self-actualizers were totally,

sometimes fanatically, committed to a highminded

task. [«He who saeks to find his life sM1

lose it, he who loses it for my sake shall find it.»]

On pages 576 to 577, The Urantin Book delineates

a very similar hierarchy of development

for humanity: (1) TheNutrition Epoch (biological

needs); (2) The Security Age (safety needs);

(3) MaterialComfort Era (described as an era

that permits leisure and comfort. The social

needs, such as competing for material status – –

described by Maslow, can be correlated with

this era.); and (4) The Quest for Knowledge and

Wisdom. (Unfortunately, on our planet this

quest is closely related to immaturepower and

ego needs. Thus Maslow determined that individuals

seek knowledge largely to achieve

status, esteem, recognition and control. Yet, an

honest quest for knowledge results in the

development of wisdom, and accumulated

wisdom results in enlightenment.)

 

The emerging profile

of selfddualizers

reads like a partial

description of the personality

of

Jesus.. .creative, expansive,

generous,

devoted to a cause.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

«The concept of

process is an

important one.

We never achieve

self-actualization,

we only enter into

the process. «

Then Iesus gave him

a stunning command,

«Arise my son

and stand up like a

man.» Jesus told him

in effect to get off his

duff.

 

I

 

The Urantia Book goes on to layer the self-actualizing

process into three distinct levels. It is

interesting to note that in the Maslow model we

have traversed four distinct levels of development

and entered into a fifth. In my own judgment,

these are the swenth through the third

psychic circles.

 

The Urantia Book describes the areas below

self-actualization as deficiency areas, remarkably

close to Maslow’s concept of deficiency

needs. The book comments that this residue of

animal indulgence and laziness is eradicated

upon the mansion worlds. Entering the third

circle, or the area of self-actualizing, as 1 have

said, The Urantia Bookdelineates threeadditiona1

levels:

 

5. The Epoch of Philosophy and Brotherhood.
6. The Age of Spiritual Striving.
7. The Era of Light and Life.. .for an individual

human being, di& ~djustecro ntact and eventual

fusion.

 

According to Maslow, only about one and a

half percent ot the population enter the self-actualization

area, which I have conjectured is the

third circle. I must also remind vou that the

psychic circles are not levels of spiritual development;

they are only associated in some unspecified

way to spiritual development. This

would fit the maturitv criteria and discoveries

of Maslow about the kierarchy of needs.

We can reasonably conjecture that if seven

psychic circles do exist, they should give researchers

some evidence of their existence. It is

not unreasonable to associate the Maslow

hierarchy of maturity development with the

psychic circles.

 

My second and third questions were: Does

The Urantia Book give us a methodology to

break into the ultimate frontier, the barrier of

human mediocrity? Does it give us a method to

make decisions and complete them with action?

I believe it does. There are two pages in

the book which every student of psychology

should study with minute care. we are all

familiar with them. It is the encounter of Jesus

with Fortune. In this encounter lesus outlines a

program that caused Fortune to transform from

a languishing, fear-ridden mortal with the

potential to be ten times what he was, to a

magnificent reality in the universe-a jewel in

the mosaic of the Supreme. What Jesus said to

Fortune was the message he gave to all of

humankind-in clear, precise and unmistakable

terms.

 

Is it not true that most of us tend to languish

on our own private hillsideof doubt, indecision

and self-pity, at least to somedegree? Isn’t there

a vague uneasiness that the fire of desire within

us has been dampened by fear? Could this

common syndrome beour potentials raging for

expression? Maslow believed this restless unfulfillment

is the condition of most of hurnankind.

 

He conjectured that the discomfort we all

feel can only be satisfied by the cultivation of

our own undeveloped potentials. Else, these

potentials will eventually grow silent, decay

and die. In this case an inexpressibly precious

treasure has slipped through the fingers of our

stewardship.

 

Jesus knew the human condition far better

than Maslow. And I believe Jesus spoke to all of

us when he spoke to Fortune. The first characteristic

of the message of Jesus to Fortune was

that it represented a process, a complete cycle.

It began with a physical action and recycled with

a physical action. It was an endless process

prescribed by the Master. The concept of

process is an important one. We never achieve

self- actualization, we only enter into the process.

People are never self-actualized; they may become

self-actualizers. The process never ends.

 

The first thing Jesus did with Fortune was

open his mind to the ultimate goal. Remember

at all times and under all circumstances why

you are on this planet. The Urantia Booksaysthat

our primary goal should be to attain better and

better communion with our Thought Adjuster.

Here is the ultimate source of the values and

spiritual potential we should honor, the truth

we seek, and the solution to every problem that

confronts us.

 

There is not a person here without a set of

pmblems, and without a magnificent opportunity

for growth.

But let us go back to Jesus and Fortune. Jesus

first gave Fortune a perspective of the ultimate

goal, our spiritual destiny. Then Jesus gave him

a stunning command, «Arise my son and stand

up like a man.» Jesus told him in effect to get

off his duff. Alfred Adler noted this need for

physical action to break the inertia of the lazy

evolutionary mind: ‘Trust only movement.»

 

Then Jesus acknowledged for Fortune the

reality of his pmblems and obstacles. But he

reframed them for this self-pitying man in such

a way as to empower him: «You are sumunded

by small enemies and many obstacles. But

the big things and the real things of this world

and this universe are on your side. The sun rises

.to greet you as it does the most powerful and

prosperous man on earth.»

 

Jesus then points out that Fortune has better

than average physical equipment, but that it

was useless and wasted as long as he isolated

himself from humanity and nursed real and

fancied misfortunes. «You could do great

things with your body if you will hasten off to

where great things are waiting to be done.»

 

Then Jesus addressed the arena of thoughtthe

mind. He again acknowledges the reality of

Fortune’s problems, but he indicates there is

only one way out.. .one escape. And that is for

Fortune to take the initiative through assertion

of his dominion over his mind.

 

Jesus said to Fortune, «Look again. Your

mind is clear and capable. Your body has an

intelligent mind to direct it. Set it to work to

solve its problems, teach your intellect to work

for you. Refuse to be dominated by fear like an

unthinking animal. Your mind should be your

courageous ally in the solution of your life’s

problems rather than your being its abject fearslave

and bond servant of depression and

defeat.»

 

Then Jesus spoke of the spirit. He called this

the most valuable possession of all. He told

Fortune to mlease the spirit from the fetters of fear.

Once released, ~esus& id the spirit wduld

stimulate and inspire the mind to control itself and

activate t k body. This, in turn, would enable the

spiritual nature to begin to deliver Fortune

from the evils of inaction. And Jesus suggests

to Fortune that the ultimate tool to release the

spirit is living faith.-faith to release the spirit,

which will inspire the mind and activate the

body. The gift of faith. ..ours for the asking. We

need but ask for it and receive it.

 

Fdy,Je sus admonished Fortune once again

to action: «When you become so readjusted to

life within yourself you likewise become readjusted

to the universe; you have been born

again-henceforth your life will be one of victorious

accomplishment. Trouble will invigorate

you; disappointment will spur you on;

obstacles will stimulate you. Arise, young man!»

And now we have come ‘round full circle.

Jesus began with a perspective, and then suggested

a physical action. Next, he asserted

dominion of human personality over mind.

Then he advocated a &ease of the spirit, and

finally back again to a physical action. This is a

process, a cycle, something that happens simultaneously,

yet must be understood and ordered

sequentially by the evolutionary mind.

 

For those of us who have fears and doubts

and a haunting feeling of dissatisfaction, I offer

one final suggestion. I have devised a pragmatic

application of the process we have just

discussed, one that I find most valuable. It is of

great value in getting myself into the right

frame of mind to do creative work

The formula I use is simple, and based upon

the technique Jesus taught Fortune: 1 pray for

perspectiue, claim dominion over mind, and ask for

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

the humility to accept the gij? of faith. Finally, I ask

for the energy to act and the intep’ty to live up to

the light I am given. Each day, regardless of the

situation, I do this process.

 

Now, most of us eat some kind of breakfast,

but few of us feed our soul each morning. Few

of us prepare for the day. We plunge intiit and

cope with what emerges. No warmup, no preparation.

Imagine an athlete who failed to warm

1. Imagine Mary Lou Retten attempting to do

her historic vault-the one that won her the

Olympic title–without a warmup.

 

So try this tomorrow morning. Get up at least

a half hour earlier. An hour is better. And begin

your day with an appropriate prayer to gain a

broad perspective. My prayer is simply to acknowledge

that on my own, with my human

mind and personal capabilities, I will fail. I ask

for the mind of Jesus. I ask that God direct and

help me. This initial process is the process of

gaining perspective … a reminder as to why we

are here.

 

Consider your ultimate objectives. For example,

if you were planning a vacation day,

you could plan to cram into each moment the

very most experience you can. Or, you could

plan to walk with God and to enpy a wonderful

spiritual experience. Also, if you elect to

follow the will of God each day, remind yourself

that God works with incredible economy.

 

There is no surplus of time or material supply,

but rather an exact amount at the exact time

needed. Too many of us live as though our

objective is to do as much as possible in any

given day, rather than to do what God may

want done.

 

So begin the day early with a reminder of

why you are engaged in living your life upon

the planet. This gives meaning to everything

that follows each day, rather than simply going

through the motions and coping. Try to do a

little physical exercise, some stretching and

breathing. Next, try to observe your mind. It is

a tool for you to use; it is not you.

 

Your emotions are not you, either. You are

sovereign over mind … claim your birthright.

Identify with the personality essence withinit

is that «thing» which observes, the thing that

cannot observe itself. Thus, it cannot be defined

or qualified; it is YOU, the essence of you.

Next, I ask that God grant me the ability to

accept the gift of faith. I ask that whatever elements

are in me that might prevent me from

accepting this gift be dissolved. And thus I seek

to release the spirit within from the fetters of

fear. By now, if 1 am successful, I achieve a kind

of serenity, a peace. Now I am ready to receive.

And in the silence of the morning I listen to

Jesus then points out

that Fortune has better

than average

physical equipment,

but that it was useless

and wasted as

long as he isolated

himself from

humanity and

nursed real and fancied

misfortunes.

 

So begin the day

early with a

reminder of why you

are engaged in living

your life upon the

planet. This gives

meaning to eve ything

that follows

each day, rather than

simply going

through the motions

and coping.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM 11

 

It has been said that

we are not punished

far our errors and

our sins; we are

punished & them. In

the same vein, we are

not punished far failing

to live up to the

light we are given;

we are punished @

not living up to the

light within our soul.

My formula is exadly

as I presented it.

Achieve serenity of

mind. Achieve an

attitude of receptivity.

And then act

according to the light

you are given. A

spiritual life is an

edifice that must be

rebuilt each day.

 

God. Although I do not hear his words, I open

mind and heart and trust that transactions are

taking placebeyond the scope of my conxiousness,

in the highest regions of my mind.

But this process of listening is not passive. We

must go to our Thought Adjuster with a purpose.

We must ask advice and listen as though

it was an alter ego. We must complete this part

of the process by honoring our spiritual potential,

and asking that what we have learned in

these precious moments beapplied to the arena

of life we are about to enter. We must bring

something back with us. And the light,

whatever we get, must be honestly lived up to

and sincerely honored. Else it turns to darkness

within the soul.

 

It has been said that we are not punished for

our errors and our sins; we are punished by

them. In the same vein, we are not punishedfor

failing to live up to the light we are given; we

are punished by not living up to the light within

our soul.

 

This hour or so in the morning is my most

precious time of the day. If, for some reason it

is not possible to get an hour with God, I try to

get a few minutes, but always in the morning.

Always I have at least the time to acknowledge

my helplessness and my need for him.

 

I should point out that I have observed the

very first thing to be neglected in the prayerand

process I have suggested is the acknowledgment

of my own inadequacy. If I am careless, I

seem to forget that humility is necessary. I must

admit that I need God-that I cannot do it by

myself. I personally must monitor this tendency

toward armgance very carefully.

 

There is one final suggestion I make. 1 complete

my session by a physical action: I write

down all thevarious things I need todoor think

I need to do. I then time-frame each of these

items and, finally, establish priorities. This is

the final physical action that reestablishes the

cycle and completes the process for the moment.

Remember, the process is endless. This is

the technique I use that seems best to help me

do creative work.

 

My formula is exactly as I presented it.

Achieve serenity of mind. Achieve an attitude

of receptivity. And then act according to the

light you are given. A spiritual life is an edifice

that must be rebuilt each day.

Try this system if you want to be invigorated,

spurred on and stimulated. Because Jesus

promised that if we are aligned properly with

the universe, our troubles will invigorate us,

obstacles will stimulate us, and disappointment

will spur us on.

 

I hope I have offered something of value. I

tried to show that the mind of Jesus has been

clinically discovered and studied. I have tried

to show a clear method by which Jesus taught

us to align our selves with the forces of the

universe. I have asserted here that if we but

learn three things from Jesus-serenity of mind,

receptivity, and action-we will do justice to his

teachings. We will achieve noble self-expression

and not simply be reactive to stimuli.

 

Disney used to say that to get better we need

to use the pause between stimulus and

response. The quality of that pause determines

whether we will react from the top of our heads

or the core of our being. I suggest here a pause

at the beginning of the day to realign your self

with the ultimate purpose of your life. If you

really can’t conceive of an ultimate purpose, do

this exercise tomorrow morning. Write your

obituary in a hundred words of less. Write your

obituary the way you would like it to read some

day. How would you like to be remembered?

When you have written your obituary in this

way, you will have written your ultimate purpose

in life.

 

In closing, to the scientists I suggest that

science is not a study of reality, but a study of

fact. Quantum physics dws not prove that the

very tiny is undeterminate; it proves we cannot

determine–as yet-how it works. It was the

arrogance of materialism that built an unsinkable

ship called the 7itanic. And it was science

without values that built gas chambers not

many decades ago.

 

The scientist who is a Urantia Book believer

will honor values, and will recognize that her

or his domain of expertise is fact. The domain

of value is that of religion, but it ultimately

belongs to all of us. And the domain of emerging

truth is the domain of the philosopher. And,

of course, we are all philosophers, and the

study of tmth is the pb of all of us.

 

I suggest we all spend an hour each morning

talking withGod. An hour spent aligning yourself

with your Thought Adjuster puts you in

tune with the universe and in liaison with God.

In liaison with God, anything, absolutely anything,

is possible.

In liaison with God, anything, absolutely anything,

is possible.

I love you, God bless all of you.

 

REFERENCES

 

The Urantia Book:

Reference to two-brained theory and threebrained

creatures: page 566. This information

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

predated the Speny split-brain experiments by

nearly two decades.

Encounter of Jesus with Fortune, pp 1437-8.

References to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,

pp 576-7. This information predated Maslow

by nearly two decades.

 

Selected comments:

[Intrinsic drives to self-actualization]-

‘There are present in all mortals certain innate

drives toward growth and self-realization

which function if they are not specifically inhibited.

The certain technique of fostering this

constitutive endowment of the potential of spiritual

growth is to maintain an attitude of wholehearted

devotion to supreme values.» (*1095)

[Transition from antecedent causation

toward self-actualization]- «Religion assures

man that, in following the gleam of righteousness

discernable in his soul, he is thereby identifying

himself with the plan of the Infinite

purpose of the Eternal. Such a liberated soul

immediately begins to feel at home in this new

universe, his universe.

 

«When you experience such a transformation

of faith, you are no longer a slavish part of

the mathematical cosmos but rather a liberated

volitional son of the Universal Father. No

longer is such a liberated son fighting alone

against the inexorable doom of the termination

of temporal existence; no longer does he combat

all nature, with the odds hopelessly against

him; no longer is he staggered by the paralyzing

fear that, perchance, he has put his trust in

a hopeless phantasm or pinned his faith to a

fanciful error.

 

 

«Now, rather, are the sons of God enlisted

together in fighting the battle of reality’s triumph

over the partial shadows of existence. At

last all creatures become conscious of the fact

that God and all the divine hosts of a well-nigh

limitless universe are on their side in the supernal

struggle to attain eternityof lifeand divinity

of status. Such faith-liberated sons have certainly

enlisted in the struggles of time on the

side of the supreme forces and divine personalities

of eternity; even the stars in their

courses are doing battle for them; at last they

gaze at the universe from within, from God’s

viewpoint, and all is transformed from the uncertainties

of material isolation to the sureties

of eternal spiritual progression. Even time itself

becomes but the shadow of eternity cast by

Paradise realities upon the moving panoply of

space.» (*I1171

 

[On evolutionary laziness]- «Evolutionary

man does not relish hard work To keep pace in

his life experience with the impelling demands

and the compelling urges of a growing religious

experience means incessant spiritual

growth, intellectual expansion, factual enlargement,

and social service. There is no real religion

apart from a highly active personality. Therefore

do the more indolent of men often seek to

escape the rigors of truly religious activities by

a species of ingenious self-deception through

resorting to a retreat to the false shelter of stereotyped

religious doctrines and dogmas. But

true religion is alive. Intellectual crystallization

of religious concepts is the equivalent of spiritual

death. You cannot conceive of religion

without ideas, but when religion once becomes

reduced only to an idea, it isno longer religion;

it has become merely a species of human

philosophy.» (*1120-21)

 

[On the technique of receiving the mind of

Jesus]- «The technique whereby you can

accept another’s idea-as yours is the same

whereby you may let the mind which was in

Christ be also in you.’ » (*1123)

[On the domains of science and religion]-

«Science becomes the thought domain of mathematics,

of the energy and material of time and

space. Religion assumes to deal not only with

finite and temporal spirit but also with the

spirit of eternity and supremacy. Only through

a long experience in mota can these two extremes

of universe perception be made to yield

analogous interpretations of origins, functions,

relations, realities, and destinies.» (9139)

«Even the discoveries of science are not truly

real in the consciousness of human experience

until they are unraveled and correlated, until

their relevant facts actually become meanings

through the encircuitment in the thought

streams of mind.» (*1120)

 

«This profound experience of the reality of

the divine indwelling forever transcends the

crude materialistic technique of the physical

sciences. You cannot put spiritual py under a

microscope; you cannot weigh love in a balance;

neither can you estimate the quality of

spiritual worship.» (*2095)

 

[On the stewardship of potentials]- ‘The

great challenge that has been given to mortal

man is this: Will you decide to personalize the

experiencible value meanings of the cosmos

into your own evolving selfhood? or by re@-

ing survival, will you allow these secrets of

Supremacy to lie dormant, awaiting the action

of another creature at some other time who will

in his way attempt a creaturecontribution to the

evolution of the finite God? But that will be his

contribution to the Supreme, not youls.» (*I 284)

 

When you experience

such a transformation

of faith, you are

no longer a slavish

part of the mathematical

cosmos but

rather a liberated

volitional son of the

Universal Father.

 

(*1117)

. . .at last they gaze at

the universe from

within, from God’s

viewpoint, and all is

transformed from the

uncertainties of

material isolation to

the sureties of eternal

spiritual progression

(*1117)

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

«Man’s eternal soul evolves its own eternal

destiny by association with the divine presence

of the Paradise Father and in accordance with

the personality decisions of the human mind.

What the Trinity is to God the Supreme, the

Adjuster is to evolving man.» (‘1282)

‘The Supreme Being did not create man, but

man was literally created out of, his very life

derived from, the potentiality of the Supreme.

Nor does he evolve man; yet the Supreme himself

is the very essence of evolution. From the

finite standpoint, we actually live, move, and

have our being within the immanence of the

Supreme.» (9283)

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Adler, Mortimer. 1990. Truth in Religion: The Plurity of

Religions and the Unity of Truth. New York: Macmillan.

Csiksmhnihalyi, Mihaly. 1990. Flow: The Psychology

of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row.

Herbert, Nick. 1985. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New

Physics and the Meaning of Reality. New York:

Anchor Books.

Leichtman, Robert and Carl Japikse. 1982. Actiue

Meditation. New York: Ariel Fress.

Maslow, Abraham. 1970. Motiaation and Pmonality.

New York: Harper and Brothers.

Maslow, Abraham. 1970. Religions, Values and Peak

Exprimus. New York: Viking.

Ramacharaka, Yogi. 1%. Raja Yoga or Mental Dmelop

ment. Des Plaines, IL: Yoga Publication Sodety.

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

Coming Full Circle

I want to talk to you this evening about what

I have come to explore in my own «gradual

accumulation of the knowledge of the laws of

the material world.» I will be speaking of

problems associated with the central nervous

system (brain and spinal cord), and the musculoskeletal

system (muscles and bones).

 

First, I will address some experiences I’ve

had, in the clinic, that transcend purely scientific

investigation, and go beyond anything I

was taught in school. Second, I will cite some

information from others that will substantiate

the occurrence of outcomes that transcend the

easily explained and their recognition of the

importance of these events. Last, I will offer a

brief explanation of my understanding of the

approach of Moshe Feldenkrais and his

philosophic/therapeutic method that offers a

plausible theory that sheds light on these transcendent

phenomena. Along the way, I hope to

allude to the need to reconsider our purely

scientific stance, and to come full circle by

realizing the importance of the ‘laying on of

hands,» both literally and figuratively; which is

to say, using actual touch and using emotional

touch. I hope to give you questions about your

own ability to come full circle, as an individual,

through looking back to your earliest development

and thinking about what behavioral and

physical habits you’ve formed which may no

longer serve you. An increase in personal control

can happen when we recognize our past

and free ourselves from it–come full circle.

As I stated, the transcendent experiences I’ve

had during my work with people with brain

injury and strokes have occurred as a result of

looking at a much bigger picture of the patient

than I was ever taught to look at in school.

 

Several important factors can affect the outcome

in giving these people an increase in

motor control. The ability of the patient to

respond cognitively is important, but of greater

importance is the ability of the body to experience

a feeling of normal movement. This

«feeling» of normal movement involves not

only the sensory perception of movement, but

also the emotional feelings associated with the

ease of normal movement.

 

Normal movement has an inherent lightness,

and in the impaired system, when this

movement happens, there is a profound emotional

response that reverberates throughout

the whole organism. In order to impose a feeling

of normal movement on a disrupted system,

it requires the therapist/teacher to view

the entire human organism sitting before her,

and to gently guide the distorted body parts

into a posture more related to normal body

postures. I have learned that the greatest success

can happen if this gentle guiding takes into

account the patient’s psychological need for

security-both physical and emotional safety. I

am able to establish this bond of trust by touch:

in the firmness or lightness of the touch, the

speed of the movement, the physical support

or lack of support, or sometimes by just placing

myself in the position to catch them if they fall.

 

Very little verbal exchange takes place. Furthermore,

an awareness of my own muscle tone, as

well as my own emotional tone, helps to establish

the necessary setting. The ad of utilizing

the correct components of movement, via

positioning the patient properly, which I have

been taught, could be elevated to a more

dynamic healing event when the whole person

was considered, and when the teacher/

therapist brought herself wholly to the task.

 

Occasionally, all of the elements come together,

and the patient experiences the look of recognition

associated with normal movement. I call

this event a «cordial connection» between

myself and the patient. It sometimes feels like

a hcly moment, and we are both blessed. I feel

that this must represent a true laying on of

hands.

 

In our search for purely scientific, reproducible

proof of how and why something works,

we have seen a loss of favor for the simple

loving act of laying on of hands. I do not

propose to take away anything from all the

marvelous discoveries that have been made or

the tremendous gains that occur through use of

the factual, reproducible, scientific method. I

have come to believe, however, that our search

for answers will increasingly bring us full circle

to the discovery of the potency of the laying on

of hands and the intangible, unreproducible

results that can occur. And this has to do with

the recognition of the whole person, and with

an interchange between two persons involved

in this creative act of healing.

 

Oliver Sacks discusses the split between science

and life, between the pure facts of science,

as in physics, and the variety of phenomena

that defy strictly factual explanation. We can

physiologically identify specific areas of the

brain in which memories and images are held,

where sensations and experiences reside. We

cannot, however, locate the geographic site of

judgment or the home of human dignity; these

 

BY

Joy Dirham

A student of The Urantia

Book 14 years, Dirham has

a B.S. degree in physical

therapy. Thefocus of her

work has been on central

nervous system dysfunction,

working with stroke

victims and those who haue

sustained traumatic brain

injury. She is cmtifred in

the Babath neurodeuelopmental

treatment technique

for adult hemiplegia.

It sometimes feels

like a holy moment,

and we are both

blessed.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

I have come to

believe, however, that

our search for

answers will increasingly

bring us full

circle to the discove y

of the potency of the

laylng on of hands

and the intangible,

unreproducible

results that can occur.

 

To one degree or

another, these

theoris draw upon

the body’s hidden

potential-the

transcendent intangible.

are transcendent functions of the mind. The

focus of science on the physiology of the mind

misses the importance of looking at the organism

in its entirety-looking at the total being.

 

By focusing on the lesion and treating only this

lesion, a failure to see the ramifying effects

throughout the whole person is inevitable.

Sacks discusses his book, Awakenings, and

cites the divergence in the particular manifestations

of catatonia seen in patients with Encephalitis

Lethargica Syndrome. Even in a

catatonic state, beyond a level of generic

similarities, the «sub-types» of the syndrome

became as varied as the individuals who possessed

them. When the drug L-Dopa was introduced

and these patients experienced an

awakening, after the initial euphoria, the

response to LDopa was not necessarily associated

with the degree of physiologic damage

that had taken place, but appeared to have a

great deal to do with the individual patient’s

state of mind. Sacks describes Rose R, who was

nostalgic for those things familiar to her, all of

which happened in the 1920’s (the awakenings

happened in 1%9). Rose finally concluded, «I

can’t bear this present time.. .all this television,

trash, nonsense.» Shortly after making this

statement, she suddenly ceased to respond to

the L-Dopa. More than one story hinges on how

other elements in a person’s life came to bear

on his or her response to L-Dopa. What became

obvious, as Sacks relates, was that the LDopa

was only the beginning, and what was necessary

for optimal success with the L-Dopa was

for the patient to find a life with purpose and

dignity.

A.R. Luria, considered by many to be the

father of neuropsychology, felt strongly about

the interrelatedness of a patient’s biology and

biography, a person’s electrochemical, cellular

processing of information, and the relationship

to individual personal experience. An understanding

of this concept ofhow a person grows

and becomes emotionally/psychologically,

and how that growing and becoming is connected

to the physical-body, is essential to attaining

increasing control.

Spinoza (1632-16771, in Ethics, states: «…no

one hitherto has gained such an accurate

knowledge of the bodily mechanism that he

can explain all its functions.. .The body can, by

the sole laws of nature, do many things which

the mind wonders at.. . .»

We are now in possession of a vast amount

of research related to the physiology of the

brain, but still the intangibles of the body’s

unexplained potential give us reason to

wonder.

 

This laying on of hands, of which I’ve been

speaking, is beginning to gain more and more

attention these days in the non-medical community,

and the reason is, we are finding that it

does work. We also are becoming increasingly

aware that traditional American medicine

often focuses only on the specific location of

bodily insult or focuses too much on the tests,

X rays, etc., to the exclusion of viewing the

whole person. (One of the greatest gifts you can

find is a medical practitioner versed in the

scientific knowledge necessary, and who is sensitive

to all the «ramifying» effects emotionally.)

 

Thereare many different theories about and

methods of touch therapy, both for dysfunctional

systems and for normal central nervous

systems. To one degree or another, these

theories draw upon the body’s hidden potential-

the transcendent intangible. All of these

methods come under the umbrella title, «body

work; there is Heller work, Traegger method,

the Rosen method, Mittendorf breath work,

and Feldenkrais method, to name a few.

 

I am going to discuss with you, this evening,

some of the ideas of Moshe Feldenkrais. I want

to makeclear that I do not think the Feldenkrais

method holds all the answers or the only

answer. This method of body work has had

special significance for me, because it has

reconfirmed experiences I have had as a practicing

clinician and has made me consistently

feel (physically and emotionally) the way 1

have striven to have my patients feel, but with

which I have met inconsistent success.

 

Dr. Moshe Feldenkrais lived from 1904-1984

and developed this method in the late 1940’s.

He held Ph.D.’s in mechanical engineering and

physics and worked with Fredric JoliotCurie

in nuclear research. He was the first European

to earn a black belt in Judo. synthesizing this

background with his deep curiosity about linguistics,

biology, perinatal development, and

athletics, Feldenkrais taught himself to walk

again, without pain, after a crippling knee injury,

This personal breakthrough led to Feldenkrais’

innovative contribution in showing

how the body, through movement, influences

the mental ~ k e s s -.

1 have b&n exposed to his teachings for the

past two years and have just recently begun a

four-year certification course to learn this

method of movement therapy. I am only a

beginning student in this method, so that my

ability to express Feldenkrais’ work must be

weighed in light of my inexperience. It is difficult

to easily or briefly explain this work, so

please bear with me. ~ h e nwia s fist exposed

to this work (and my first exposure was as a

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

recipient of the actual touch therapy), what I

experienced felt profoundly right to me based

on my work in the clinic, when I was the one

doing the teaching.

 

As I lay on the massage table, my body was

gently manipulated by my teacher, with no

work on my part and no verbal instructions on

her part (similar to the nonverbal communication

I spoke of earlier). Almost immediately my

breathing changed dramatically-fuller, slower,

a feeling of the breath moving not only in my

lungs, but throughout my whole body. When

you hold an infant you can feel the breathing

throughout the whole body. This must be normal

breathing.

 

I had a deep sense of being more connected

in my body and realized that parts of my body

that were previously not touching the table

(the small of my back; between my shoulder

blades) were now in contact. It was a feeling of

being more normally aligned around my

skeleton.

 

What happened after my session, which Feldenkrais

teachers call «lessons,» was a feeling

of lightness, both physically and emotionally,

that lasted several days.There was no one thing

that I could point to as having changed, since I

had no real specific complaint to start with, but

I experienced such a generalized feeling of well

being, a feeling of being balanced over my feet,

of moving from a balanced center-and all

without conscious effort on my part.

 

This coincided with what I had worked years

to achieve in my patients with central nervous

system dysfunction this layingon of hands that

gave me a feeling of «normal» movement, unlike

anything I could remember experiencing.

 

It established the same «cordial connection,»

with me as the recipient, that I had experienced

on rareoccasions with a patient, but this cordial

connection had come about in such an effortless

way. Not only was I able to experience this

feeling through the laying on of hands of my

teacher, but I becameawareofexercises that can

be done gently and easily by myself, or in

p u p s , that could effect this change.

 

My understanding of Moshe Feldenkrais’

observations has to do with habituation of

movement patterns. His work discusses the

interrelatedness of movement and behavior,

the habituation of movement patterns that are

established in childhood that prevent ease of

movement, wen in a normal central nervous

system.

 

The mature person has the ability to learn

newer, more appropriate patterns of movement

and behavior, based on becoming aware

of habitual patterns. We start, as infants, with

free and easy movement; we habituate movements

that prevent free, easy movement; we

recognize these habitual movement patterns

and choose another way, thus freeing ourselves

once again. This is the avenue for coming full

circle, as an individual, that I promised to challenge

you with in my introduction. For example,

in our society we are chair sitters, so that

when we are seventy years old, our ability to

rise from sitting on the floor has usually

slowed. In a society of floor sitters, the seventy

year old has no such difficulty. Weall started as

infants with the same flexible skeleton.

 

Human infants, unlike other animals on the

planet, are subjected to a prolonged period of

motor development (as compared, say, to a

horse that stands up within the first few minutes

after birth), and an even longer period of

dependence on parents. At birth, we have only

primitive reflexes working intact, and we slowly

lay down motor patterns that are controlled

by the higher cortical centers. As the infant

begins to develop a sense of self and sense of

world-«myself’ versus «other»-movement/

action facilitates this emotional/ psychological

development. Superimposed upon these motor

and behavior explorations, because of the total

dependence upon the parent, are all the expectations

of the parent. To please the parent is

necessary for survival. Our experience of movement

and, hence, the appropriate behavior for

survival, becomes influenced by the society,

culture, economics, and education of our parents.

 

Therefore, movement becomes the expression

of behavior and behavior is shown through

movement, and both of these are the product of

our own individual personal experience.

According to Feldenkrais, faulty posture and

behavior come about when a normal child is

asked to perform a task that is beyond its ability

to perform with ease, based on its motor development

at that time. People slouch or tense

their bodies unnecessarily, not because of a

problem with the nervous system, but secondary

to attempting to perform tasks that were

beyond their means, as children, and they have

habituated that effortful performance. The

child’s dependence is so p tan d so linked to

survival fears that it will perform what is expected,

even if it is unable to accomplish the

task with ease.

 

Remembering that muscle control in

humans is gained through prolonged training,

our actions are more influenced by our experience

and environment than those of other

animals. This comes back to, and validates the

idea of, looking at the entire organism-the

whole person. There is also a definite connec-

When you hold an infant

you can feel the

breathing throughout

the whole body.

 

Remembering that

muscle control in

humans is gained

through prolonged

training, our actions

are more influenced

by our experience

and environment

than those of other

animals.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

. . .an attempt is made

to free the nervous

system from its

habitual patterns of

movement.. .and to

re-establish in the

body the feeling of

light, flortless,

normal movement.

tion, using this line of thinking, between the

highly individual nature of each person’s personal

experience and the highly individual nature

of each person’s healing and/or response

to healing (physical and psychological).

 

With Feldenkrais’ technique, in both the individual

lessons, called Functional Integration,

and self/group exercises, called Awareness

Through Movement, an attempt is made to free

the nervous system from its habitual patterns

of movement (even in its most subtly restricted

patterns) and to re-establish in the body the

feeling of light, effortless, normal movement.

 

In movements we performed for the first

time, we experienced the initial effort, and that

effort was repeated with each subsequent like

movement. In time, the effort becomes so

habitual and automatic that there is a complete

loss of awareness of the effort involved, as well

as of the subsequent restricted movement it causes.

 

An example would be to turn the head slowly

to the right, several times, staying within a

comfortable rangeof motion. While turning the

head, become aware the degree of smoothness

and ease of movement, and also notice the end

point, visually, at the end of motion. Next,

repeat the exercise, slowly turning the head to

the right again several times, while turning the

eyes to theleft. Repeatslowly, head right and eyes

left, for four to five repetitions. Now, resume

turning the head right with eyes following

right, and evaluate again the quality of movement

and the visual end point of the movement.

 

 

Are there any changes associated with

this break in the habitual pattern of neck movement

being influenced by eye movement? Did

you notice a slight increase in the range of neck

motion; i.e., was the visual end point of the

movement slightly beyond what you made

note of in the first exercise?

 

So, what we have talked about here are phenomena

that transcend measurable, reproducible,

scientific research, because they appear to

be-in one way or another-imbued with the

individual experiences, both physical and psychological,

of the person or persons involved.

 

We have discussed coming full circle in our

approach to healing by recognizing, rethinking,

the contribution of the laying on of hands

despite the intangible, unrepmducible results.

Further, we have talked about one theory of

touch therapy which acknowledges the importance

of individual experience in creating behavioral,

psychological patterns that influence

movement patterns, and vice wrsa. As we have

created these patterns because of survival

needs in early childhood development, so we

can recognize-rethink-these patterns and

recreate ourselves, thus «coming full circle» in

our own lives.

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

The Second Enlightenment:

Religion and Liberalism

Beginning with Francis Fukuyama’s statement

that liberalism has won the ideological struggle

within the world’s economic and political institutions,

I argue that the world’s religious institutions

are on the brinkofa similar ideological struggle. This

essay holds that The Urantia Book is therefore the

vitai mechanism by which liberalism will uliimately

be acceptd by the world’s religious institutions.

I would be willing to bet that a demon lurks

within the consciousness of virtuallv werv Fellowship

member. It is not a demon that lifts us

up above our beds, scares our mothers or makes

our skin change colors. Rather it is a mind

demon whose small but undeniable voice calls

out for some trulymomentous world event that

would confirm the truths of The Urantia Book.

 

Our souls may tell us that personal religious

experience is what truly matters, and it may

also remind us how lucky we are to be future

Agondonters, but our demon remains unfulfilled

by such spiritual goodies. It whispers

things like: «Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if the new

orbital telescope sends back a few shots of

Satania?» It titillates us with: ‘Wouldn’t it be far

out if some archaeologist discovers Dalamatia,

or some Mediterranean diver finds the Garden

of Eden?» And it sullies our weak moments

with such thoughts as: ‘Wouldn’t it be happenin’

if someone actually translated-a chariot

of fire–on the evening news-complete with

reaction shots of Jerry Falwell and perhaps the

Pope? Boy, would that teach all my skeptical

friends a lesson, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.»

Demons are by definition disgusting, and we

are not, and should not be, proud of them.

Perhaps we should just continue to ignore them

as best we can.

 

But there is, in fact, something afoot in the

world-something that this demon might find

very interesting. The purpose of this essay is

twofold: first, I want to draw attention to a

momentous world went; second, and more

importantly, I mean to draw attention to this

momentous world event’s momentous implications-

implications which confirm the information

in The Urantia Book. And, by the way,

your demon might find this information very

nourishing.

 

The Event

 

In the summer of 1989 the deputy director of

the State Department’s policy planning staff,

Francis Fukuyarna, published an article in the

Washington-based quarterly, TheNational Interest.

 

Fukuyama raised an intellectual tempest by

announcing in this article, entitled ‘The End of

History?» the «…unabashed victory of economic

and political liberalism» over all «…viable

systematic alternatives.»O) He wrote:

What we may be witnessing is not just the

end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular

period of postwar history, but the end of

history as such: that is, the end point of mankindti

ideological evolution and h e universalization

of Western liberal demwacy as the final

form of human government. (4)

 

Fukuyama characterizes the twentieth century

as a period of ideological struggle that

pitted two alternative ideologies, fascism and

communism, against liberalism. At the beginning

of the twentieth century liberalism in

Europe and the United States had many acute

problems. Fascism and communism saw these

problems as resulting from liberalism’s inherent

contradictions. By fascist and communist

lights these problems were the creation, not of

inferior people, inferior decisions or non-liberal

historical influences, but of the liberal structure

and philosophy itself. Therefore, these problems

could not be resolved within the context

of modern liberalism. Subsequently, fascism

and communism arose as alternative systems.

 

Fascism emerged in the early twentieth century

in response to liberalism’s problems of political

weakness, materialism, moral relativism and

lack of community spirit. World War I1 and

hurnanivs rewon of ultranationalism-with

its promise of unending conflict-subsequently

consigned fascism to histovs provehial dustbin.

 

Unfortunately, political weakness, materialism,

moral relativism and lack of community spirit

remained. Communism, however, was a more

serious challenge. (9)

 

Marx asserted that «liberalism’s inherent

contradictions were epitomized by the ifieconcilable

interests of capital vs. the interests of

labor.. . .» (See appendix A.) Lenin and Stalin

created one of world historfs most profound

social disasters-the Soviet Union-in the

name of resolving this so-called liberal contradiction.

But Fukuyama points out that according

to the latest generation of Soviet emigres,

Marxism as an ideology has lost all credibility

-especially among the Soviet elite. Contemporary

Soviets are united by a different ideology:

cynicism. (12) ‘There is a virtual consensus

 

BY

Bill Granstaff

 

A student of The Urantia

Book for 13 years,

Granstaff is studyingfor

his doctoral degree in

palitical science. He has

worked as a writer,

producer, and performer

of contemporary music.

 

World War I1 and

humanity’s rejection

of ultranatwnalismwith

its promise ofunending

conflictsub

sequently consigned

fisCiSm fo hiSfoly’s

proverbial dust bin.

Unfortunately, polit ia1

weakness,

materialism, mom1

relativism and lack af

community spirit

remained.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

The world community

has, in spirit

if not in fact, adopted

the liberal economic

and political

paradigm, and.. .

there appear to be

no more credible

alternatives.

among the currently dominant school of Soviet

economists now that central planning and the

command system of allocation are the root

cause of economic inefficiency, and that if the

Soviet system is ever to heal itself, it must permit

free and decentralized decision-making

with respect to investment, labor, and prices.»

 

(12) Further, Fukuyama describes the replacement

of the former economic/political principles

by other principles that «…do not amount

to liberalism per se but whose only connecting

thread is liberalism.» (12)

 

But what of the contradiction Marx referred

to-that of capital and labor? Fukuyama holds

that it is largely resolved in the contemporary

liberal welfare democracy. Though there are

rich people and poor people, capital and labor,

the mot causes of economic inequality have

more to do with individuals’ premodern cultural

and social characteristics than with the

underlying legal and social structure of our

society, which remains fundamentally egalitarian

and moderately redistributionist. (9)

 

But Fukuyama’s hypothesis-that Liberalism

is the final economic and political ideologystill

begs an important question. Given the

failure and dissolution of liberalism’s alternatives,

have the walled contradictionsor pmblems

that spawned them disappeared also? The

answer to this question is unfortunately quite

obvious. Any two year old can share it with

you. No! (Two year olds are rather emphatic.)

Assuming that Fukuyama’s hypothesis is

correct – and I believe it is – that liberal

economics and politics is now the accepted

planetary norm, what is it that humankind has

finally accepted?

 

Fukuyama never pmisely defines liberalism

(there may be no universally accepted definition),

but a definition is required for the purposes

of this essay. Robert Fowler writes that

liberalism consists of three closely related principles:

(1) a commitment to skeptical reason, an

affirmation of pragmatic intelligence, and an

uneasiness about both abstract philosophical

thinking and nonrational modes of knowledge;

(2) enthisiasm in principle (and increasinglyin

practice) for tolerance not only in political

terms but much more obviously in terms of

lifestyle and social norms; and (3) affirmation

of the central importance of the individual and

individual freedom.» (1989,4)

 

When Adam Smith wmte The Wealth of

Nations in 1776, he articulated liberalism as

applied to economics:

The natural effort which every man is continually

making to better his own condition is

the prindple which keeps the economic mechanism

in activity. ?he uniform, constant, and

uninterrupted effort of every man to better his

condition is the principle from which public and

national, as well as private, opulence is originally

derived (qtd. in Morrow 65).

 

Every man, as long as he does not violate the

laws of justice, is left pafectly fiw to pursue his

own interest his own way, and to bring both his

industry and capital intocompetition with those

of any other man, or order of men. The

sovereign is completely discharged from a duty,

in theattempt to perform which hemust always

be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for

the proper performance of which no human

wisdom or knowledge could ever be suffiaent;

the duty of superintending the industry of

private people, and of directing it towards the

employment most suitable to the interest of

society (qtd. in Friedman 20).

 

The United States Constitution and the Bill

of Rights among many other Western national

systems applied liberalism to politics. John

Stuart Mill, in his famous essay, «On Liberty,»

offered another very succinct canon of

liberalism, subsequently known as the «Harm

Principle.»

 

‘ h a t principle is, that the sole end for which

mankind are warranted, individually or collectively,

in interfering with the liberty of action of

any of their number, is self-protection. That the

only purpose for which power can be rightfully

exercised over any member of a civilized community,

against his will, is to prevent hann to

othas. His own good, either physical or moral,

is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully

be compelled to do or forbear because it will be

better for him to do so, because it will make him

happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do

so would be wise, or even right. These are good

reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning

with him, or persua&g him, or entreating

him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him

with any wil in cas;he dootherwise. ‘lo jktify

that, the conduct from which it is desired to

deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to

someone else. ‘Ihe only part of the conduct of

any one, for which he is amenable to society, is

that which concerns others. In the part which

merely concerns himself, his independence is, of

right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body

and mind, the individual is sovereign (qtd. in

Diggs 190).

 

Put very simply, nations that adopt laissezfaire

policy and liberal democracy articulate

liberalism as applied to economics and politics.

With liberalism now more or less defined, I

can conclude this sedion by pointing out that

the scholarly community by and large agrees

with Fukuyarna-that the world community

has, in spirit if not in fact, adopted the liberal

economic and political paradigm, and that

there appear to be no more credible alternatives.

This is a momentous world event by

virtually any standard. But the event’s implicaMAY

 

17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

tions are likewise momentous, especially for

those of us in the Fellowship. In the next section

I will discuss these implications and the role

that The Urantia Book may play in the world

events that follow. You may inform your

demon that it is feeding time.

 

Feeding Time

Sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists

and others have arbitrarily divided

humankind’s social institutions into three general

categories: political institutions, economic

institutions, and religious institutions.

 

Fukuyama presents a convincing argument

that two out of three of the planet’s major social

institutions-those of politics and economics–

have adopted liberal norms and parameters.

The implication and my hypothesis should be

obvious: The next phase of planetary social

wolution and ideological conflict will concern

the adoption of liberal principles by the third

and final category of social institutions-the

planet’s religious establishment. And strangely

enough, it is at just this time that The Urantia

Book conveniently appears. But before dealing

with The Urantia Book’s role in this upcoming

struggle, I must answer a very important question

concerning the feasibility of my implication/

hypothesis. Would it be unusual for the

world’s three general social institutions to barrow

philosophies and norms from each other?

Once again we may utilize the communicative

abilities of our two year old. The answer, as 1

shall show, is: No! (I must, perhaps, give this

two year old a cookie.)

 

In order to illustrate the precedent for this

brand of institutional osmosis, I will briefly

highlight several important aspects of

European political/economic and religious

wolution. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) undertook,

principally in Niconrachean Ethics and the

Politics, to construct a science of the polis. He

understood the polisor city/state as an association

whose primary purpose was the formation

of character-+ means of creating quality citizens

(Diamond 1976,791, For him the polis was

an instrument by which the statesman could

make the citizenry self-sufficient in goods, and

fine-tune personality unification; it was as

much concerned as any church with the virtue

of its citizens (Diggs 11-12). But it is important

to emphasize that Aristotle and the Athenians

of his time had no true religion worthy of the

name. Their system of gods was more an intellectual

creation than a standard for normative

valuations. Thus Aristotle’s concept of the polis

naturally included elements that were soon to

fall under other jurisdictions. There was absolutely

no separation of political, economic or

religious institutions.

 

Christianity radically transformed Aristotle’s

classic state concept. And it is here that

we see an example of how a wholly religious

concept modified a political/economic concept.

 

Saint Paul said, ‘Tor ye are all one in

Christ Jesus» (qtd in Diggs 17), and later the

Christian Church became the representative of

the Word of God. Thus the Christian could

quote Aristotle in arguing that civil law was

subject to the judgment of higher authority; but

in claiming that the way to salvation and virtue

was in the Church, as distinguished from the

state, he broke sharply with Aristotle’s tradition

of the polis. The Christian Chmh created

the impetus for one of Western civilization’s

most important social norms: the separation of

church and state. The function of the state was

distinctly limited, and a person’s greatest good

was to be found outside its jurisdiction-in the

Church. Thus a religious concept profoundly

changed the political/economic institutions.

 

Over several hundred years this separation

of church and state, the Christian concept of

Christians being equal children of God, plus the

slow modernization of Europe led to what is

today called the Enlightenment. Probably the

Enlightenment’s most important economic/

political/philosophic result is called ‘liberalism.»

 

Liberalism was derived from the philosophies

and attitudes of such great thinkers as

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith,

Rene Descartes, the Baron de La Montesquieu,

and later Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

 

The following point is very important:

liberalism is the epitome of political/economic

institutions borrowing important concepts

from religious institutions. Liberalism articulated

in the political and economic sphere the

vital Christian axiom that all men are the equal

children of God, and expanded it into the sentiments

of basic white male equality and the

three principles I advanced previously: (1) a

commitment to skeptical reason and an uneasiness

about both abstract philosophical thinking

and nonrational modes of knowledge; (2) tolerance,

and (3) affirmation of individual freedom

 

(Fowler 1989,4).

Except for Locke-and wen his case may be

argued–none of the great European philosophical

contributors to liberalism from the

seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries

was an orthodox-Christian. But the classic

liberal thinkers simply did not propose to

separate religion from their liberal political and

social thought. Indeed, for all of them religion

was integral to liberalism, most commonly as a

 

The implication and

my hypothesis

should be obvious:

The next phase of

planetary social

evolution and

ideological conflid

will concern the

adoption of liberal

principles by the

third and final

category of social

institutions-the

planet’s religious

establishment.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

Thus liberalism was

designed to work

hand in hand with

religion to provide

life, liberty and the

pursuit of happ~’ness.

 

Assuming for the

moment that I am

correct, that religion

does sooner or later

adopt liberal principles,

what would

this religion look like?

 

philosophical and/or practical basis that

would maintain a cohesive moral standard, a

grounding for their social order (Fowler, 10-11).

Thus liberalism was designed to work hand in

hand with religion to provide life, liberty and

the pursuit of happiness. Liberalism by itself

was never intended to do more than provide

economic and political security and enfranchise

the individual to makeimportant political

and economic choices.

 

One of the most important political results of

liberal thought was the subsequent overthrow

of European monarchies and their replacement

by liberal democratic political institutions. But

it is at this point in European history that religious

institutional influence changed in character.

 

Whereas before, Christian theology drew

political and economic progress forward via its

axiom that all Christians were equal children of

God, now, as a result of the Church’s closeness

to the European monarchical regimes–especially

the Catholic states, it stood against the

very forces of progressive liberal democracy

that its influence had nurtured. When the

citizens, especially the intellectuals, overthrew

these monarchies, they also rejected thechurch

and Christianity. In 1835 a troubled Alexis de

Tocqueville wrote:

Christianity, which has declared all men

equal in the sight of God, cannot hesitate to

acknowledge all atizens equal before the law.

 

But by a strange concatenation of events,

religion for the moment has become entangled

with those institutions which democracy overthrows,

and so it is often brought to rebuff the

equality which it loves and to abuse freedom as

ik adversary, whereas by taking it by the hand

it could sanctify its striving (1968,16).

 

Thus many Europeans could not separate

Christianity’s spiritual message from its political

and economic message, and with the French

Revolution and the Revolutions of 1848 the

European Church and Christianity were

severely discredited. European intellectuals

perceived Christianity and modernity as opposites

while many European commoners saw

Christianity as the monarchy’s prostitute. Instead

of responding positively to liberalism’s

progressive influence, European religious institutions

articulated another of their axioms

the axiom that states that «it is more blessed to

individualism and self-interest exposed and

unmitigated bythechurch’s spiritual influence.

 

And thus the stage was set for the homrs of the

twentieth century.

Shortly after the Revolutions of 1848, due to

increasing industrialization, information and

mobilization, heretofore unnoticed problems

began to bubble to the surface. Karl Marx saw

these problems as the result of internal contradictions

of capitalism. That the problems

might have had a spiritual cause never entered

Marx’s thoughts. After all, he was an intellectual

and an atheist. After WWI the fascists saw

European society’s political weakness, moral

relativism and absence of community spirit.

 

But once again spirituality had been discredited

in the eyes of the European intellectuals.

The thought that a more salient and

efficient spiritual system might be a solution

never occurred to them. These societal pathologies’

only solution, in the eyes of the fascists

and communists, was a radically different

political/economic system. Thus, as Fukuyama

has written, the twentieth century has experienced

the costly trial and rejection of both fascism

and communism as alternatives to

liberalism. Liberalism has been declared, as of

the dissolution of communism and the publication

of Fukuyama’s article, the winner.

 

To summarize, I have described how

European political and economic institutions

have allowed themselves to be transformed by

borrowing superior religious concepts. As my

two year old’s emphatic and previous «No!»

indicated, there is indeed precedent for these

three institutions to carry on syrnbioticallyeach

nurturinn the others. I have also shown

that since libeklism’s birth this symbiosis has

largely ceased, and I have speculated as to why

the modem world’s religions seem irrelevant

and unable to stabilize contemporary mores.

Now for the final element of my argument.

 

Assuming for the moment that I am correct,

that religion does sooner or later adopt liberal

principles, what would this religion look like?

I will now take Robert Booth Fowler’s three

liberal principles and apply them to the

spiritual medium.

Liberal Principle #1:

principles that had grown naturally from ( 4).

.,

give than to receive.» They therefore refused to

accept liberalism’s invigorating principles that

enfranchised individual choice-the very

~hristianity’so wn thklogy. The ~hurfhel ected

to become instead and in essence a thing I

… a commitment to skeptical reason, an affirmation

of pragmaticintelligence, and an uneasin,

aboUt both abstract philosophical thinking

and nomtional mode9 of knowledge ( ~ ~ ~ apart.

Liberalism, on the other hand, founz

itself standing naked, as it were, with its

Liberal religion will require a religionist to

sincerely evaluate spiritual theoriesMAY

 

17–19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

theologies-in relation to his/her own experience.

It would by no means require rejection of

them all. It would require mutable theologies

and careful validation of abstract thoughts by

observation in the empirical world.

 

Liberal Principle #2:

… enthusiasm in principle (and increasingly

in practice) for tolerance not only in political

terms but much more obviously in terms of

lifestyle and social norms (Fowler 4).

Liberal Spiritual Principle #2:

Liberal religion will respect other religionists’

belief systems. And, with qualification

similar to those that liberalism requires of

economics and politics will allow virtually

complete spiritual freedom.

 

Liberal Principle #3:

… affirmation of the central importance of the

individual and individual freedom (Fowler 4).

Liberal Spiritual Principle #3:

Liberal religion would hold that the individual

has the right to have his/her own concept

of God. The individual’s own concept of

God is hereby enfranchised by the world’s

religious institutions.

 

The previous example of liberalism applied

to the spirit medium should sound familiar.

The liberal spiritual principles embody some of

the most important spiritual concepts in The

Urantia Book. I will now cite some specific examples

that demonstrate how The ~rantiaB ook

validates and complements these principles.

 

Liberal Principle #1:

… a commitment to skeptical reason, an

affirmation of pragmatic intelligence, and an

uneasiness about both abstrad philosophical

thinking and nonrational modes of knowledge

(Fowler 4).

 

Liberal S iritual Principle #I/

Urantia 8 omplement:

The proof that revelation is revelation is this

same fad of human experience: the fact that

revela tion does synthesize the apparently divergent

sciences of nature and the theology of

religion into a consistent and logical universe

philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation

of both science and religion, thus

creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of

spirit which answers in human experience those

questionings of the mortal mind which craves

to know how the Infinite works out his will and

plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit (Urantia

&ok 1955,llM).

 

Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof

of religion, logic the proof of philosophy, but

revelation is validated only by human experience

(Umntia Book 1955,1106).

 

Liberal Principle #2:

… cr,thusiasm in principle (and mt-wasingly

in prxticcc.) for toltaranc~n ot only In political

tcrrns but much mow ~lbviuuslv . I ! t~:rrnr of

lifc?ityle and %xi&nx!) !~lis( i:c~wlc.4r; .

Liberal S iritual Principle k2i

Urantia $.o mplernent:

From this day, for thcremaindt~of his natural

life, Ganid continued to evnlv~a religion of his

own. He was mightily moved m his own mind

by Jesus’ broadmindedness, fairness, and

tolerance [my emphasis]. In all their discussions

of philosophy and religion this youth never

experienced fcelings of resentment or reactions

of antagonism (llrantia Rook 1467).

 

Nathaniel most revered Jesus fur his

tolerance. He never grew weary of contemplating

the broadmindednes an<! gmrerous sympathy

of theSon of Mar: fllmntia Bwk 1559).

 

Liberal Principle #3:

… affirmation of the central importanceof the

individual and individual freedmrl (Fowler 4).

Liberal S iritual Principle #3/

 

Urantia P omplement:

But I have come among you to proclaim a

greater truth, one which many of the later

prophets also grasped, that Cod loves youevery

one of you-as individuals (Umntia Book

1629).

 

The religion of the kingdom is personal, individual;

the fruits, the results, are familial, social.

Jesus never failed to exalt the sacredness of

the individual as contrasted with the community

(Urantin Bmk 1862).

 

James Zebedee had asked, ‘Master, how shall

we learn to see alike and thereby enpy more

harmony among ourselves?’ When Jesus heard

this question, he was stirred within his spirit, so

much so that he replied. ‘James, James, when

did I teach you that you should all see alike? I

have come into the world to prodaim spiritual

liberty to the end that mortals may be wpowered

to live individual lives of originality

and freedom before God. I do not desire that

soaal harmony and fraternal peace shall bepurchased

by the sacrifice ol fict. pnu~rdlitya nd

spiritual originality. What I rrqt~irr of you, my

apostles, is spirit unity . dibl that voii e.<-

pericmce in the jov ot v.:ar 11.1 ‘ , x i ..!-arl~caaonto

the wt~olriheai,altcd< ;loi.riyo t the wUo r nl\, k-atii*~

in heaven (Llrantia Hook 13iL))i. ‘

‘The previau.; rxampirc arp mc~r~lwvp rescntative

of the ovrrarching l~berasl pirit of The

Urantia Hook. The b k ‘ 5 central concept, that

each individual is indwelt by a fragment of the

Father, validates liberalism’s most profound

principlr-the importance of the individualthroughout

eternity.The teachings of The Urantia

Book are, in effect and in spirit, liberalism

applied to religion.

 

Liberal religion

will respect ofher

religionists’ belief

systems. And, with

qualification similar

to those that

liberalism requires

of economics and

politics wili allow

virtu~llyco mplete

spiritual freedom.

The teachings of The

Urantia Book are, in

effect and in spirit,

liberalism a.p p. lied to

religion.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

For the liberal message

to successfully

and efficiently transform

world religious

institutions it must

be sufficiently

focused on the

spiritual.

The Urantia Bookrepresent

ing

liberalism-will inspire

the transformation

of the world’s

religions into institutions

capable of

answering the

spiritual needs of a

liberal world

 

1 Conclusion

 

So the stage has been set. Christ Michael’s

first visit to Urantia transformed Europe’s religious

institutions with the message that every

woman, man, boy or girl was a child of God.

Later this religious concept and the concept of

the Christian Church as the Word of God led to

a political event that revolutionized European

history: the separation of church and state. Still

later the world’s political and economic institutions

borrowed the salient Christian concept of

spiritual equality and enfranchised individual

political and economic liberty under the banner

of liberalism. The results were astounding. As

Fukuyama has pointed out, today, with the

dissolution of communism, virtually all the nations

of the world understand and accept, in

their various contexts, political and economic

liberalism.

 

And now is the time for the Spirit of Michael

to come full circlefrom the religious institutions

that taught spiritual equality, to political

and economic institutions that supported the

primacy of the individual, and now finally back

again to the religious institutions which will

one day enfranchise individual spiritual

choices. This is where The Urantia Bookanswers

a critical evolutionary need. Today, high

politics and economics define liberalism in as

many different ways as there are expertsand

there are many experts. It might take centuries

for a liberalism so loosely defined in terms of

politics and economics to slowly seep into the

religious establishment. For the liberal message

to successfully and efficiently transform world

religious institutions it must be sufficiently

‘ focused on the spiritual. The Urantia Book sys- tematically defines liberalism in spiritual

terms. The time for the struggle approaches.

 

1 Robert Booth Fowler writes that current

membership in mainline Protestant churchesthe

churches attended largely by the educated

elites in America, is well below their 1950s

proportionate strength of the total U.S. population

and in absolute numbers (1989, %). Further,

these churches are losing a good number

of their young adults (2035 years old) «…because

they a k simply no longer interested in

religion, certainly organized religion, though

they normally claim to believe in God and even

to have spiritual interests of some sort» (22-23).

 

Andrew Greeley complains that Catholics

‘ I . . . blithely practice a selective (or individualistic

and subjective) Catholicism, choosing those

parts of the religion they like and ignoring or

even denouncing those parts they don’t like»

(1984, ch. 1). Liberalism is slowly seeping in,

like it or not. But the people who Fowler and

Greeley describe are political leaders,

managers of businesses, lawyers, doctors and

educators who are wandering around in a spiritual

nether world, making important decisions

outside thecontext of stable mores. The religion

that these people are searching for is liberalized

religion-the religion of Jesus-the religion

described in The Urantia Book. Just as the Christian

Church provided the inspiration for

liberalism’s transformation of the political and

economic world, The Urantia ~ook-representing

liberalism-will inspire the transformation

of the world’s religions into institutions capable

of answering the spiritual needs of a liberal

world, and in so doing it will resolve the contradictions

that have tormented so many souls

in the twentieth century.

 

APPENDIX A

 

«Hitherto, every form of society has been

based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism

of oppressing and oppressed classes.

 

But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions

must be assured to it under which it can,

at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf,

in the period of serfdom, raised himself to

membership in the commune, just as the petty

bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism,

managed to develop into a bourgeois.

 

The modem laborer, on the contrary, instead of

rising with the progress of industry, sinks

deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence

of his own class. He becomes a pauper,

and pauperism develops more rapidly than

population and wealth. And here it becomes

evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer

to be the ruling class in society, and to impose

its conditions of existence upon society, as an

over-riding law. It is unfit to rule, because it is

incompetent to assure an existence to its slave

within his slavery, because it cannot help letting

him sink into such a state that it has to feed him.

Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie,

in other words, its existence is no longer

compatible with society. The essential condition

for the existence, and for the sway of the

bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation

of capital; the condition for capital is

wage labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on

competition between the laborers. Theadvance

of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the

bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers,

due to competition, by their involuntary

combination, due to association. The development

of Modem Industry therefore cuts from

under its feet thevery foundation on which the

bourgeoisie produces and appropriates

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces,

above alll are its own grave-diggers. Its

fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally

inevitable» (Marx, Engels 1964,23-24).

 

References

de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1968. Ikma7acy in America. G.

Lawrence (Trans.). New York: Anchor Books.

(Originally published, 1635; VoL 2 originally published,

1840.)

Diamond, Martin. 1975. «Ethics and Politics: The

American Way.» In The Moral FoundPtions of the

A m h Republic, ed. R. Homwik Charlottesville,

VA.: University Press of V i .

Diggi, B.J. 1974. The State, Justice, and the Canm

Good. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foreman and

Company.

Fowler, Robert Booth. 1989. UnconantionrJ Partnm:

Religion and Libeml Culture in the United States.

Grand Rapids. William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company.

Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman. 1981. Fm to

Chwse. New York: Avon Books.

Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. «The End of History?» The

National Interest. 12(2)3-3-18.

Greeley, Andrew M. and Mary Greeley Durkin. 1984.

How to Save the Catholic C h d . New York: Viking.

Lord, Winston. 1989. «China and America; Beyond

the Big Chill.» Foteign Affnirs. 68(4): 1-26.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1964. Thc Canmunist

Manifesto. New Yak and London: Modem

Reader Paperbacks. (Originally published, 1848).

Morrow, Glenn R. 1969. Thc Ethical and Emnomic

Theories of Adam Smith. New Yo& Augustus M.

Kelly, Publisher.

Rees, John C 1985. John Shcmt Mill’s 01 Llbcrty. Oxford:

aarendon Press

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

by

1. Dan Massey, Jr.

A student of The Urantia

Book for 17 years, Massey

has a B.S. in physics mrd a

masters in applied mathematics

with postgraduate

work in computer science.

 

He is a s mscientist

for a resemch firm in

h4assachusetts developing

knowledge-basad simulation

and intelligent training

systems.

… the span of control

over reality which

engineering has provided

to humankind

has usually been

somewhat greater

than the scope of

understanding of the

controlled reality

provided through

established science.

 

Engineering -Science and Magick

…The ancients sought a supernatural explanation

for all natural phenomena not within the range

of their personal comprehension;and many moderns

continue to do this. The depsonalivltion of socalled

natural phenomena has required ages, and it

is not yet completed. But the frank, honest, and

fearless search for true causes gazle birth to modern

science: It tumedastrology into astronomy, alchemy

into chemistry, and magic into medicine. (‘901)

 

The intellectual history of the human race is

punctuated by the names of those scientific

visionaries whose superior grasp of the relationships

of d i t y ever and again enabled them

to explain and to expound the associations of

muse and effect by which the elements of everyday

experience are determined. The physical

record of the cultural attainments of humankind

is likewise marked bythe relics ofenginaering

prowess which bear silent witness to an

inspired vision of a different, more practical

kind. Scientists are remembered for what they

help their fellow man to understand. The practical

physical works which engineers help their

fellow man to create are often the only record

of the conceiving mind behind the action.

 

Though most people tend to conceive of

science and engineering as basically the same

activity, and although our culture often treats

the professions almost interchangeably, the two

disciplines, though related, are fundamentally

different in their approach and goals. Basically,

the scientist seeks to expand knowledge ofreality,

while the engineer seeks to expand control m r

reality. In contemporary technological culture,

the scientist pursues his objective by use of the

methods of rational analysis and drawing upon

a body of understanding established with great

effort over many centuries. The modern engineer

likewise uses methods of rational analysis

and works with theories dweloped and tested

by the scientific method. However, the engineer

willalso draw on a largebody of practical

information to achiwe the desired goal.

 

To the scientist, practical knowledge is of

value when it suggests possible directions for

fruitful exploration by experiment and analysis.

The scientist then seeks to find an allencompassing

theoretical viewpoint which illuminates

the underlying process. The engineer,

on the other hand, is satisfied to have and to use

practical knowledge for its own value in furthering

the control of reality. The engineer will

use practical knowledge effectively even when

there is no clear explanation for why it works.

 

For these and related reasons, the span of

control over reality which engineering has provided

to humankind has usually been somewhat

greater than the scope of understanding of

the controlled reality provided through established

science. In the twentieth century, with

the increasing effectiveness and breadth of

scientific theories, the intrinsic advantage

provided by pragmatic engineering appears to

have diminished.

 

As a modem example of this, consider the

recent discovery of so-called high temperature

su~conductorsT. hese materials were discovered

about five years ago by careful experimentation

pursued in spite of a well-established

theory seeming to suggest such phenomena

were impossible. Although no theory yet

satisfactorily explains the high-temperature

phenomenon, it is clear that it results from a

different physical process than that which

accounts for the low-temperature case.

 

Let me explain this in greater detail. A conductor

is any material which will pass an

electrical current. All known materials which

conduct electricity at room temperature exhibit

a characteristic called resistance. That is, they

appear to resist the flow of an electric current

to a greater or lesser degree. This resistance

eventually robs the current of its energy, which

is converted into heat, the random vibrations of

theatoms of the conducting material. Anumber

of years ago, when mechanical refrigeration

had become perfected to the point that it was

possible to liquefy helium, experimenters immersed

samples of conducting material into

liquid helium so that they were cooled to the

point that the internal vibrations of heat were

almost totally suppressed. In these very cold

materials a new phenomenon, called superconductivity,

was observed.

 

Superconductivity is the passage of an

electric current through a material without any

resistance. A ring of superconducting copper

(or lead or aluminum or iron) will conduct an

electric current virtually forever without the

application of an external power source. For

many years there was no known explanation

for this phenomenon, yet experimenters continued

to find new materials which could become

superconductors at higher temperatures,

hoping someday to develop a material which

might exhibit the property at room temperature.

 

Eventually a theory was proposed which

explained superconductivity in terms of the

quantum physics of solid materials.

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA C I , OKLAHOMA

 

To understand this theory it is useful to recall

the much earlier theory by which Louis de-

Bmglie explained the physical stability of the

hydrogen atom. DeBroglie suggested that the

orbiting electron of hydrogen m t e d a wavelike

disturbance in the content of space by its

passage. According to the classical electromagnetic

theory of Maxwell, the radiation of this

wave would rob the electron of kinetic energy,

causing it to slow down and be drawn into the

nucleus. DeBmglie’s insight was that, if the

electron circled the nucleus rapidly enough, it

would encounter the field of its radiated wave

(on a subsequent oscillation) and would draw

energy from the wave. He suggested that, for

electron orbits of certain specific sizes, determined

by the wavelength of the radiated wave,

the gain of energy from the radiated field

would exactly balance the loss to the radiation

by the acceleration of the elestron in its orbit,

producing a stable atom.

 

I apologize to the members of my audience

who are familiar with the more modem interpretations

of quantum mechanics for this ndive

explanation. I have chosen it because it better

supports an intuitive understanding of the

accepted explanation of low-temperature

superconductivity. Basically, the theory which

explains superconductivity asserts that the

movement of electrons through a bulk conductor

is, at sufficiently low temperature, andogous

to the movement of a single electron

through an atomic orbit. The passage of an

electron through a conducting material disturbs

the alignment of the nuclei of atoms

within the material. The forces between the

atoms try to oppose this motion with the result

that a vibratory wave of energy passes through

the material.Sincetheelectrica1current ~:onsists

of a vast number of electrons slowly m grating

through the material in a common dirrction, it

is very likelythat the wave action whick retards

one electron will accelerate the mc tion of

another in the current so that there is no net loss

of energy to the current.

 

A very low temperature is required for this

phenomenon to be observed beca lse the

natural thermal vibrations of the atom of the

material tend to disrupt the electron flow in

ways which prevent this coupling frorn occurring.

 

Looked at another way, there is a lot of

background noise in the material ultil it is

made very cold. This background noi ;e limits

the distance over which the coherent lvave induced

by the passage of one electron c In affect

the motion of another. If the distalice over

which the emitted wave remains cohel ent does

not include a large enough volum? of the

material to provide a suitably positioned

electron to receive the emitted energy, the wave

will be dissipated as heat in the material, which

will then behave like an ordinary resistive conductor.

 

This theory seemed to imply that, above a

very cold temperature, superconductivity would

be impossible. Although the physicists who

developed the low-temperature theory won a

Nobel prize for their work, some experimenters

continued to search for materials that would

superconduct at much higher temperatures.

 

A limited number of applications of low

temperature superconductivity were achieved,

some on a very grand scale, such as the superconducting

magnets for the Tevatron particle

accelerator which has recently begun productive

work at the Fermi National Accelerator

Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois. This mammoth

engine for high energy physics research contains

hundreds of very large superconducting

magnets for the simple reason that it is more

cost-effective to refrigerate the magnets than to

provide the power to overcome conventional

electrical resistance.

 

About five years ago, a team of experimenters

working in Germany discovered a ceramic

material of very poor conductivity at mom

temperature which becomes supemnductive

when cooled to the temperature of dry ice

(much warmer than liquid helium). Irnmediately

large numbers of experimenters worldwide

undertook to duplicate and to extend this

initial work. Without any clear understanding

of the underlying phenomena, these teams

achieved a rapid series of successes, so that the

application of superconductive material to

everyday needs has come several steps closer

to reality.

At the moment there is still no generally

accepted theoretical explanation for this new

class of superconductive phenomena, yet work

continues unabated to achieve practical commercial

application. It remains to be seen

whether theory will precede application; however,

it seems clear that the first practical applications

will emerge fmm painstaking practical

experiments guided by only a rudimentary understanding

of the underlying processes and

not from any grand synthesis of theory which

explains everything with a few equations. Of

course, eventually theory will catch up and,

probably, open doors to applications undreamed

of in the present crude experimental

stage.

 

This single case fairly represents the nature

of humankind’s scientific and technological

progress. Although we generally reach

This theory seemed

to imply that, above a

very cold temperature,

supercondudivity

would be impossible.

This single case

fairly represents

the nature of

humankind’s

scientific and technological

progress.

 

SCIENTlFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

– – – – – –

The achievements of

engineering that is

not based on a deep

theoretical foundation

have been

eclipsed by recent

successful applications

of theory.

 

Pre-scientijic growth

of technological

control mechanisms

is excruciatingly

slow, by modern

standards.

 

towards a deeper understanding of the natural

world, the most successful and powerful motivator

is usually the desire to attain control. Initially

we achieve control by practical methods,

1 that is, by doing what has been found to work,

I even when we do not fully understand the

reasons for it working. The extension of practical

control usually occurs from a foundation of

fully understood, less complex phenomena.

Eventually, the discordance between practice

and theory becomes so extensive that a reformulation

octurs in the way the real phenomena

of experience are understood. This reformulation,

called a paradigm shift, leads to new

theories which provide deeper, more comprehensive

understanding of the real world.

 

The practical, pre-scientific applications of

experience have, in recent years, been rather

undramatic. The achievements of engineering

that is not based on a deep theoretical foundation

have been eclipsed by recent successful

applications of theory. For example, neither

nuclear weapons nor nuclear power were

achieved until after the theory of relativity and

the principles of quantum mechanics were

available to provide a basic understanding of

the processes involved. In an earlier era, radio

transmission and electrical illumination were

developed almost entirely upon the predictions

of electromagnetic theory, yet the practical

reception of radio waves and the practical

production of electric light depended, at first,

on pre-scientific applications of practical

knowledge.

 

 

The most famous modem story of pre-scientific

invention is surely the legend of Thomas

Edison’s search for a material suitable to be the

filament of an electric lamp. The theoretical

science which underlay Edison’s invention was

the knowledge that a current passed through a

resistive conductor could produceenough heat

to make the conductor emit light. A second,

equally important piece of knowledge was that

highly heated things tend to melt or vaporize;

therefore, the desired material would be something

which did not melt or evaporate at white

heat. Athird point was that many things which

do not melt or evaporate will burn, so that oxygen

must be excluded from the hot filament.

 

This much had been well understood for

many years before Edison began his search. In

fact, the principles had all been fully tested and

proven in numerous laboratory experiments. It

remained to find a material which would meet

I the pactid requirements of a lamp filament

1 (which must also have included mechanical

durability and low cost). For this Edison undertook

systematic research using the only known

method, trialanderror. Having eliminated avast

number of possibilities for various well-understood

theoretical reasons, he then systematically

tested every remaining candidate until he

found something acceptable. The mapr problem

with such searches is that the theoretical

reasons used to exclude a possibility may not

be valid for the exact situation in which a solution

is sought, so that many good possibilities

are never really evaluated.

 

As we look back through the centuries, the

quality of human technical invention becomes

increasingly dominated by the pre-scientific.

 

Theearliest steam engines, used to pump water

from mines, operated with extremely low efficiency

because they were built on the practical

observation that expanding steam can do useful

work. Later, as a deeper, theoretical understanding

of thermodynamics developed, it

became clear that greater power could be obtained

from smaller machines with less use of

heat. The early steam engines were not magical

to anyone who troubled to understand the simple

mechanical principles involved, yet they

represented an unfamiliar synthesis of everyday

knowledge to achieve practical control

over important phenomena. The records of the

time show that, to many thoughtless people,

they appeared to border on the supernatural.

Pr~scientificg rowth of technological control

mechanisms is excruciatingly slow, by modem

standards. The further we look back, the

smaller the theoretical base on which innovationsare

founded and the more painstaking the

search to find efficient solutions. In addition,

the record grows more shadowy, since only a

few of the artifacts of pre-scientific engineering

have been preserved. We can still examine the

architecture of rnapr buildings, the properties

of household artifacts, the fabrication of

weapons, and the layout of irrigation, drainage

and aqueduct systems. In addition, there are

written or visual records of the design and

appearance of ,mills, clocks, building and dockyard

machine!;, ships, wagons, and military

engines, as ~rella s chemical and medical

recipes.

 

Fragments of pre-scientific technology have

survived from almost all mapr planetary cultures.

Within any cultural stream we know the

most where witten records survive. Only the

greatest artifacts survive across thousands of

years because of size and durability. A few

others have ken preserved because of great

cultural signific:ance or on account of accident.

 

Against this backdrop, we see that the general

human attitude towads technology has only

recently (on a historical time xale) become

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CI, OKLAHOMA

 

relatively rational. In past ages the practical

knowledgeof how the world worked (and even

the fact that the world worked systematically

at all) was held by the few and applied by the

few, sometimes to benefit and other times to

exploit or mystify the ignorant.

 

In the final analysis, the human approach to

contml over reality begins with the observation

of a desired result in nature and progresses to

attempts to recreate the conditions under

which the result occurred. Unfortunately, there

is no obvious way for the pre-scientific mind,

initially lacking any method for systematic discovery,

to detect among the multitude of apparent

conditions the few which effect the

d e s i d result. As a result, early human attempts

to establish reality control rapidly become

engulfed in large numbers of irrelevant

beliefs, or superstitions.

 

An interesting example of this is described in

The Urantia Book, in connection with Andon’s

discovery of a way to make fire:

. . . Andon signified to his mate that he thought he

could make fire with the flint. . . . Finally, one mning

about the time of the setting of the sun, the

secret of the technique was unraveled when it occurred

to Fonta to climb a near-by tree to secure an

abandoned bird’s nest. The nest was dry and highly

inflammable and consequently )lured right up into

a jkll blaze the moment the spark .fe ll up. on it.. .. … But it was a long time &re the twins learned

that d y moss and other materials would kindle fire

just as well as birds’ nests. (712)

 

These pre-rational confusions can only be

eliminated by systematic collection and

analysis of experiential observations and by

faith that such results are meaningful for

achieving enhanced reality control, and this is

the beginning of the emergence of the scientific

attitude. In many ways, the practically tested

conclusions of rational analysis are the scientific

theories of the past; however, they are so

far separated in their world view from our

present-day understanding as to merit the

designation pre-scientific.

 

The fascination of early superstition was the

mother of the later scientiftc curiosity. There w s

progressive dynamic emotionjear plus curiosity

-in these primitive superstitions; there was progressive

driving power in the olden magic. These

superstitions represented the emergence of the

human desire to know and to control planetay

environment. (‘970)

 

So, in earlier times the linkage between engineering

and science was less clear than it is

today. Many things were known to work, even

though no one understood why they did. I will

use the term mgick to characterize these prescientific

approaches of engineering to achieving

control over reality. I have chosen the older

spelling of the word, as is common in the Western

esoteric tradition, to distinguish it from

consciously planned deception, such as prestidigitation,

and from the supernaturaldelusions

of superstition, of which T k Urantia Book

warns:

 

…if modern methods of education should fail,

there would be an almost immediate reversion to the

primitive beliefs in magic. These superstitions still

linger in the minds of many so-called civilized

people. . . . And intelligent human beings still b e l h

in good luck, evil eye, and astrology. ($972)

The pre-scientific, or magicM phase of

humankind’s expanding control over reality is

simply that type of engineering in which results

areachieved without recourse toa fully rational

analvsis of causes and effects in terms of wellunderstood

fundamental principles. The

penetration of human understanding into a

phenomenal domain begins with the observation

and application of magick Magick which

has become systematized to the point that it can

be executed successfully from apurely mindal

viewpoint comes to be considered common

senseor practical knowledge. Oncean explanation

has been provided, reducing the knowledge

to a systematic combination of thoroughly

reliable principles, the phenomenon is considered

to bea part of practical xience and is ready

for full engineering application.

 

These considerations bring me to the second,

and altogether stranger of this presentation,

for-I desire to discover with you those

elements of contemporary thought and experience

from which control of new types of reality

may someday emerge. I will show you where

some rnagick is now. Let me clarify my terms:

The t e k magick denotes a regtionship between

human intention and d i t y extension.

 

The magickal relationship is hidden from

understanding; it is occult. Yet the cumulative

experience of-the individual and the community

progressively shows the relationship to be

reproducible, implying that it must have a

causal foundation. Once this causal foundation

has been illuminated, the relationship is no

longer occult and is no longer considered

magickal. It has become scientific.

 

We know that the finite reality of everyday

experience exists in four domains-literal,

mindal, spiritual, and personal. We also have

certain indications from The Urantia Book concerning

relationships of human intentional

control in these different domains of reality. For

example, in the spiritual domain we believe

and often perceive that the intentional

… the human a p

prwh to control over

reality begins with

the observation of a

desired result in nature

and progresses

to attempts to

recreate the conditions

under which

the result occurred.

 

Many things were

known to work, even

though no one understood

why they did.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

1s it not reasonable

to expect that there

exist ways in which

human mindal intention

relates diredly

to human mindal

extension?

 

The only occult

process is the personal

mechanism of

will by which the

intending individual

takes extensible

action.

 

remembrance of the mortal life of the Creator

Son enables the extension of his real presence

into our conscivus here and now. ~ h k o ~ n i –

tion of the remembrance supper as a magickal

relationship between human intention and

spiritual extension exists in some form in almost

all sects of presentday Christianity.

 

On the other hand, The Urantia Book tells us

that the human control relationship is quite

limited with respect to at least some literal

realities:

 

The spirit can dominate mind; so mind can control

energy. But mind can control energy only

through its own intelligent manipulation of the

metamorphic potentials tnherent in the mathematical

leuel of the causes and effects of the physical

domains. Creature mind does not inherently control

energy; that is a Deity prerogntive. But creature

mind can and does manipulate energy just in so far

as it has become master of the energy secrets of the

physical uniwrse. ($1222)

 

When man wishes to modify physical reality, be

it himself or his environment, he succeeds to the

extent that he has discovered the ways and means of

controlling matter and directing energy. Unaided

mind is impotent to influence anything material

save its own physical mechanism, with which it is

inescapably linked. But through the intelligent use

of the body mechanism, mind can create other

mechanisms, even energy relationships and living

relationships, by the utilization of which this mind

can increasingly control and even dominate its

physical level in the universe. C1222)

 

Between these two extremes, there is much

room for exploration and speculation. In the

few minutes that remain to this presentation, I

would like especially to focus your attention on

the relationship between the intention of will

and its extension to mindal realities. Is it not

reasonable to expect that there exist ways in

which human mindal intention relates directly

to human mindal extension? The Urantia Book

has much to say about such relationships

within the individual personality, but what of

the reiationship between the mindal levels of

several personalities? Exactly what is meant by

mind gr~vity? What does it mean to exchange

your mind for that of Jesus? In a few instances,

The Urantia Book provides some suggestive or

insightful comments. One of the more remarkable

is this:

 

Always respect the personality of man. Nmr

should a righteous cause be promoted by force;

spiritual victories can be won only by spiritual

power. This injunction against the employment of

material influences refers to psychic force as well as

to physical force. Overpowering arguments and

mental superiority are not to be employed to coerce

men and women into the kingdom. Mnn’s mind is

not to be crushed by the mere weight of logic or

overawed by shrewd eloquence. While emotion as a

factor in human decisions cannot be wholly

eliminated, it should not be directly appealed to in

the teachings of those who would adwnce the cause

of the kingdom. Make your appeals directly to the

divine spirit that dwells within the minds of men.

 

Do not appeal to fear, pity, or mere sentiment. In

appealing to men, be fair; exercise self-control and

exhibit due restraint; show proper respect for the

personalities of your pupils. Remember that I hnve

said: «Behold, I stand at the door and knock, and if

any man will o m , I will come in.» ($1765)

 

consider the things which this statement

seems to characterize as «psychic force.» They

are: overpowering arguments; mental superiority;

weight of logic; shrewd eloquence; and

emotion, including fear, pity, and sentiment.

 

The idea that such phenomena of influence

exist between minds is not remarkable. These

are obvious extensions of a person’s mental

function influencing that of another. The intentional

basis of these mindal extensions is unspecified,

but it is clear that the intention to

change another’s mind extends in these cases

through the observable information-patterning

of the physical environment. The only occult

process is the personal mechanism of will by

which the intending individual takes extensible

action.

 

Is it possible, however, that there is more to

this whole thing than the obvious act of deciding

what to say and of saying it? Is there some

quality of mind which mediates the exchange

of viewpoint beyond the information content of

the observable utterances? Let us examine a

series of remarkable statements.

 

… Mind Planners. These seraphim are devoted to

the w i v e grouping of morontia beings and to

organizing their teamwork on the mansion worlds.

They are the psychologists of the first h e n . . . .

Ewn on Urantia, these seraphim teach the mlasting

truth: If your own mind does not serve you

well, you can exchange it for the mind of Jesus of

Nazareth, who aluxlys m e s you well. ($553)

 

Because of the presence in your minds of the

Thought Adjuster, it is no more ofa mystery fo; you

to know the mind of God than for you to be sure of

the consciousness of knowing any other mind,

human or superhuman. Religion and sochl wnsciousness

haw this in common: They are predicated

on the consciousness of other-mindiss. The technique

wherety you can accept another’s idea as yours

is the same whereby you w q «let the mind which

was in Christ be also in you.» ($1123)

 

Spirit-gravity pull and response thereto operate

not only on the universe as a whole but also even

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

between individuals and groups of individuals.

There is a spiritual cohesiveness among the spiritual

and spiritized personalities of any world, race, nation,

or believing group of individuals. There is a

direct attractiveness of a spirit nature between

sprsprritualmlyi nded persons of like tastes and longings.

The term kindred spirits is not whollyafigure

of speech. (%2)

 

The fact of the cosmic mind explains the kinship

of various types of human and superhuman minds.

Not only are kindred spirits attracted to ench other,

but kindred minds are also my fraternal and indined

towards co-operation the one with the other.

 

 

Human minds are sometimes observed to be running

in channels of astonishing similarity and inexplicable

agreement. (*I911

 

… Adam and Eve, like theirfellows on Jerusem,

maintaid immortal status through intellectual association

with the mind-gravity circuit of the Spirit.

When this vital sustenance is broken by mental

disjunction, then, regardless of the spiritual level of

creatureexistence, immortality status is 1ost.Mortal

status followed by physical dkolution was the inevitable

consequence of the intellectual default of

Adam and Em. ($845)

 

Adam and Eve could communicate with each

other and with their immediate children over a distanceofaboutfifty

miles. This thought exchange was

effected by means of the delicate gas chambers located

in close proximity to their brain structures. By

this mechanism they could send and receive thought

oscillations. But thispowerms instantlysuspolded

upon the mind’s surrender to the discord and disruption

of evil. ($834)

1 believe that, if you will reflect on these and

related statements from The Urantia Book, you

will find that there is an underlying thread of

an idea, which is that there is a finite space of

mindal realities. In this space, mental state is

defined by a positional metaphor and mental

function (state transition) is defined by motion

in response to the influences of mind circuits,

mind gravity, and individual volition. Let me

underscore this view of mind function with an

additional quotation, which summarizes and

applies the thought.

 

Likewise does the Infinite Spirit draw all intellectual

values ~aradi&rd. Throughout the central

uniuerse the mind gravity of the Infinite Spirit

functions in liaison with the spirit gravity of the

Eternal Son, and these together constitute the combined

urge of the ascendant souls to find God, to

attain &ity, to achieve Paradise, and to know the

Father. (q55)

I suggest to you that, within the universe

view propounded by The Urantia Book, intermindal

communication occurs without the

mediation of observable physical energy

streams modulated by information patterns. I

further suggest that, where the transmission of

physically detectable information structures

(such as speech) appears to enable intermindal

communication, the total observed effect also

involves the action of occult (hidden or unobserved)

mind phenomena. The communication

of ideas which occurs when weread The Urantia

Book is not simply the decoding of the letters

and words on the printed page. Rather, the text

serves as a material information carrier which,

through the decoding process, affects the state

of the electrochemical mind to strengthen the

mind gravity grasp of the Spirit.

 

At the present stage in planetary development

our understanding of mind phenomena

is decidedly pre-scientific. In spiteof the sincere

efforts of generations of diligent students,

neither psychology nor psychiatry have advanced

towards effective, scientific understanding,

much less control, of mental phenomena.

 

In fact, neither discipline has succeeded in

clearly defining the object of its study. Such

epistemological issues as the distinction between

the organic brain and the rational mind,

to say nothing of the meaning of spirit and

personality, continue to be matters of heated

philosophical debate. Alchemy was more scientific

than this bythe time its practitioners had

generally agreed to talk about earth, air, fire,

and water.

 

Notwithstanding this paucity of rational

analysis, practitioners of psychology and

psychiatry often manage to accomplish useful

results. In fad, they do this by magick, clothed

in a semi-scientific rationale. If their magick

appears to be more effective than some other

magicks, it is surely because much honest critical

effort has been expended to try to discover

what magick works and what circumstances

allow a magick to work. There are plenty of

magicks that work much better than psychology,

while still being magickal. Computer program

design is, surprisingly, a largely magickal

discipline that has worked quite effectively for

many years, but is only recently starting to

become scientific. To say something is magickal

we do not mean that it is imaginary or ineffective.

Rather, we mean that it works by an occult

process. One does not get something for nothing.

 

It often takes a great deal of effort to make

one of these magicks work.

Of course, some magick is ineffective for its

intended purpose. The results achieved are uncorrelated

with the effort expended, either because

the basic principle is false (superstitious)

or because the antecedent requirements are

poorly understood. I will call magick which

The communication

of ideas which occurs

when we read The

Urantia Book is not

simply the decoding

of the letters and

words on the printed

Page.

 

To say something is

magickal we do not

mean that it is imaginary

or ineffctive.

Rather, we mean that

it works by an occult

process.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

We could infer from

The Urantia Book

that very strong

emotions might be

communicable

directly from one

mind to another by

physically occult

psychic means.

 

As always, there is

a real problem in

discerning the genuinely

magickal from

the fruits of fraud or

self-deception

works effective magick. There are undoubtedly

many magicks which are effective. Most

magicks are only partially effective because of

the problem of poorly understood antecedent

requirements, and this, together with theextensive

prevalence of outright superstition, brings

down much modern skeptical criticism on all

magickal endeavors.

 

An examination of human beliefs, as well as

the material I have quoted from The Urantia

Book, suggests that of all the widely reported

magicM phenomena, direct mind-to-mind communication,

telepathy, might work (occasionally)

because of a real, but occult, process. During

this century a relatively large amount of investigative

effort has been focused on demonstrating

the reality of telepathy and other parapsychologicnl

phenomena such as clairvoyance, precognition,

and psychokinesis. The fact that these

experiences, particularly the appearance of

precognition, are familiar to many people in

their everyday life has done much to bolster

popular belief in the reality of these things.

 

Unfortunately, the relatively large amount of

effort expended in parapsychological investigations

has not yielded any clearly demonstrated,

reproducible evidence of the reality of

any of the claimed effects. The tendency of

many self-proclaimed «psychics» to try to

deceive na’ive researchers, together with the

occasional unscrupulous or selfdeceived researcher,

has given the field of parapsychological

research an unsavory air in skeptical circles.

 

We could infer from The Urantia Book that

very strong emotions might be communicable

directly from onemind toanotherbyphysically

occult psychic means. I will call this limited

form of inherent, direct mind-to-mind communication

telempathy. If I were to seek to

demonstrate the reality of this phenomenon, I

would want to work with subjects whose

minds and value systems were as similar as

possible to (perhaps) enhance whatever mental

resonance would occur and to control the confounding

effects of interpersonal variation in

nature and nurture. Young homozygotic twins,

never separated since birth and sharing an intensely

spiritual contemplative nature would

probably be ideal experimental subjects.

 

I am inclined to believe, for various reasons,

that such experiments would be relatively encouraging.

I think the problem of modern

parapsychological research has been an unremitting

desire for the premature attainment

of statistically significant physical results. Such

results are desired because they would give the

subject «scientific» status and might lead to

direct applications. The Urantia Book does not

encourage much hope that «hard» phenomena

like telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition

can occur without the mediation of volitional

spiritual forces. If only «soft» phenomena like

telempathy have an independent basis in

reality (and it is by no means certain that they

do), then the objective evidence will be difficult

to develop and relatively unpersuasive to the

dedicated skeptic.

 

It is clear that not all universe phenomena

have, at the present stage of human scientific

development, a rationally scientific explanation.

Not all universe phenomena have even

been observed or characterized. The skeptic

who seeks to limit the range of things that may

be designated real phenomena to those things

which are rationally explained defines a phenomenally

impoverished universe. The naive

believer who considers every magickal statement

to be true turns the universe into an undifferentiated

and incoherent morass of

causeless effect and inevitable contradiction.

The task of the rational pre-scientist (the

magicianengineer, usually called a wizard) is to

balance belief and skepticism in perfecting the

practice of a magick, discovering something

that really works.

 

There are many magickal beliefs of hurnankind

that are at least a little true. Even the

abomination of astrology contains a tiny fleck

of fact (in an ocean of superstition) in its recognition

of the twelve-fold classification of

human personalities. From this viewpoint we

can examine additional areas of partial truth in

which future expansion of human intentional

control may be expected. As always, there is a

real problem in discerning the genuinely

magickal from the fruits of fraud or selfdeception.

 

The desire for theextraordinary combined

with the will tobelieve provideample incentive

to selfdeception. When the subject of such inquiry

is the psychic mind itself, the focus of

both love and will, we should not be surprised

if selfdeception sometimes escalates into outright

delusion. It is no accident that so many

explorersof this frontier have relied on spiritual

realities to stabilize and to guide their work.

 

The twentieth century has witnessed an extraordinary

blossoming of the exoteric, as opposed

to theesoteric, sideof human intentional

control through the products of scientific and

engineering endeavor. This visible success has

, held the stage, front and center, while materialminded

charlatans have foolishly aped the ‘ scientific process, diverting attention from

remarkable esoteric disclosures. I would like I briefly to probe this esoteric side of the modem

From time immemorial there have been isolated

groups within the larger human society

who have possessed (and usually concealed

their possession 00 a greater knowledge of

planetary realities and cosmic circumstances

than the human norm. The Urantia Book confirms

the existence of such p u p s at various

stages in planetary history, Machiventa Melchizedektaught

truths of Havona and Paradise

to Nordan the Kenite and his associates. While

in Egypt, Jesus was seen by spiritual descendants

of Ikhnaton from Memphis, who understood

certain phases of his divine mission. On

Urantia today, there exists a cosmic reserve

corps of universe-conscious citizens.

 

Over the centuries many other groups of

people have, for various reasons, concealed the

true nature of their beliefs and practices from a

larger, unsympathetic community in which

they functioned. In modem Western society

during the last hundred years many of these

groups have felt relatively secure in making

their unorthodox world view public. With the

vast increase of international travel and communication

our understanding of the variety of

human psychic expression has been greatly

broadened. As one example, a remarkable

Englishwoman, Alexandra David-Neel,

traveled to Tibet and returned with a first hand

account of and experience in tantric yoga. Her

reports greatly influenced a number of imaginatively

inclined individuals who perceived

and elaborated the relationships between surviving

pagan shamanic traditions and the new

revelations of libetan esoteric practices.

 

By 1900 it was no longer fashionable to bum

witches, and the early years of the century

witnessed a virtual explosion of interest in the

esoteric, with the formation of public Secret

Societies dedicated to promulgating a syncretic

occult viewmint assembled from esoteric and

pagan sources with a large dash of florid imagination,

sometimes amplified by recourse to

psychotropic substances. Eventually the subject

passed from fashion, if not interest, resurfacing

again in the sixties and seventies and

settling down into a preoccupation with selftransformation

during the eighties.

 

An important thread in this development has

been the exteriorization of a body of extraordinary

material purporting to disclose the Hermetic

Tradition, the Secrets of the Ages, the

Meaning of the Qabalah, the Philosopher’s

Stone, the Awakening of Kundalini, the True

Masonic Rituals, the Mystery of Hasan al-

Sabah, the Knowledge of the Rosy Cross, the

Wisdom of the Sufis, and so on and so forth.

Some of these materials may have actually

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

come from private specialists and may have

carried a flake of arcane and ancient truth.

Whatever the source and truth content, the

esoteric tide has also produced a large number

of promoters, ranging frum Aleister Crowley to

Kmothy Leary and Ram Dass and beyond.

 

This overall body of expression contains

many themcs, of which self-transformation is

probably the most orthodox and conspicuous.

Among the conspicuous heterodox themes is a

preoccupation with the use of sexual «energf’

(kundalinO either to transform the self or to

effect the individual wiU. While different commentators

have different ethical views of these

practices, reflecting individual and cultural

preconceptions, there is general agreement

that, when properly controlled, this energy can

be used to reprogram the unconscious reactions

of one’s mind or to affect the unconscious

reactions of another’s.

 

The fact that such beliefs have been so widely

held and protected against ages of persecution

by great secrecy does not, of course, make them

true. The idea that strong sexual fantasies can

affect individual behavior does not seem particularly

remarkable to a generation raised on

Freud and television. On the other hand, the

idea that one person’s single-minded fantasies

can directly affect another person’s perceptions

and behavior is quite another matter. If we

sought a word to express this idea in unsensational

terms, I think we might choose the word

I have already introduced to describe the

hypothetical di~e~tcommunicatiofn e motional

states from one mind to another, telempathy.

 

To accommodate those among my audience

who are totally put off by this entire line of

discussion, I will conclude this talk with a true,

historical story, which is also a parable about

prophecy, magick, and shamanism. I leave its

interpretation as an exercise for the reader.

 

Ever and anon, true prophets and teachers arose

to denounce and expose shamanism. Even the

uanishing red man had such a prophet within the

past hundred years, the ShawneeTenshtawa, who

predicted the eclipse of the sun in 1808 [sic] and

denounced the vices of the white man. Many t w

teachers have qveared among the various tribes and

races all through the long ages of evolutionary history.

And they will m continue to appear to challenge

the shamans or priests of any age who oppose

general education and attempt to thwart scientific

progress. (*988)

 

By 1806, Indiana Governor William Henry

Harrison had become disturbed by the actions

of Tenskwatawa and his followers in cunducting

witch hunts and burnings among the

Shawnee, Wyandot, and Delaware tribes. He

From time immemorial

there have

been isolated groups

within the larger

human society who

have possessed (and

usually concealed

their possession of) a

greater knowledge of

planetary realities

and cosmic circumstances

than the

human norm.

 

The idea that strong

sexual fantasies can

affect individual

behavior does not

seem particularly

remarkable to a

generation raised on

Freud and television.

 

SCIENTIFIC S WOSIUM I1

 

. . .I will conclude

this talk with a true,

historical story,

which is also a

parable about

prophecy, magick,

and shamanism. I

leave its interpretation

as an exercise

for the reader.

made the following speech to the Delawares

concerning Tenskwatawa:

 

Who is this pretended prophet who dares to speak

in the name of the Great Creator? Examine him. Is

he more wise or virtuous that you are yourselws,

that he should be selected toconvey to you theorders

of your God? Demand of him some proofs at least of

his being the messenger of Deity. If God has

employed him, he has doubtless authorized him to

perform some miracles, that he may be known and

received as a prophet. If he is really a prophet, ask of

him to cause the sun to stand still-the moon to alter

its course–or the dead to rise from tk.eir graves. I f

he does these things, you may then believe that he

has been sent by God. «‘

 

. . . During the spring of 1806 several astronomers

had visited the Ohio Valley in preparation for a total

eclipse of the sun scheduled to occur on ]une 16.

… Somehow (througheitherdivineor secular sources)

the Prophet had learned of theeclipse ….l

… Delaware messengers brought copies of

Harrison’s speech to Greenville, where the Pmphet

considered the governor’s challenge … .

. . .ln early June Tenskwatawn assembled his followers

at Greenville and astonished even his most

b u t disciples by declaring that he would use his

power to darken the sun at midday. Instructing his

1 audience to spread word of the upcoming miracle,

t k Shawnee directed them to reassemble at Grmville

onJune 16, when theMaster of Life would send

a Black Sun as mute testimony of the Prophet’s

authority.

 

. . .Realizing that the upcoming m n t would undoubtedly

increase his influence, Tenskwatawa enkanced

the drama by remaining in his lodge

throughout the morning of June 16. Then, as the

noon sun faded into an eerie twilight, the Shawnee

holy man -red among his fightened followers,

shouting, «Did I not speak the truth? See, the sun

is dark!» The Prophet then assured his frightened

audhce that just as he had darkened the sun, so he

also would restore its former radiance, and as the

eclipseended, the ~ndhnws ere much relieved ….3

 

Copyright 1991

1. Dan Massey, Jr.

Box 120

Sherborn, Massachusetts 01770-0120

 

1 Quoted in Edmunds, R. David, Eamseh and the

Quest for Indian Leadership, p. 86.

2 Quotation from hid.

3 Quotation from Edmunds, R. David, The Shawnee , Prophet, pp. 4849.

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

The Life Pattern

 

Introduction

 

The quest for self-knowledge has been a

central theme of discovery in the field of medicine.

Over the past two years this quest has

defined itself as the Human Genome Initiative.

Researchers have taken on the challenge to

sequence all the genetic material contained in

the 48 chromosomes collectively known as the

human genome. Since the time of Vesalius in

the 1500s, scientists have been charting human

anatomy with ever-increasing precision and

finer detail. The delineations of the human

genome will be the «last frontief’ of human

anatomy. We shall one day know the secrets of

human nature as well as we know the topography

of the human skeleton today.

 

Today I should like to discuss the human

genome project from several viewpoints. You

will meet the person whose genome is being

sequenced. We will go on a pumey through the

laboratory of a molecular biologist where a

gene is being cloned. Some time will be devoted

to how all this applies to «the man on the

street.» And then we will moralize alittle about

our knowledge and its effect on human destiny.

 

Finally, we will end with some ‘Urantia talk»

about God as the connecting pattern.

I Am Joe’s Genome

Imagine yourself in the year 2005; you are

browsing through the newsstand, and you pick

up Reader’s Digest. The lead article is entitled, «I

Am Joe’s Genome,» and it reads something like

this.

 

Let me introduce myself to you. My story

begins nearly two decades ago at the end of the

1980s when scientists under the leadership of

Dr. James Watson set about to sequenceor spell

out the genes (sentences) in all the human

chromosomes (paragraphs). Taken together, all

these chromosomes are known as the human

genome (the story of life). So you can know me

better, I need to acquaint you with somedefinitions.

I am composed of long molecules arranged

in a double helical configuration known

as DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). The two strands

are composed of deoxyribose sugars, and they

are linked together by four nitrogen bases

adenine (A), thymidine 0,c ytosine (C),a nd

guanine (G) bridging the two strands together

at regular intervals. At the bridgepoint, an A

always opposes a T and a C opposes a G. An

A-T together or a CC together are known as

base pairs.The four bases A-TCG are thecode

words into which proteins am translated.

 

I am inside the nucleus of the cell and do not

leave. I send messengersout into the cytoplasm

to order the production of proteins that are

engaged in biologic activity. I can self-replicate

and move through time from one generation to

the next using each individual as a culture

medium, because the messages in my tape are

immortal. Nearly 100,000 genes and 3 billion

bases were sequenced in this project. Printing

this in sequence would have filled fifteen

volumes kthe old Encyclopaedia Britannica.

After the first two years of work, nearly 4,600

genes had been sequenced.

 

– I am the of biologic life, and now

humankind, through application and endeavor,

is gaining apparent control of this pattern. It

is fortunate I gave up my secrets slowly, for the

experts had the time to gain ethical maturity as

this power was placed in their hands.

Cloning a Gene

We now travel to Dallas, Texas, to the laboratory

of Drs. Brown and Goldstein where

they have recently cloned the gene responsible

for familial hypercholesterolemia. This body of

work took fifteen years, and for their efforts and

the prospects for health worldwide, they were

awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1985.

 

In essence, there is a receptor on the surface of

liver cells and other cells throughout the body

which serve to remove cholesterol-carrying

lipoproteins from the circulation. Thus plasma

cholesterol is kept at a low level. There are

certain people who have a mutation in the gene

that codes for the receptor. Their cells cannot

make these protein receptors, and they cannot

remove lipoproteins fmm the plasma. Their

cholesterol builds up to very high levels and

they subsequently get atherosclerosis and heart

attacks. The fact of a mutation in that gene was

something they reasoned based on abstract

thinking. They subsequently cloned thc gene

and isolated the gene from both normal people

and patients with this mutation. They have

been-able to show that, indeed, there is a part

of the gene missing in the patients.

 

Cloning genes these days involves somehow

fishing out the messenger-RNA which encodes

for the protein. Then it is treated with purified

reverse- transcriptase (an enzyme ha;ing the

power to convert RNA back to DNA) and a

DNA copy of the RNA is made. The DNA copy

is takenand introduced into bacteria. The &scovery

of certain enzymes recently has made

 

by

John Lange, M.D.

 

A student ufThe Urantia

Book for 2 1 years, Lange

is a medical doctor. He has

done research in endoninology

and currently has a

private practice in a specialty

clinic in Ft. Smith,

Arkansas. He has ~ c e n t l y

been appointed to a Federal

panel to set guidelinesfor

surgery in his freld.

 

We shall one day

know the semefs of

human nature as

well as we know the

topography of the

human skeleton

today.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

These special bacteria

have been used to

produce human

growth hormone,

human insulin, and

tissue plasminogen

activator, to mention

a few.

 

— –

This technology can

also be used to

delineate the origin

of cancer, for the

molecular targeting

ofdrugs, and in the

diagnosis of diseases.

all this possible.

 

To clone the LDL receptor, the first thing is to

isolate tissue making LDL receptor. The

adrenal turned out to be the most abundant

soume. Human fetal adrenals from late abortions

were used for this purpose. These adrenal

1 glands were then ground up and the RNA

, taken out. The tissue contains millions of different

kinds of RNA, and only one in 10,000

codes for our protein. The other 9,999 are

coding for all theother proteins in the cell. Then

DNA copies were made of the whole RNA by

adding this enzyme reverse transcriptase.

What you then have are single-strand copies

with a special name, c-DNA, or, complementary

DNA.

 

Now you do what is called recombinant

DNA. To clone a gene, you take advantage of

the fact that bacteria have plasmids. They are

autonomous pieces of genes in bacteria. (They

were originally discovered by a microbiologist

studying the development of antibiotic resistance.)

 

Then, through a series of enzymatic

steps known as restriction fragment polymorphism,

the circular DNA in the plasmid is

opened up, the gene inserted, closed or circularized

again, and then reintroduced into the

bacterial cell.

 

This process can be used not only to clone

genes but to produce proteins. These special

bacteria have been used to produce human

growth hormone, human insulin, and tissue

plasminogen activator, to mention a few. The

potential in the field is limited by human imagination.

Fortunately, a bacteria takes up only one of

these plasmids, so you have ten million bacteria,

each taking up a different c-DNA. The

challenge is to find the one that encodes for the

LDL receptor. To accomplish this they worked

with the microbiology department and, using

the adrenal glands from cows, purified a small

amount of receptor protein to homogeneity.

 

Next they sequenced a small segment of this

protein and then assembled a piece of DNA

with the corresponding genetic code. This

oligonucleotide probe produced in the test tube

was then made very radioactive. It was placed

on nitrocellulose paper which was in turn

placed on a petri dish where these millions of

bacteria were growing. The bacterial colonies

grew up onto the filter and the small piece of

DNA found its complementary plasmid containing

our gene. The filter was washed carefully

to eliminate unbound DNA and an X-ray

was taken. A dark spot on the film represents

your colony due to the radioactivity produced.

 

This specific colony is isolated and grown up

in large quantities. The gene is cut out of the

plasmid with another special restriction enzyme.

The rest of the plasmid is thrown away.

The gene is now sequenced and the proper

reading frame determined. This is all done

today by computer. Finally, having started out

with only eight amino acids, they discovered , the entire protein structure of over 6,000 amino

1 acids. he^ also know the conformational

1 status, how it is oriented in the cell membrane,

and how it binds LDL.

 

Towards a Healthy World

Molecular biology and genetic research have

given rise to a variety of clinical applications;

i.e., things that help patients.The most debated

topic in this area is gene therapy. One in 100

children is born with a serious genetic defect.

 

Ofthe more than 4,000 known inherited disorders,

most lack full effective therapies. Since the

advances in gene cloning, scientists are imagining

ways to introduce healthy genes into

patients to cure the inherited illness. Genes can

be transferred into germ cells (sperm, eggs, or

early embryos) or somatic cells (those not destined

to become sperm or eggs). Germ-line

therapy is not an option for the foreseeable

future, because the new genes would be passed

from generation to generation, a prospect raising

profound ethical concerns. -.

 

 

The most promising are diseases caused by

single genes that have been isolated, cloned,

and are available for transplant. This is accomplished

by using retrov&ses that have incorporated

the gene, maintained their ability to

infest somatic cells, but lost the power of

replication. Efforts have focused onteplacing

the defective gene or supporting the work of

the sick gene. It has been difficult to find ways

to insure that therapeutic genes are expressed

well and persistently in the body. Familial hypercholesterolemia,

hemophilia, cystic fibrosis,

&d inherited emphysema are singlegene diseases

under investigation at present.

 

This technology can also be used to delineate

the origin of cancer, for the molecular targeting

of drugs, and in thediagnosis of diseases. Great

progress has been made with Huntington’s

chorea by using restriction enzymes in a

process previously mentioned, known as

restriction fragment polymorphism. Restriction

enzymes are used to cut the DNA of affected

individuals. This gives DNA fragments

of many different lengths. All affected individuals

will have an identical inherited fragment

of the same length where the gene is

located. In this manner the disease will soon be

completely understood.

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOhiA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

God as a Connecting Pattern

As humans unlock the secrets of nature, with

each profound discovery we voluntarily assume

a larger responsibility. With the delineation

of the human genome, we are challenged

to a higher identity of «created cwreator.» This

new knowledge subordinated to spirit direction

provides the opportunity for attaining an

unprecedented level of human health. A

reasonable course is to foster the health resulting

from random genetic recombination within

the constraints of a reformulated commitment

to human dignity.

 

The question is then posed: If the future is

open, who is responsible for human transformation?

Seaxhing for an answer, we attempt

to redefine the relationship between divineand

human agency. Greater understanding is possible

by viewing the life pattem as it encompasses

the domains of finite reality. It includes not

only the material (DNA), but also the mindal

(archetype) and the spiritual (personality)

domains. As described by Jung, the archetyp

per se is prepsychic in that it precedes and

preforms human mind functions. It serves to

focus the ministries of the adjutant and cosmic

minds to develop psychologic integrity during

a lifetime. Personality is that manifestation of

the Father unifying the spiritual life and focusing

the ministry of the Thought Adjuster culminating

in morontia progression.

 

The life mechanism is the p d u c t of supermortal

creative design, and as such mortals can

never hope to totally control it. We have only

partial vision and must depend on God as the

pattern that connects. As we seek philosophic

coordination between scientific knowledge

and spiritual existence, we should first realize

we live in a connected relationship of pattern

between ancestral Deity and evolving

Supremacy.

 

The life mechanism is

the product of supermortal

creative

design, and as such

mortals can never

hope to totally control

if.

 

 

 

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

by

Philip G. Calabrese, Ph.D.

Calabrese, a student of

The Urantia Bookfor 20

years, has a mnsters and

Ph.D. in mathematics and

physics and works in

relatedlzre#. Calabrese’s

paper entitled, «Algebraic

Synthesis, Foundation of

Logic and Probability,» was

published in Information

Sciences.

 

In the final analysis,

INFINITY IS, and

that is all there is to

say about it.

 

Paradise and the T of Space:

A Theory d U l t i m d a r

 

Fist of all, does anyone here have a problem

with the printed title of my t a k ‘The Ultirnaton

as the Nucleus of Paradise»? . . . I hope so,

because that title is reversed. It should be

«Paradise as the Nucleus of the Ultimaton.»

 

That title was phoned in by my good friend Dr.

Dick Prince, who alsovolunteered metodo this

presentation with the promise to be here with

me today. For ten now, Dick has been

working long hours on the Spanish translation

of The Urantia Book, which hopefully will be

done by the end of this year. Anyway, as you

can see, he’s not here today. So I’m going to

volunteer him right now, as soon as he’s-finished

with the Spanish translation, to begin the

Italian translation of The Urantia Book.

 

To start off today, some of you may remember

the last Scientific Symposium in Nashville

when I concluded that there is no way for

human resurrection to occur on Jerusem «on

the third day after natural death» because the

guardian seraphim, who carries the human

soul, cannot travel there in less than twenty

years. The Urantia Book insists that there is no

way for a seraphim to traverse spaceany faster

than three times the speed of light (260). Since

the nearest star is 4.3 light years away and

Jerusem must be many stars away, the angel

can’t get there in days at her speed. Thedistance

from earth to Jerusem can’t be nine light days;

it is more like sixty light years away.

 

Now at the first Scientific Symposium in

Nashville I went so far as to suggest that some

nameless Melchizedek might have been called

on the carpet for using the expression «on the

third day after naturaldeath,» which we would

take literally. Well, today I am going to recant

my Urantia Bookapostasy; I’vethought of a way

for the guardian angel to get to Jerusem in less

than three days: The angel simply doesn’t

travel there under her own power! She must be

translated to Jerusem by some unrevealed universe

or Paradise technique. A careful reading

of The Urantia Book will reveal that in every case

where this trip by the seraphim from Urantia

to Jerusem is described, the author never says

that the angel gets there by normal seraphic

travel or transport. Instead, some vague expression

like «proceeds to Jerusem» is used to

denote the mode of transportation of the angel.

 

1 hope this explanation resolves the anomaly

and points to an unrevealed seraphic phenomenon

associated with human death. On, then,

to the main part of my presentation today.

 

So now let us reflect on the cosmos-the

Totality of Reality. Each one of us, no matter

what our status in life, has been afforded a

personal view of the cosmos, not only introspectively

in the attempted contemplation of

the indwelling spirit of the Universal Father,

but also externally as we each gaze up at the

stars in the night sky. This continuous view of

the cosmos stretches trillions of miles in all

directions, and spans millions of years into the

past, and allows projections millions of years

into the future. That the universe should afford

each one of us a personal view of the whole

cosmos, no matter how supposedly small our

doings here on earth, demonstrates how God is

concerned with each of us as individuals-not

just in the aggregate.

 

In the final analysis, INFINITY IS, and that

is all there is to say about it. … But, of course,

we’re going to try to say something else about

it, anyway! But before we do, let us pause in

awe for a moment to experience in our personality

consciousness, the infinite ONENESS

that we call God, perhaps to feel the loving

smile of the one that we may call Father.

 

Total Reality is Unqualified Infinity. Total

realityembraces unbounded infinity as well as

the Infinitude, and also these two unified as the

whole, the Infinite One. Before attempts at understanding,

the human mind must divide

Reality Totality into an infinitude(as contrasted

from a single unity), and an unlimited infinity

(as contrasted fmm the bounded finite), and

then somehow synthesize these two conceptions

into a unified whole.

 

In the first absolute transaction, the Infinite

One becomes the personal Father of the Eternal

Mother-Son (the original spirit person) and also

the eternal source of Paradise (theoriginal nonspirit,

nonpersonal manifestation). All conpint

action by the Father and the Mother-Son is

consummated by the MindGod, the Conpint

Actor, the Third Person of the Infinite Trinity.

 

Fmm Paradise emerges space, which, like the

concept of the master universe, is a tranxendentai

reality existing somehow between the

infinite and the finite. The fifth absolute is the

Unqualified Absolute, which pervades all

space but is not limited by space. The Deity

Absolute and Universal Absolute complete the

seven absolutes of infinity. These seven absolutes

are functionally unified in the fourteen

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

triunities, each a functional association of the

Father with two of the other six absolutes.

 

It is suggested that we may helpfully conceive

the total cosmos as an almost limitless

ellipse with one absolute focus located in

Paradise. What does The Uruntia Book say about

these matters?

 

On Paradise:

A flat ellipsoid, having upper, nether, and

peripheral regions

The most gigantic organized structure in

the whole Cosmos

The dwelling place of the existential

Trinity of three divine persons and (probably)

the focal center of all three of the

nonpersonal Absolutes (15)

 

The geographic center of infinity (‘126)

Has no time or space (except by volition)

but has absolute surfaaes and areas and

absolutely significant distances and directions-

north, south, east, west, up and

down

Universally pment as the physical grasp

of Paradise gravity, an instantaneous attraction

(T25,482)

 

Is the nucleus of each ultimaton (the

smallest material particle)

Located at the center of all things

No position in space but located at the

focus of space (1156)

Peripheral Paradise touches the relatively

motionless midspace zones of space existing

between the moving zones of space

(124 ).

 

On the Unqualified Absolute:

Pervades all space but is not limited to

space presence

Gives rise to primordial force, emergent

energy, and all finite matter

Reveals all that originates in Paradise

( 1 26)

 

The central focalization of its space

presence is in the outer zone of nether

Paradise (123).

 

On Space:

Needs seven dimensions, one for each

absolute of infinity (1439)

Is eternal but not absolute; is absolutely

ultimate (1297)

A transcendental reality before all beginnings

and after allendings; not the «final»

frontier. but the «ultimate» frontier

Partially transcended in human experience

only by mind (‘1439)

Pervaded by the Unqualified Absolute

 

(9 24)

The totality of space has a definite geo-

I metrical shape (q24)

I Seemingly originates just below nether

Paradise while time originates just above

upper Paradise

All matter contains space and moves in

space, but not all space is inside matter

(*I 297)

 

The midspace zones encapsulate all of

pervaded space and the space reservoirs

and the potential infinity of all outer

space.

 

On Ultimate Matter and Motion:

Ultimatons are minute spheresparticles,

not waves (‘475)

100 ultimatons make up a typical electron

but do not whirl around within the

electron like electrons whirl around the

atomic nucleus nor as planets whirl

around the sun (‘476)

Ultimatons have axial rotations around

their Paradise nucleus

Ultimatons may «huddle» together within

the electron (‘478)

When a particle moves in space it takes its

interior space with it (‘1297)

Ultimatons and electrons shift positions

and emit mass according to Am = LS/c2.

(‘474)

 

There is a plane perpendicular to any

given mass (‘126)

Sunlight is composed of highly heated

and agitated electrons (‘460-61)

The wave length associated with the

emission of a particle is 860 times the

diameter of the emitting particle (‘474,

476).

 

Now a number of questions arise:

How can Paradise be the nucleus of each

ultimaton without being in space?

How can Paradise have a universe location

(at the focus of the midspace zones)

but have no position in space?

How can Paradise be the geographic center

of infinity?

 

How can Havona and the supemniverses

(in space) whirl around Paradise?

What is an ultimaton made of?

What does an ultimaton look like? what

is its geometric shape?

How are the 100 ultimatons arranged in

an electron?

 

What does it mean for ultimatons to

«huddle»?

How can ultimatons and electrons shift

positions and emit mass?

How does the positive or negative charge

Space.. .

 

A transcendental

reality before all

beginnings and

after all endings; not

the «final» frontier,

but the «ultimate»

frontier.

 

The mve length

associated with the

emission of a particle

is 860 times the

diameter of the

emitting particle.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

Since Paradise is the

geographic center of

infinity, Paradise

must be a neighborhood

of infinity.

 

It somehow must

contain infinity.

The nuclear region of

each ultirnaton must

be located in nether

Paradise, where there

is the ‘%entral

focalization of the

space presence of

the Unqualified

Absolute.»

 

of an electron arise and why don’t light

particles have charge?

How do the wave properties of matter

arise?

How can an electron emit an electron (a

light particle) when it drops to a lower

energy state?

How does an electron absorb a particle of

light (an electron) and shift position?

[By the way, the last two provocative questions

and the above observation about sunlight

were contributed by Dick Bain in a personal

letter.]

 

Here’s how far I’vegotten on these problems.

Topology is that branch of mathematics that

deals with those aspects of geometry that are

invariant under stretching or contracting. For

instance, a doughnut and a cup with a handle

topologically equivalent because one can be

transformed into the other by a continuous

mapping. But a sphere and a doughnut are not

so equivalent. Topology also attempts to model

the «closeness» concept. Formally, a topological

space (a topology) consists of a universe U

of points together with a special collection of

subsets of U called open sets. The collection of

open sets has the property that the intersection

of any two open sets is also an open set, and the

union of my subcollection of open sets, whatwer,

is also an open set. A neighborhood of a

point is any subset of the universe that includes

an open set that contains the given point. For

example, the universe of points in the euclidean

plane together with the collection of the interiors

of all circles (and their unions) form a

topological space. Another interesting example

of a topology is called the co-finite topology.

 

Suppose we start out with a euclidean plane

of points and adjoin to it certain points at infinity.

We can imagineeach straight lineextending

out to infinity in both directions ending in

two points at infinity A line parallel to the first

line ends in two different points at infinity; and

a line intersecting the first two lines ends in still

another pair of points at infinity. The set P of all

pointsat infinity for all the lines in the plane can

be considered to be a «circle» at infinity. In

euclidean solid geometry we would get a «surfaceJfP

of points at infinity. A topological neighborhood

of infinity (i.e., a neighborhood of the

surface of infinite points) is any subset of the

universe whose complement is bounded, i.e.,

contained, in some finite circle. Thus a neighborhood

of infinity is any subset of the universe

that includes everything outside some finite

circle.

 

Since Paradise is the geographic center of

infinity, Paradise must be a neighborhood of

infinity. It somehow must contain infinity. After

all, the zone of infinity does exist at the center

of nether Paradise. The co-finite topology, applied

to solid euclidean space rather than the

plane, seems just right for modeling a cosmos

whose origin is at infinity instead of at some

finite point in space. Paradise must be the center

of what we commonly imagine as what’s

«out there» in the infinite reaches of outer

space, and even beyond, out to the very edge

of our mental concept of the master universe.

 

Now Paradise is not only «out there»; Paradise

is also at the focus of space, the focus of

those midspace quiescent zones of space intervening

between the mlatively moving zones, as

for example, in the atom, electron, and ultimaton.

Thus somehow Paradise is also located at

the center of each ultirnaton. Finally, Paradise

is also located at the center of the grand universe,

at the center of the superuniverses as

they whirl around. How can all this be? The

answer is that the topology of space must allow

Paradise proximity in all these ways at once.

Nobe, for instance, that peripheral Paradise can

be approached by a sequence of midspace

points.

 

 

Space must have a non-spatial hole at the

center of each ultimaton wherenether Paradise

acts to hold the ultimaton together as an individual

particle. The nuclear region of each

ultimaton must be located in nether Paradise,

where there is the «central focalization of the

space presence of the Unqualified Absolute.»

 

That must be why space seems to originate just

below nether Paradise. In addition, the macroscopic

grand universe must have a unique

space intrusion where, again, Paradise is located.

Space topology must allow this proximity

of Paradise to the central universe, which

exists in space, while Paradise itself is not in

space. The construction of ultimatons is the

work of the Paradise primary and secondary

Transcendental Force Organizers, and the

design of the master universe is the work of the

Transcendental Architects of the Master

Universe.

 

All this leads me to discard our contemporary

notion of space as a uniform void. Space

is neither uniform nor empty. Uniformity of

space is not really necessary for our physical

theories. All we need is the revolutionary motions

of matter in space about a center. But the 1

center itself need not be conceived as being in

space. Space must bevery «holey,» spelled with

an «e.» It must have a big hole in the macroscopic

center of the grand universe, little holes

at the center of each ultimaton, and finally an

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

inconceivable hole at the outer infinity center

of the master universe. Matter has a spirit

nucleus!

 

Now, what is an ultimaton made of, and

what does it look like? An ultimaton must be a

relatively thin, rotating, spherical shell of space

with a non-spatial nucleus. The Paradise

nucleus binds the shell together preventing it

from flying apart on tangents toward outer

infinity. An electron must consist of one hundred

concentrically arranged ultimatons witha

common non-spatial nucleus.

 

These concentric spherical shells of space

may rotate with different speeds and axes of

rotation, thus giving rise to angular momenta

with as many as 100 different axes. The result

is an angular momentum vector with components

in all three conventional spatial dimensions,

just as appears in contemporary

quantum mechanics (although contemporary

xience hardly gives physical interpretation to

this momentum vector). Huddling of ultimatons

means that the rotating shells of space

cluster by shrinking or expanding toward one

another.

 

An ultimaton may drop into a lower rutational

energy state by emitting some rotating

space (mass) in the form of another ultimaton.

 

In this case the change in the mass of rotating

space of the ultimaton equals the change in its

energy divided by the square of the speed of

light. On theother hand, captureof one rotating

particle (ultimaton) of moving space by

another ultimaton would increase its energy

and its rotational radius or speed and so its

mass. Similar transactions can be envisioned

when 100 ultimatons are concentrically arranged

in an electron. When a particle is

formed and emitted by another particle, vibrations

are initiated in the pre-ultirnatonic content

of space, and these secondary waves are

apparently interpreted bycontemporaryquantum

physicists as the particle itself. Hence we

have the confusing contemporary notion of a

«wavicleV–a hypothetical hybrid particlewave

duality. However, according to The Urantia

Book, these waves have a wave length 860

times the diameter of the emitting particle.

The generation of so-called positive and negative

electronic charge might also be explained

in terms of the spin of the 100 intraelectronic

ultimatons. For instance, if most or all of the 100

ultimatonic shells are rotating in the same direction,

then two such electrons might repulse one

another. On the other hand, two electrons (one

a positmn) with opposite revolutionary directions

might attract each other and cancel some

of each other’s rotational mass, emitting some

energy in the process. The construction of electrons,

protons and atoms from the ultimatons

is the work of the power centers (*473).

 

Although theseexplanations are still qualitative,

it does seem to me that most of the strange

phenomena of present-day quantum mechanics

are potentially explainable in terms of this

model of subelectron matter as rotating spherical

shells of space. I am just now working out

some of the quantitative implications of this

theory, and the preliminary results are very

encouraging, but time doesn’t permit me to get

very far into that here today. In the near future,

I to submit a more technical paper for

publication that will deal with these quantitative

aspects of the theory. This paper will redefine

mass as rotating space and will consider

the conservation of the kinetic and potential

energy and angular momentum of an ultimaton;

 

it will attempt to deal with energy mass

transformations and wave generation.

One last comment: Albert Einstein’s theory

of relativity predicted (and it has many times

been experimentally verified) that the mass of

a particle increases without limit as the speed

of that particle approaches the speed of light.

 

This has always seemed to be a very mysterious

phenomenon. But this theoryof ultimatons and

electrons at least offers an appealing way to

conceive of the situation without abandoning

common sense-by imagining that as the speed

of the particle increases, more and more of the

energy applied to the particle is transbrmed

into rotational energy (mass) rather than into

straightforward motion. Thus the mass of the

particle increases more than its speed as its

speed approaches the speed of light.

 

That completes my prepared remarks for

today. I will now try to answer some questions

….

An ultimaton must

be a relatively thin,

rotating, spherical

shell of space with a

non-spatial nucleus.

 

These concentric

spherical shells of

space may rotate

with different speeds

and axes of rutation,

thus giving rise to

angular momenta

with as many as 100

different axes.

 

SCIENTIFIC S WOSIUM I1

 

I Manned Flight: 1 I From Fandors to FANDORS

i 1 (Flapping Aerid Nuvigation Designed Omahologkd Replicas)

 

by

Paul W Herrick, I’F i AFctrar* 1 Historical Perspective

 

A student of The Urantia

Book for 28 years, Herrick

holds engineering degrees.

He works in lupiter, Florida

as an aeronuutical engineer

and has authored numerous

technical papers.

Archaeologists have

recovered several

man-made artifacts

which depid very

large andlor mancar

ying birds.

 

‘1 he tirst human aviators flew on enormous

birds (fandors) trained by Bon some 500,000

years ago. Man continued aerial navigation

aboard birds until some 30,000 years ago when

fandors became extinct. Several mythological

and archaeological sources include references

to very large and/or man-carrying birds. The

fist part of this paper will summarize these

Urantia Book and historical references and,

through modem aeronautical engineering and

ornithological knowledge, attempt to depict

and describe what a fandor must have been

like.

 

The remainder of the paper will document

man’s technological progress in developing

machines to replace the fandor. His first abortive

attempts were wing-flapping ornithopters,

but these were abandoned in favor of simpler,

though less versatile, concepts. The paper will

conclude by illustrating the recent aeronautical

technological discoveries which birds have

been taking advantage of for millions of years.

A «replica» of the fandor will be shown to be

the logical end product of this technological

evolution.

 

The Urlzntia Book mentions man-carrying

and /or transport birds on six different pages.

Page 5211 in discussing our system capital,

ierusem, states, ‘The transport birds fly at

about one hund~.dm iles per hour.» I’age 590

indicates that many inhabited planets enpy the

servicm of «enormous» passenger birds capable

of carrying «one or two average sized men

for a non-slop flight of over five hundred

milc~.»P age 694 describes an ostrichlikeancestor

of the «gigar,tic» passenger birds. This bird

ilvd on 1 ll-antia forty-f~ver nillion years ago,

The first mention i?f «fandors» ison page746

where Ben (one of the planeta~yp rince’s corporeal

staff) was successful it1 training them for

manned flight some half million yearsago.This

reference also states that «they became extinct

more than thirty thousand years ago.» Lastly,

the references to Adam and Eve flying on fandors

occu on pagcs 831 and 832. This was

about 37,000 yars ago.

 

It is not the intent of this paper to debate thc

possibility of mancanylng birds. Their existence

in our distant past will be assumed. As

their extinction predated recorded history, only

three areas of human endeavor are available to

shed some non-revelatory light on the subject.

These are paleontology (the study of fossils),

archaeology (the study of man’s ancient artifacts),

and mythology (a collection of stories

about the origin and history of man).

 

As we observe the physical world, it is obvious

that there are no existing birds that even

approach the size required to cany humans in

flight. The andean condor, with its ten-foot

wing span, is typical of the largest living birds.

 

Until the 1970s the largest flying animal that

ever existed was thought to be the pteranadon

(a ptemsaur with a 24-foot wing span), and the

largest flying bird ever was thought to be a

12-foot span teratorn. Many scientists thought

that these were the upper limits of possibility

for flying animals.

 

In addition to the ostrich, at least two other

very large flightless birds were known to have

existed. They are the moa of New Zealand (12

feet tall, 660 pounds) and the elephant bird of

Madagascar (10 feet tall, 1,460 pounds).

 

In the 1970s two paleontological discoveries

dramatically increased the upper limits of

known flying animal size. The bones of a ,3676-

foot wing span pterosaur (Quetzalcoatlus

Northropi) were discovered in Texas, and,

more relevant to fandors, the bones of a 25-foot

span flying bird (Argentavis Magnificens) were

unearthed in Argentina. Although both of these

animals probably were extinct by the time man

appeared, and neither was likely capable of

carrying a man anyway, the fact remains that

scientists had severely underestimated the

upper limits of size of a flying animal

Archaeologists have recovered sevurdi ma]. –

made artifacts which depict very large andlo!

man-carrying birds. A hammered copper

depiction of a lion-headed bird was found at

the temple at Al-Ubaid (near Ur) from the early

second millennium B.C. The bird dwarfs the

two stags it is depicted with. At least two birdrelated

Akkadian seal impressions from about

2300 B.C. were found. One purportedly shows

 

— -,

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

a iarge «Zu» bird froin Mesoptainiiin ~lnythology,

while the other clearly depicts a human

form riding on the back of a bird in flight. The

tamous huge drawings on the Plain of Nazca

in South America may also be related to man j

bird tlight ratherthan «ancient astronauts,» a la

Vo11 Daniken.

 

Mythology h r n all over &e world shares

stories or man.carrylng birds. Garuda, the king

(if birds from Indian mythology, is often portrayed

carrying two Indian god-man deities. ‘4

wood calving of a human figure riding a peacock

was found in southern India. According

to Maori legend, the god, Pourangahua, flew

from his legendary dwelling Hawaike to New

Zealand seated on a magic bird.

 

Fandor Description

The «specifications» for a fandor, as given by

The Urantia Book, are:

Type: bird (i.e., not pterosaur, bat, or insect)

a Range: 500 miles

Speed:100 mph

* Payload: one or two average-sized men

(or one eight-foot Material Son)

Size: «large,» «great,» «enormous,»

«gigantic»

a Other characteristics: «intelligent,»

«obedient,» «affectionate»

‘To convert the qualitative size descriptors to

quantitative values such as weight, wing area,

wing span, etc., we are forced to use judgment

based on known relationships of these parameters

for existing, though much smaller, birds.

 

For example, birds of prey, such as ospreys, are

known to be able to carry prey weighing up to

one-half their own weight. Since the fandor can

fly a long distance with men aboard (500 miles),

a payload of one-third their weight will be

assumed to be more realistic. Using two

«average-sized» men or one eight-foot pm-basketball

player as a typical payload, 300 pounds

seems like a reasonabie payload weight. As 300

is a third of 900, our hypothetical fandor will be

assumed to weigh 900 pounds (1,200 with the

full payload aboard).

 

Wing loading (weight divided by wing area)

br birds varies with takeoff requirements. Birds

that normally take off vertically h-om level

ground have low wing loadings (relatively

large wings), birds that normally run along the

ground (or water) to take off have higher wing

loadings, while birds that normally jump off

iimbs or cliffs to take off have the highest wing

loadings. For the sake of this discussion (and

because «fandor» may be related to «condor»),

the fandor will be assumed to be at the high end

1 of the Idngt: of wing loadings for large land

birds (1il.x r:ondors and vultures), which normally

take off vertically from level ground. This

gives a wing loading of about 1.78 pounds per

square foot (8.7 kilograms per square meter). ‘ This translates to a wing area of 505 square feet

for a 900-pound bird.

 

Aspect ratio for a wing is defined as span

s q u a d , dividtd by area. Large land birds have

aspect ratios ranging from about 6 to about 11

(the albatross, a sea bird, has an aspect ratio of

17). The corresponding wing spans (distance

from one wingtip to the other) for a 505-squarefoot

wing are 55 feet (aspect ratio equals 6) to

75 feet (aspect ratioequals 11). Wings of this size

would require nearly 6 seconds tocompleteone

flapping cycle. A sketch of what a fandor may

have looked like is shown in the figure. (As an

aside, the author hereby suggests the scientific name

«Ornithopteryx Fandori»for this bird in the event

that pdeontological evidence of its existence is someday

found.)

 

The power required for a bird to take off and

fly is generated by its large pectoral (flight)

muscle. Typically, this muscle makes up about

a quarter of the weight of a bird. A 900-pound

bird would therefore have a 225-pound flight

muscle. At a typical value of 0.156 horsepower

per pol~nd of flight muscle, the fandor could

generate 35 hp for short periods of time. As

early light planes in the same weight, speed,

payload, and range category used engines in

the K3- to 90-hp class, we can see that our

fand3)r must have some special technologies

to allow it to get by on less than half that

amo~lnto f power. The fact that light, twoplace*

helicopters (which can also take off and

land vertically) rcyuire about 180 hp makes a

bird’s capability even more remarkable. This

will irc addressed in the section entitled «Bird

Technology.»

 

Aircraft Development

The first sketches of heaver-than-air flying

machines were of man-powered ornithopters

(wing-flapping airplanes) by Leonardo da Vinci

in thc late 1400s. However, the Eirst successful

flying machine had to await the development

of the controllable, fixtd-wing glider, the gasoline

engine, and the airscrew (air propeller).

 

The flapping-wing concept had to give way to

the simpler, more understandable, and more

predictable flight schemes of a fixed wing for

lift and control and a rotating propeller for

prop~~lsioTnh. e integration of lift, propulsion,

stab~lity,a nd control into a flapping-wing aircraft

was, and still may be, too complex for

practical manned flight.

 

Mythology from

all over the world

shares stories of

man-car ying birds.

Wings of this size

would require nearly

6 seconds to complete

one flapping cycle.

 

This idea of twisting

a wing around its

spanwise axis to

provide lateral

control was probably

the singlemost significant

technology

contribution to the

Wright brothers’

success where so

many others had

failed.

 

Free flight efficiency

measurements of a

black vulture indicate

that the bird

does indeed keep the

ai$ow over its body

and wings laminar.

 

The mechanisms

for doing this are

just now being

understood.

Bird Technology

«My observations of the flight of buzzards

leads me to believe that they regain their lateral

balance, when partly overturned by a gust of

wind, by a torsion of the tips of the wings.. . .»

 

So said Wilbur Wright in a letter to Octave

Chanute on 13 May 1900. This idea of twisting

a wing around its spanwise axis to provide

lateral control was probably the singlemost significant

technology contribution to the Wright

brothers’ success where so many others had

failed. Numerous other aeronautical secrets

have since been discovered through the study

of birds, and with almost 9,000 species, there is

surely much more to be learned.

 

Some of the early lessons learned include:

dihedral for stability, camber for lift, ailerons

for roll control, and slots and flaps for higher

lift. Hollow bones with internal trusses is the

same concept used to allow monoplane, instead

of biplane, design. Birds also originated

the retractable landing gcar. These two innovations

were the major causes of a fourfold reduction

in aircraft drag. Variable wing sweep angle

is a concept that birds use which allows the

aerodynamic efficiency (lift/drag) to be optimized

over a range of flight speeds. This is used

on several modern fighter planes. Variable

camber is used by birds to optimize efficiency

over a range of life requirements. NASA just

recently flight-tested this idea (called a Mission

Adaptive Wing) with excellent results.

 

The fact that birds use inflight thrust vectoring

and reversing (of their wing-flapping

generated thrust) during evasive maneuvers

was recently determined by the author during

the course of a bird air combat agility flight

research program. Advanced fighter designs

are just now beginning to incorporate thrust

vectoring and reversing for air combat agility.

The bps of bird wings are either pointed and

swept back (sheared) or composed of several

pinion feathers curved upward and separated.

 

Until very recently the ideal wing-tip shape for

low-speed (subsonic) airplanes was thought to

be rounded. Again, recent tests done by NASA

have shown sigruficant drag reductions by both

of the concepts that are used by birds. Also,

airplane wings have always used smooth, trailing

edges, while many birds have trailing edges

that are both rippled and serrated. Yet again,

NASA has just recently demonstrated the drag

reductions possible by both rippling and serrating

the trailing edges of airplane wings.

 

Friction drag on both airplane and bird

wings and bodies is a major component of the

total drag of both flyers. If theairflow overthese

surfaces can be kept laminar instead of turbulent,

the drag can be reduced significantly.

 

NASA has shown that forcing the airflow to

remain laminar could result in large reductions

in aircraft fuel requirements. Free flight efficiency

measurements of a black vulture indicate

that the bird does indeed keep the airflow

over its body and wings laminar. The

mechanisms for doing this are just now being

understood.

 

There appear to be at least six different phenomena

at work (over and above those already

mentioned) to help a bird reduce its wing and

body friction and form drag. The beak of a bird

(and the bill of a swordfish) provides a low

surface area for the extremely high initial friction

shear stress to act upon. Wind tunnel tests

have shown that a body with a pointed protrusion

can experience a 5- to 10-percent reduction

in drag. The covert feathers of a bird (and the

scales of a fish) can both reduce the friction drag

and prevent flow separation (to reduce pressure

drag) to yield an overall drag reduction of

about 30 percent. The riblcts formed by the

individual barbs of the feathers (and the ridges

in a shark’s skin) can reduce friction drag by 5

to 10 percent. The compliant surface created by

a bird’s down (and a porpoise’s skin) can also

dampen turbulence and, thereby, reduce drag.

 

The coverts and down also form a «turbulent

streak cancellation surface» to further reduce

drag. Lastly, the body temperature of a bird

runs as high as 113 degrocs F. Kecent tests have

shown that when the temperature of a body is

higher than the air, the friction drag is reduced.

 

Thiscanamount to morethan a 10-percent drag

reduction for a high-flying (where the air is

colder) bird like a goose.

The full benefits of wing flapping relative to

drag reduction and increased propulsive efficiency

are just now being explored. Birds with

high aspect ratio wings (like sea birds) «cruise»

by only flapping the outer portion of their

wings. NASA has recently run tests which

show that propellers mounted on wingtips can

reduce wing drag during cruise by 10 to 20

percent. In addition, some engineers think that

the flapping motion itself has a favorableeffect

on both friction and pressure drag. Obviously,

we have much more to learn from nature’s

flying machines.

 

Concluding Remarks

 

Mankind would really benefit from having a

«fandor in every garage [hangar; barn].» It 1 would be somewhat like having a horse, only

infinitely better. (Interestingly, horses also

weigh about 900 pounds.) It would not only fly

 

MAY 17-.19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

but fly fast (100 mph) for long distances nonstop

(500 miles) carrying one to two people. It

wouldn’t require petroleum products, runways,

mechanics, or air traffic control. Inflight

fires and structural failures would be nonexistent.

while midair collisions would be rare

and often survivable (bird’s bones and feathers

are so flexible that birds sometimes collide in

flight without even losing control). «Engine»

failure would be both rare and-xcept in the

case of a fandor heart attack-with sufficient

warning to be able to land. The rider wouldn’t

have to be a licensed pilot. He would just have

to indicate to these intelligent, obedient, affectionate

birds when he wants to take off, where

he wants to go, and where he wants to 1and.The

bird would do the rest. He could even have the

bird come to get him (a la page 832 in The

Urantia Book).

 

All of this is pleasant to dream about, but

since fandors have been extinct for over 30,000

years, that’s all it i s a dream. OR IS IT? There

are two remote possibilities for fandors again

to appear on earth in the distant future. The UB

tells us that they exist on many inhabited planets

-maybe they could be brought here. Slightly

more feasible: maybe we could genetically engineer

one and reverse the extinction process.

In all likelihood we’ll have to settle for a

FANDOR (Flapping Aerial Navigation Designed

Ornithological Replicata man-made,

highly sophisticated ornithopter. But even this

will be no small feat. Tremendous breakthroughs

will be required in the areas of wingflapping

propulsion, unsteady aerodynamics,

laminar flow control, active flight structures,

totally integrated flight/propulsion control,

artificial intelligence, non-intrusive instrumentation,

near-infinitely variable geometry, exotic

materials, and cost-effective manufacturing

techniques.

 

FANDOR or fandor … either way it is the

author’s belief that one of these two options

will eventually serve the personal transportation

needs of man.

 

Bibliography

 

Anonymous: The Umntia Bwk, Urantia Foundation,

Chicago, 1955.

Bandyopadhyay, P.R.: «A Low-Drag Nose-Body.»

AIAA-88-0135,1988.

Bushnell, D.M. et al: Viscous Drag Reduction in Boundary

Lnyers: Prwgress in Astmutics and Aenmautics.

AIAA, 1990.

Campbell, K.E. et al: «How Big Was It? – Determining

thesize of Ancient Birds.» Terra, Summer 1990.

Gao, G. and W.L. Chow: «The Principle of Drag Reduction

in Turbulent Flows.» Unpublished paper,

Apd 1990.

Gray, J.: Near Eastern Mythology. Hamlyn, 1975.

Greenewalt, C.H.: «The Flight of Birds.» American

Philosophical Society, July 1975.

Henderson, W.P. et al: «Induced bag-Historical

Perspechve.» Society of Automotive Engtneers,

892341,1989.

Hemck, P.W.: «Air Combat Aghty Flight Research:

A Novd Approach.» Society of Experimental Test

Pilots, Cockpit, 1990.

Ions, V.: Indian Mythology. Bedrick Books, New York,

1–9 -M -..

Langston, W.: «Pterosaurs.» Scientific American,

February 1981.

Lin, J.C. et al: ‘Wall Temperature Control of Low

Speed Body Drag.» AIAA Ioumal of Aircraft,

January 1986.

MacCready, P.B. et al: «Development of a Wmg-Flap

ping Flying Replica of the Largest Pterosaur.»

AIAA-85-1446,1985.

McMasters, J.H.: «Reflections of a Paleoaaodynamidst.»

AIAA44-1446,1984.

Raspet, A,: «Performance Measurements of a Soaring

Bird.» Aenmautical Engineering Rmiew, I h m b e r

1950.

Taylor, M.J.H. et al: Milestones of Flight. Biddles Limited,

1983.

Vijgen, P.M. et al: ‘Wind-Tunnel Investigations of

Wings with Serrated Sharp Trailing Edges.» University

of Notre Dame, June 1989.

Von Daniken, E.: In Search of Ancient Gods. Bantam

Books, 1975.

Werle, M.J., et al: «Trailing Edge Separation/Stall

Alleviation.» AIAA lournal, April 1987.

Wilson, B.W.: Birds. Readings from Scientific

American. W.H. Freeman. 1980.

In all likelihood we’ll

have to settle for a

FANDOR (Flapping

Aerial Navigation

Designed Omithological

Rq1ica)–a

man-made, highly

sophisticated ornithopter.

But even this

will be no small feat.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

coauthored by

Irwin Ginsburgh, Ph.D.

and Geoffrey L. Taylor

 

Ginsburgh has B.S. and

Ph.D. degrees in physics

and muthematics. He was

an engineenneepnhnygs icist for

a major oil company and is

now semiretired, consulting

on explosions and new

technology. He has 50 U.S.

patents, has received five

R&D 100 moards, and has

au t hored a book published

by Simon & Schuster which

reconciles science’s version

of creation and the Bible’s

version.

 

Taylor has a background in

aeronuu tical engim’ng

and 20 years experience in

the turbine engine industry.

 

He has 7 patents, is a

co-winner of the Design

News 1988 Design of the

Year Award and has

m’ved one R&D 100

m r d for an outstanding

technical ddopment.

 

He curnntly operates a

consulting engimn’ng

company in Winnipeg,

Canada, where he is

working with the National

Research Council to develop

a remote, precision

measuring system.

 

I Scientific Predictions of

1 The Urantia Book

I

The Urantia Book contains much scientific information

that was revealed between 1925 and

1935 to an individual who cared little about the

material. Some of this information disagreed

with science’s version. Half a century later,

some of this originally conflicting information

now agrees with science, and some still does

not. The information deals primarily with creation

of the universe, the Earth and man, as well

as the fundamentals of matter and energy.

 

Theories about these kinds of subjects evolve as

science matures, and some of science’s ideas

change. These changes have brought about the

new agreement between science and The Urannow

agrees with science and can beconsidered

predictions of what science would discover

after 1935. We will examine some of these predictions

and see how many now agree with

science. If enough of them do, they can enhance

the believability of the rest of The Urantiu Book.

However, we must remember that, presently,

science only deals with the physical world,

while the book deals with physical, spiritual

and other matters.

Much of the scientific information in the

book agreed with science, but some differed.

 

Where they differed, the subjects cover matters

such as creation of the universe, creation of our

tia ~ooka,n d the now agreeing Urantia infor- world, creation of life, fundamentals of energy,

mation can be considered to have been etc. Many of these subjects cannot be tested in

predictions.

 

The authors consider about thirty predictions

that are in their areas of expertise or interest,

but there are many others in the book.

Science does not now know some of the information

in the book. There is a distinct possibility

that some of this Urantia information

may also turn out to be scientific predictions in

the future. If more of these predictions ultimately

agree with science, it will give the scientific

part of The Urantia Bookan authenticitythat

will enhance the believability of the rest of the

book. The authors examine about thirty scientific

predictions in The Urantiu Book, compare

them with science’s versions, see how much

agreement we can find, and how much more

we can anticipate. Those predictions that now

agree with science and that partly agree constitute

about one-third of all the predictions

considered.This can beconsidered remarkable.

Most predictions have yet to agree, but this is

to be expected of a book with a very long life.

More prediction analysis is warranted in the

future, as is more detailed study of individual

predictions.

 

I ‘ Introduction

 

After studying The Urantia Book, one comes

I to grips with a personal question: Is the book

completely correct or only partially so? Of

course, one could take it all on faith and believe

it completely. To help make this choice, we will

examine the book’s scientific information. The

scientific information in the book that we will

consider was either unknown to science in 1935

or differed from information generally accepted

by science in 1935. Some of this information

a laborat-ory. Science’s theories about such matters

are designed to fit the available evidence.

Historically, some theories change with time as

science matures and new data become available.

 

Those 1935 disag~mentsw hich now

agree with science a unique way of

testing the validity of the scientific part of The

Urantia Book. The remaining disagreements

may agree in the future, and these could provide

additional confirmation of the scientific

part of the book.

 

Limitations of Disclosure

 

The Urantia Book warns of the limitation ofthe

English language (‘469) for transmitting some

ideas, and these ideas may not get through

clearly or correctly. This is a problem with all

telepathically received books which discuss

matters that are unknown to the meiver. The

understanding of the receiver can be a limitation.

 

In addition, there are a number of

presenters, and some may be more skillful at

revelation than otherscspecially in dealing

with information that is unknown to the

receiver. Furthermore, much of the material

was originally recorded by stenography, and

translation from stenographic notes is not always

perfect, especially if the stenographer is

unfamiliar with the material. (The first edition

of Mind at Mischief by Dr. William S. Sadler,

Funk & Wagnalls 1929, has a note about the use

of stenography in the transmission of the Urantia

Papers.)

In dealing with future events, the names that

will be used in the future are not known, and

this may hinder identification. For example,the

book discusses «continental drift» on the

Earth’s surface, while science talks of «plate

tectonics»; but there is no problem with identification

in this case.

 

The book clearly states there is a time limitation

on the information that can be presented,

and information can only be provided if we will

soon discover it ourselves. This is an understandable

restriction on revelation, because

there are many cases on Earth where an advanced

culture introduced advanced technologyto

a less developed culture, and this usually

harmed or destroyed the less developed culture.

 

Analysis of Predictions

With revelation, a fully developed theory is

presented to a human receiver. If science finds

a need for a new theory or improvements to an

existing theory, the new theory starts out as an

idea in someone’s mind. The idea is changed,

expanded, modified, etc., until it appears to fill

the necessary data requirements. When the

theory is completed, it is publicly announced to

other scientists in the field, and the publication

date is usually considered as the discovery

date. Then it has to pass the acid test of experimental

verification and reverification by

other scientists. Other workers in the field compare

the old and the new theories and informally

decide which best explains the phenomenon.

 

There may be several years between conception

and verification. During this time period, the

idea may be discussed with other experts in the

field, and the new information is known to this

small group of experts. We will use the announcement

date as the discovery date, even

though the concept was known to a small group

before this. Members of this group might have

been an inadvertent source of information for

the presenters. We will also present major criticism

of some predictions, since it exists in the

real world and makes a more balanced presentation.

 

Science allows for improvements in its

theories, and these changes have given rise to

the scientific predictions in The Urantia Book.

Much of our material is science that has been

developed after 1935. There are two major

categories for the predictionsthose that disagreed

with science in 1935, and those that were

unknown to science in 1935-and one minor

one. There are several classes in each major

category. Much of the material in the fist category

involves science that has been developed

within the authors’ lifetimes. The categories

and the classes are:

 

I Predictions that disagreed with science in

1935

A Predictions that now agree with

science

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA C I , OKLAHOMA

 

B Predictions that partially agree with

science

C Predictions that still disagree with

science

I1 Predictions unknown to science in 1935

D Predictions that are actively being

researched

E Predictions that can be tested by

science today

F Predictions still unknown to science

111 Predictions that seriously disagree with

science

G Predictions with very strong disagreement

with science.

* * +

 

The A, B, and C categories cover a wide range

of subjects. The seven predictions of category A

can be considered remarkable. These predictions

clearly disagreed with science in 1935.

 

Since then, science has improved its theories

and created the agreement. Critics will say that

some developments were underway in 1935,

and a few experts in each field were aware of

some of the development work in 1935. But the

information was not generally known at that

time, and there was no assurance that the work

would succtvd. However, this information

matches the book’s limitation on revealing information

that we will develop shortly.The two

predictions of category B partially agree now,

and agreement could improve with time. Category

D is even more remarkable, since these

items were unknown to science in 1935.

 

Category C, with f~vper edictions, disagrees

with science, but that does not mean the predictions

are wrong. They just disagree with

science’s ideas on the subject. But the nature of

the information is such that science’s theories

could change in the future. The history of a

subject in science isoften a series oftheories that

improve with time.

 

Categories D, E, and I: are mostly unknown

to science even today and could be the most

intriguing, since future scientific discoveries

could verify some of these far-out predictions.

 

In fact, four of these predictions are being researched

today (category Dl, because science

now needs this kind of information. Five more

predictions can be tested with modem technology

(category E). Eight predictions are still unknown

to science (category F). This type of

information is important for a book with a very

long life. Verification of some of these predictions

in the future could make it easier to

believe other parts of The Urantia Bwk.

 

The thirty-odd predictions to be briefly discussed

can be categorized as follows:

Science allows for

improvements in its

theories, and these

changes have given

rise to the scientific

predictions in The

Urantia Book.

 

The seven predictions

of category A

can be considered

remarkable. These

predictions clearly

disagreed with

science in 1935.

 

Since then, science

has improved its

theories and created

the agreement.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

There is much

material in The

Urantia Book which

agrees with science.

 

These cannot be used

for predictions.

The Urantia Book

claims that healing

chemicals for wounds

will be discovered. . .

and this is a

prediction that has

partially come true.

 

AA Information known to science and The

Urantia Bwk: Speed of light.

 

I Predictions that disagreed with Science in

1935:

1. Predictions that now agree with

science:

1. Healing chemicals for wounds.
2. Plate tectonics or continental

drift.

3. Source of the sun’s energy.
4. Temperature at center of sun (35

million degrees F.).

5. Chemical element with atomic

number 101.

6. Discovery of neutrino particle.
7. Mass of the meson particle.

 

1. Predictions that partially agree with

science:

1. Creation of the sun.
2. Creation of the Earth and the

moon.

 

1. Predictions that still disagree with

science:

1. Continuous creation of matter

and energy.

2. Creation of our solar system.
3. Life implanted on Earth 550

million-years ago.

4. End of Cretaceous age.
5. Breakup of fifth planet from the

sun (asteroids).

 

I1 Predictions unknown to science in 1935:

1. Predictions actively Wig researched:
2. Dark matter the universe.
3. Organization of matter in a

superuniverse.

3. ~rran~emeonf ts even superuniverses

in the grand universe.

4. Use of DNA for human evolution.

 

1. Predictions that can be tested today:
2. Reduced gravity effect on

calcium ion.

2. No gravity effect on free neutron

particles.

3. Origin of sunspot cycle.
4. ~welvepl anetsin our solar system.
5. Two unknown types of energy.

 

1. Predictions unknown at present:
2. Cause of wave action of light.
3. Speed greater than speed of light.
4. Two kinds of gravity.
5. Anti-gravity.
6. Major energy of space.
7. Ultirnaton particle.
8. Neanderthal to Cro-magnon

transition.

8. Life span of a star.

 

I11 Predictions that seriously disagree with

1 science: G. Predictions with very strong

I disagreement with Science:

1. Periodicity of similar chemical elements-

seven elements spacing.

2. Surface temperature of the sun.

Brief Discussion of Individual

Predictions

 

AA-Information known to science and The

Urantia Book

There is much material in The Urantia Bwk

which agrees with science. These cannot be

used for predictions. However, it is useful to

discuss oneof these subjects. Thebook says that

the speed of light is 186,280 miles per second

(960). This figure has six known numbers in it.

 

The speed of light measured by science in 1931

was 186,270 miles per second-10 miles per

second difference. By 1949, the value increased

to 186,282 miles per second, and it has

remained close to this ever since-2 miles per

second difference. This shows the degree of

accuracy of some of the information in the

book, about one part in 100,000. However, there

areother places where the information isvague

or incomplete.

 

 

Category I-Predictions that disagreed with

science in 1935

I.A.1 .-Healing Chonids for Wounds (Medicine,

*735)

[Parentheses show the field of science and

The Urantia Book page number. Scientific information

is available in any good modern encyclopedia

.]

 

The Urantia Book claims that healing chemicals

for wounds will be discovered. In 1928,

penicillin was discovered, but serious workdid

not start until ten years later. Sulfa drugs were

discovered in 1935 but came into use five years

later. Both of these chemicals fight infection and

speed up the healing process. Both discoveries

were essentially unknown in 1935, and this is a

prediction that has partially come true. The

book also speaks of healing chemicals that involve

the cells themselves, and the book hints

at other discoveries of this type which will be 1 made in the future.

 

I.A.2.-Plate Tectonics or Continental Drift (Geology,

*663,668)

The book says that the continents drift slowly

over the surface of the Earth, and the drift

started about 700 million years ago. This was

proposed in the early years of the twentieth

century and had not been proved by 1935.

 

However, a look at the east coast of South

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

America and the west coast of Africa readily

shows the ancient fit. But science requires

proof, and proof came in 1969 by matching

subsurface earth layers on the two continents

and finding an ocean floor crack between the

continents. However, the start of the drift was

recently computed by science as starting 200

million years ago, based on the oldest ocean

bottom rocks in the Atlantic Ocean. Another

prediction essentially came true even if science

calls this plate tectonics.

 

I.A.3.-Source of the Sun’s Energy (Physics,

Astrophysics, «464)

The book says the sun generates energy by

combining four hydrogen atoms to form one

helium atom, using carbon as a catalyst. This is

a mass-to-energy conversion. Science worked

out this technology in 1939. This prediction also

came true.

 

I.A.4.-Temperature at the Center of the Sun

(Physics, Astrophysics, ‘463)

The book claims that the temperature at the

center of the sun is 35 million degrees F. in the

mid ’30s, science only guessed at a temperature

of millions of degrees. An estimate of 29 million

degrees was made in the late ’30s. This is good

agreement.

 

IA5.–Chemical Element with Atomic Number

101 (Nuclear Physics, «478)

The book says that the very heavy element,

number 101 (the number relates to the structure

and electric charge of the atomic nucleus)

would be so unstable that it would disintegrate

radioactively almost instantaneously. In 1935,

the heaviest naturally occurring element

known was Uranium, number 92, and it disintegrated

slowly. Experiments to make heavier

elements were done in the late ’30s, but with

little success–certainly not up to number 101.

 

This was finally done years later, was labeled

Mendelevium, and it turned out to be stable for

about an hour. This is not a bad fit for the

prediction, but critics will say that a competent

scientist could have made a good guess.

 

I.A.6.-Discovery of the Neutrino Particle

(Nuclear Physics, ‘464,479)

The book mentions a small, unnamed,

chargeless particle which could be the particle

that science calls the neutrino. The particle was

theoretically predicted in 1931 and was labeled

the neutrino; but because it was so difficult to

detect, it was not found until 1938. Here again

critics might argue about an educated guess,

but the prediction did come true.

 

I.A.7.-Mass of the Meson Particle (Nuclear

Physics, «479)

The book uses the term «mesotron» instead

of the presently used word «meson.» The mesotron

term was used in the 1930s when the early

theoretical work was done on this particle. The

presenters were familiar with the mesotron

work. The book claims the mesotron has a mass

that is 180 times the mass of the electron.

 

Science has found that the mass is 207 times the

electron mass. This is a small discrepancy.

However, the presenter was aware of the term

mesotron,and this shows knowledgeof human

thought. This prediction does agree with science,

but it was made at a time coincident with

the discovery.

 

Score: Seven predictions agree with science.

I.B.I.4reation of the Sun (Cosmology, Stellar

Physics, «651)

Science says that the sun was created when

an enormous cloud of gas contracted by gravity

and heated itself by gas compression until it

was hot enough to become a solar furnace. The

book says the samething except that there were

about one million other suns that were also

created from the same enormous Andronover

Nebula. Their creation took about two billion

years, and they were ejected from the nebula

after formation. Science does not know about

the other million suns or the nebula or the

ejection from the nebula, but there is good overlap

in this case.

 

I.B.Z.4reation of the Earth and Moon (Cosmology,

Astronomy, «659)

Science says that the Earth condensed when

the sun did and picked up some material by

accretion of meteors and planetesimals. The

moon was created when a planetesimal hit the

Earth and ejected enough material that coalesced

to form the moon. Interestingly, an old,

discredited theory said that the moon was tom

away from the Earth, leaving the pacific basin,

but did not specify the cause. The book says

that the arth hand the moon coalesced asa pair

of twin planets after the giant Angona Nebula

came close to the sun and pulled away enough

material to form all the planets. The sun and the

moon both grew by accretion-the Earth enormously

so, compared to the moon. Again, there

is some overlap, but differences in details.

Score: Two predictions partially agree with

science. In time, this number could increase.

l.C.I.–Creation of Matter and Energy (Cosmology,

Physics, *49,55,468)

 

The book says that matter and energy are

continuously being created in many places in

The book says the

sun generates energy

by combining four

hydrogen atoms to

form one helium

atom, using carbon

as a catalyst.. .

 

This prediction also

came true.

The book mentions a

small, unnamed,

chargeless particle

which could be the

particle that science

calls the neutrino.. . .

 

Here again critics

might argue about an

educated guess, but

the prediction did

come true.

 

SCIENTJFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

The Urantia Book

does speak of an

enormous disturbance

in our part of

the universe eight to

ten billion years ago,

which could have

been a local big bang.

 

Science has produced

the building blocks

of life, but has never

combined them to

produce any lifelike

structure that can

reproduce itself.

Science has never

craated life from

scratch and does not

know how to do it.

 

the universe, especially beyond the seven superuniverses.

Science has a discredited theory

about continuous creation, but the accepted

theory today is that all the energy in our universe

was created ten to fifteen billion years ago

in an instant and in one place. This is called the

Big Bang theory. This energy has been spreading

out ever since and has resulted in the entire

universe. Interestingly some of the newest experimental

results are raising questions about

the Big Bang. The Urantia Book does speak of an

enormous disturbance in our part of the universe

eight to ten billion years ago, which could

have been a local big bang. While there is disagreement,

perhaps there is a glimmer of agreement.

Remember that science’s measurements

are all made here on Earth and are used to

explain events that happened fifteen billion

years ago and very far away. The extreme extrapolations

in time and distance could lead to

mneous results. I ranember that in the twentieth

century, science’s universe kept getting olderand

older. Has science found the right agenow?

I.C.2.–Creation of Our Solar System (Cosmology,

‘655)

 

In the 1930s, one of science’s proposed theories

was that a massive body came close to the

sun and tore out huge amounts of matter which

later coalesced to form the planets. This theory

is no longer accepted, and the best theory now

says that the planets were created by the coalescence

of matter adjacent to the sun at the same

time the sun coalesced. The book says that the

giant Angona Nebula came close to the sun and

tore away lots of matter which coalesced to

form the planets. This particular theory explains

the additional sevendegree tilt of the

sun’s axis to the plane of the planets. The best

science theory, above, does not explain this tilt.

 

In this case, the book and science originally

agreed, but science has changed its mind. However,

agement may return in the future. Remember

that there are several hundred astronomer/

cosmologists in the world, and they reach a

consensus about which theory best fits all the

available scientific data; changes in this theory

can occur.

 

I.CJ.-Life Implanted on Earth 550 Million Years

 

Ago (Pnleontology, ‘667)

The book says that life was implanted on the

Earth 550 million years ago, but it does not

specify exactly what was implanted. Science

says that life started over 3 billion years ago, as

singlecell life. This is based on circumstantial

evidence of ancient cellular structures that

resemble living singlecell structures. Science

also says that multi-cell life with significant

DNA-structures in a cell that control all

phases of cell life-appeared 600 million years

ago. The differences here may ultimately be

resolved. Science has produced the building

blocks of life, but has never combined them to

produce any lifelike structure that can reproduce

itself. Science has never created life from

scratch and does not know how to do it.

 

I.C.4.-End ofthe Cretaceous Age: 65Million Years

Ago (Geology, *690)

Science knows that the dinosaurs and many

other classes of life disappeared about 65 million

years ago in what is called the end of the

Cretaceous age. Science’s newest theory is that

a 10-milediameter meteor struck the Earth;

this created a long-lasting dust and cloud cover

that blocked sunlight and adversely affected

plant growth and, thus, many other living

species. The crucial clue is the presence of a

high concentration of the heavy element, iridium,

in the boundary layer of deposits at theend

of the Cretaceous. Iridium is not plentiful at the

Earth’s surface; it is found deep in the Earth or

on certain meteors. The book says that the

greatest lava flow of all time occurred at theend

of the Cretaceous-it covered parts of several

continents. It could havecome from deep in the

Earth, thus providing a source of iridium.

I.C.5.-Breakup of the Fifth Planet from the Sun

(Astronomy, Cosmology, *658)

 

The book says that the fifth planet from the

sun was slowly attracted by the gravity of the

giant sixth planet, Jupiter. When it was close

enough, Jupiter’s gravity pulled the fifth planet

apart. Science now says there never was a fifth

planet, and that the asteroids are pieces of space

matter (planetesimals) that never formed a

planet.

 

Score: Five presently unfilled predictions.

[The following category is even more interesting

than category A, because this material

was not known to science in 1935 and is now

being actively investigated.]

Category 11-Pwdictions Unknown to Science

in 1935

 

II.D.l.-DarkMatter in the Universe (Astronomy,

‘1 73)

 

The book discusses dark matter and dark

islands of space and says that we will discover

dark matter soon. Because dark matter cannot

be seen (it emits no light), science knows little

about it. Science thinks that some dark matter

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

In 1935f science

thought that all the

galaxies were

uniformly djstributed

throughout

space- The em’stence

of hrge voids

between galaxies

and the dusteing

of galaxies have

only ~ecentlyb een

discovered.

 

Scientific Name

is different from normal matter, such as a dense,

cooled star. Recently, science has found several

good theoretical reasons for the existence of

such matter. Serious efforts are being made to

find such matter, and positive results can be

expected in the future. This has a very good

chance of coming true.

 

II.D.2.—Organiution of Matter in a S u p ~ n i –

wrse (~stronomy»,1 67,168)

The book describes the organization of matter

in a superuniverse. Science knows about

some of this information, but does not know it

all. In fact, science does not know about superuniverses.

 

 

The book says that science will discover

some of this information soon. The table

below compares the equivalent information

fmm science and 7ke Urantia Bwk. The first

column lists the Urantia criteria for the number

of inhabited worlds in parts of a superuniverse.

 

The other columns are selfexplanatory. There

is a question as to whether the Milky Way

galaxy is a local universe or a minor sector of a

superuniverse.

 

11.D3.-Location of Seven Superuniverses in the

Grand Universe (Astronomy, 764,165)

The book describes the seven superuniverses

circling around Havona in a planar elliptical

course. It also says that science has almost

found superuniverse number seven and will

find the rest soon. In 1935, science thought that

all the galaxies were uniformly distributed

throughout space. The existence of large voids

between galaxies and the clustering of galaxies

have only recently been discovered. This also

has a chance of coming true.

 

11.D.4.-Use of DNA to Evolve Human Species

(Genetics, ‘734)

The book says that the human species will no

longer evolve by natural means. Scientific

knowledge of DNA will be used in the future

to improve the human species. Science is just

getting started to map the entire human DNA

genome. After this is completed, we may be

our world Urantia Earth

1 ,m system constellation

100,000 constellation

10 million local universe Milky Way galaxy

1 billion minor sector l»Gd P U P

100 billion major sector cluster of galaxies

10 trillion superuniverse supercluster

100 trillion grand universe universe

able to start to understand how the DNA functions.

 

 

Even now we are just starting to attack

some genetic diseases which are apparently

caused by errors in the DNA. This will pxubably

come true in the future.

 

Score: Four predictions with good chances of

coming true.

II.E.l.-Redud Gravity E@ on Calcium Ion

(Physics, ‘462)

Calcium atoms usually have two outermost

electrons and are electrically balanced. At very

high temperatures, one of the negatively

charged electrons can be removed, and the

resulting ion is positively charged. The book

claims that such ions are slightly less affected

by gravity than normal calcium atoms (beyond

the mere loss of an electmn’s mass), and thb

accounts for the higher concentration of calcium

atoms on the sun’s surface rather than

inside. This reduced gravity is quite unexpected,

and might even be worth a Nobel prize

to the scientist who discovers it. A test of this

would require generating a beam of calcium

atoms and a beam of high-temperature calcium

ions, and comparing theeffed of gravity on the

two beams.

 

II.E.2.-No Gravity Effect on Free Neutrons

(Physics, ‘476)

The book says there is no gravity pull on free,

uncharged, unattached electronic energy particles.

Wetakethistoinc1udefreeneutrons.This

is also quite unexpected, and might likewise be

worth a Nobel prize. It might be checked by

generating a very weak beam of neutrons and

measuring the effect of gravity on the beam.

 

Il.E.3.-The Origin of the Sunspot Cycle

(Astronomy, «459,656)

The book says that our 11-year sunspot cycle

is a slow remnant of the short-term (3.5 day)

Cepheid Variable phase of the sun. The

Cepheid phase of a star is a cyclic variation of

the brightness of a star, and the frequency of the

variation and the brightness are related. Al-

Number of Inhabited Worlds Urantia Book Name

 

SCIEIUTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

Astronomers are

presently looking for

other planets by

watching for ve y

small changes in

motions of the outer

planets, which could

be caused by the

gravity of two

faraway planets.

 

The book discusses

anti-gravity and

some parficles that

are a p e d by it.

Science speculates

that anti-gravity

may exist, but has

fao ideas about it.

 

though science does not make this claim, it is

plausible. A study would require accurate brightness

measurements of very long-term Cepheid

Variable stars and precise, space-based, longterm

measurements of the variations in the

sun’s brightness.

 

II.E.4.-Tu~elve Planets in Our Solar System

(Astronomy, ‘656)

While science knows of nine planets and the

remnants or pre-planetesimals of a tenth, the

book says there are twelve planets in the sun’s

family. Astronomers are presently looking for

other planets by watching for very small

changes in motions of the outer planets, which

could be caused by the gravity of two faraway

planets. The two space probes that are traveling

beyond Pluto, Pioneer 10 and 11, are also being

watched for small changes that might be

caused by the gravity of another planet or two.

 

II.E.5.-Two Unknown Types of Energy (Physics,

‘4 74)

The book discusses all the types of electromagnetic

radiation known to science. It also

discusses two other types of radiation that

science does not know. One is called infraultimatonic

rays and is involved in the first

stage of created energy. The other is called ultimatonic

rays and involves the conversion of

energy to ultimaton particles (see sixth prediction

of next section). Some of the experimental

work with highenergy machines may lead to

discovery of these rays.

 

Score: Five predictions awaiting further

work.

I I . f . l . 2 a u s e of Waw Adion of Light (Physics,

*461)

The book says that light consists of particles,

but another energy, unknown on Earth, acting

on the light causes the particles to bunch

together in a wavelike fashion. Science knows

that light has wave and particle properties, but

does not know why both properties exist.

 

111.2.-Speed Grater than the Speed of Light

(Physics, Theology, *260)

Science maintains that a physical body cannot

move faster than the speed of light. The

book discusses speeds faster than the speed of

light, but it is talking about spiritual matter

rather than physical.

 

IIS3.-Two Kinds of Gravity (Physics, «225)

Science is familiar with the gravitational attraction

between two physical bodies, but it

does not understand the fundamentals. The

book calls this linear gravity. It also talks about

radial gravity, which apparently works between

the central universe and certain other

bodies-free ultimatons-and between the

central universe and energy. Science has conducted

very difficult experiments to see if linear

gravity affects light energy. It does, but there

may be enough of a discrepancy to account for

another type ot grawty.

 

II.F.4.-Anti-gravity (Physics, ‘1 01)

The book discusses anti-gravity and some

particles that are affected by it. Science speculates

that anti-gravity may exist, but has few

ideas about it.

 

II1.5.-Major Energy of Space (Physics, ‘467)

The book says that light and electricity are

not the major energy of space. Apparently

neitheris gravity. Thebooksaid that sciencedid

not know about it in 1935. This energy apparently

flows through space in circuits. One

wonders if the book is referring to the strong

nuclear force which science now knows about,

and which is involved in the conversion of

mass to energy in the stars. However, this energy

does not flow through space.

 

111.6.-The Ultimaton Particle(Physics, ‘465,467,

472,473,476)

The book discusses the fundamental particle,

the ultimaton. This is the first mass particle that

energy is converted to. One hundred ultimatons

make up an electron, but they do not

use orbits of motion as electrons do; perhaps

some kind of structure is involved. Science has

no idea that electrons are made up of smaller

particles.

 

IIS.7.-Neanderthal to Cro-magnon Transltlon

(Anthropology, ‘890)

Science is aware that there was a rapid

change from neanderthal types of humans to

cro-magnon or modern man about 35,000 years

ago. Science does not know how this happened

so quickly, slnce evolution will not account tor

such aquick transformation.The book says that

the descendants ot superior extratemstr la15 –

namely, Adam and Eve–crossbred w~thin –

digenous Earth people to create modern man,

who wiped out the neanderthals.

 

II.F.8.-Life of an Ordinary Star (Stellar Physics,

‘1 72,465)

The book says that an ordinary star, like the

sun, can shine for billions of years (*465).

Science also calculates that stars can generate

enough energy to shine for billions of years. But

the book says (‘464) stars that are in the

mainstream of space energy flow can acquire

more energy and shine indefinitely. On page

172, the bookclaimsstar lifeof trillionsof years.

The existence of a special space energy flow is

unknown to science, as is the existence of flow

channels for this energy.

 

Score: 8 predictions science does not know

about.

Category 111-Predictions mat Are in Complete

Disagreement with Science

lIl.G.1.-Periodicity of Similar Chemical Elements

(Chemistry, ‘480,lO)

The book says that if the chemical elements

are listed by increasing atomic weight (relates

to atomic structure), the lighter ones repeat

their chemical properties every seventh active

element. However, there are inactive elements

in the sequence (the noble gases, such as helium

and neon), and this stretches the actual sequence

to eight elements. This is the number

that science Gses, and has known this for over

100 years. Some recently complded work has

shown that some of the noble gases are slightly

reactive, and this is now complicating the problem.

The book talks about a repetition every

seven elements, because seven is an important

spiritual number.

 

Ill.G.2.-Surface Temperature of the Sun (Astronomy,

«463)

The book says that the surface temperature

of the sun is 6,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Science

measures the temperature of the sun as 6,000

degrees Centigrade, or 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

This could be due to any of a number of

errors. There is another solar temperature mentioned

in the same paragraph, and this one

agrees with science’s value.

[These errors mostly involve numbers or

values-and emrs could be expected. It is interesting

that there are such a small number of

serious emrs in the book-less than ten percent

of the predictions we considered.]

Score: 2 disagreements which could bc explainable

or accidental errors

 

Conclusions

 

The tlurty-three discussed predictions involve

subjects that science developed or discovered

around 1935 or sometime afterward. Most of

these predictions come from these Urantia

papers: 57, Origin of Urantia; 58, Life Establishment

on Urantia; and 41, Physical Aspects

of the Local Universe. A tabulation of results

follows:

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

Category I-Predictions that disagreed with

science in 1935.

1. Seven predictions now agree with science

(50% of category I).

1. Two predictions partly agree with science

(almost 15% of category 1).

1. Five predictions still disagree with science

(about 35% of category I).

Category 11-Predictions that were unknown

to science in 1935:

1. Four are actively being researched

and could agree with science in the near

future (25% of category 11).

1. Five more can now be investigated

with science’s technology. There is a

chance that some of these will agree with

science in the future.

1. Eight mom are still unknown to science.

Category 111-Predictions that seriously disagreed

with science in 1935:

1. Two such predictions are discussed,

and there is a good possibility that the

errors are all accidental. They usually involve

numbers or values of things. This is

less than 10% of all the predictions considered

and is a small percentage.

 

There are many other predictions in the

book. Those that have been analyzed are the

easiest for the authors to judge. he^ cover the

subjects of physics, cosmology, energy, etc.

 

There are more analyses that can be done by

experts in other fields and in later years when

more predictions may have come true.

Class A can be considered remarkable for

1935. This information disagreed with science

in 1935, but 50 years later there is agreement.

 

However, since the book was published in

1955, critics could claim that the 1955 date is

applicable. For the 1955 date, the predictions

are not exceptional. They are obviously in accord

with The Urantia Rook requirement that

revelation be limited to information we will

discover in the near future. Category B predictions

have reached partial agreement with

science and may agree more in the future.

Together, A and B are about two thirds of

category I. This indicates that some of the advanced

technical information in The Urantia

Book is correct. The presenters had access to

information that wasunknown to the human

mind. In addition, the information comes from

a number of presenters and covers a number of

fields of science. he remarkable predictions of

this information make it easier to believe some

of the other material in the book. Category C

 

There are more

analyses that can be

done by experts in

other fields and in

later years when

more predictions may

have come true.

 

The remarkable

predictions of this

information make it

easier to belime some

of the other material

in the book.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

The possibility of

predictions coming

true in thefuture is

very important for

a book with a very

long life.

 

still disagrees with science, but these are quite

fundamental subjects, and scientific data are

often quite sparse. This does not mean that

category C predictions are wrong. They disagree

with science’s present theories. Science’s

theories on some of these matters could change,

and there could be more agreement in the

future.

 

Categories D, E, and Fare even more intriguing,

b&use they were unknown to science in

1935 and even 1955. Category D has four

predictions that are well on their way to reaching

agreement with science. Categories E and F

involve some far-out subjects, and, if some of

these agree with science in the future, this could

enhance the believability of the rest of the book.

The possibility of predictions coming true in

the future is very important for a book with a

very long life. The book says that knowledge of

God comes through the spirit, and science now

cannot help with that.

here al;! other subjects that are discussed in

the book that may be amenable to prediction

analysis. These include material such as spirit,

mind, the Thought Adjuster, social science, etc.

These should be combed to try to find objective

material that could be new or predictive. Most

likely, such information will be subjective, and

this kind of material is very difficult to substantiate.

 

However, it might be interesting to

develop a survey questionnaire that could be

used to compare experienced readers with new

readers of the book. The results could be of

great interest to other readers. However, even

if such predictions are found, they would just

make the book easier to believe. They would

not necessarily pmve the correctness of other

parts of the book.

 

Revelation is matched to the needs of those

who receive it. It may not completely cover a

subject, and could even omit major parts of a

subject. It will not pmvide information that will

become useful far in the future. In this century,

some readers’ scientific needs are more stringent

than those of other readers. This could be

helpful to all readers, since it adds a factor of

revelatory truth to some of the scientific

material in the book, and implies that the rest

of the book is more believable. One final piece

of advice. Some of the secrets of understanding

The Urantia Book are repetition, thinking, and

not reading the book sequentially. Start and

read what you can understand; then go back

and study the other parts.

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITYI OKLAHOMA

 

Love and Science

 

(Speech text and references are based on excerpts

from aforthcoming bwk entitled, The Technology

of Love, written with the assistance of Wesley L.

Tennant, to whom the speech is dedicated.)

If Love and Science were to get together, most

of us would expect Science to move in on Love

–and then probably kick Love out in the end.

Then again, this might not be the actual

result. When Freud went looking for scientific

principles at work in the human psyche, he

concluded that love was one of the foremost

factors operating within us humans. He found

love to be closely tied to the initial principle of

all life forms; what he called the «pleasure principle.»

 

Freud even went so far as to suggest that

love might be a basic force of nature. And Jesus

hints at a most fundamental role for Love when

he suggests that even the rocks can express

their affection toward him if the people do not.

 

Modern physicists will not likely be impressed

with such words, but it is such hints of

love being related to fundamental operations of

Nature that catches our scientific eye. As, for

example, when Freud writes that all of our

‘life’s instincts.. .are best comprised under the

name low; their purpose would be to form

living substance into ever greater unities, so

that life may be prolonged and brought to

higher development.»‘

 

This human tendency toward «higher

development» caught the scientific eye of

Abraham Maslow. He suspected some fundamental

principle at work which could account

for it. Maslow found that we humans

havecertain basic needs such as air, water, food,

shelter, sleep and sex. But he also found that

safety and security, love and belongingness,

and self-esteem by others were basic needshumans

actually become mentally ill and even

physically ill without them. After these basic or

«survival» needs are satisfied, he found that a

more developmental thrust emerges in

humans, a human tendency to pursue more

expressive or growth needs.2 These Maslow

defined as the need for Meaningfulness or Purposefulness

in our lives, the need for Slf-sufficiency

or Self-organization, for a bit of

Spontaneity or playful amusements which frequently

involve elements of Chance, the need

for Effortlessness or Efficiency the need for

Richness or Complexity. Yet we also have needs

for Simplicity, Order, Organization, Nonpartiality,

and Completeness. He found the need

for Necessity; that is, we have to be able to

consistently depend on some things. Maslow

found the need to pursue Perfection, even if we

never reach it; the need for Individuality or

Uniqueness, Aliveness, and a Wholeness to include

what one of his subjects, Einstein, labeled

«the ideals that had lighted his way»: Beauty,

Goodness and T r ~ t h . ~

 

Maslow found this pyramid of «needs» to

include those which, as Einstein’s words

reflect, guide us toward our highest development,

our fullest self-actualization as individuals.

 

Maslow found these needs to be

irreducible innate tendencies; our need for

Simplicity cannot be met by our need for Order

any more than we can meet our need for sleep

by eating more food. The problem is that

Maslow’s work has long lacked an integrating

factor, a fundamental principle, which ties all

these needs together. Actually, Maslow

suspected and wrote, much like Freud, that

Love may be just such an integrator?

 

And we are now ready to do what Maslow

left undone. If we consider our actual experience,

we do find something of Freud’s

«pleasure principle» at work within us. But we

seem to base our needs-fulfilling judgments not

on just immediate satisfaction or pleasure; rather

it seems the more appropriate broker of our

needs is that subtle, more encompassing calculation

of being pleased. This broader calculation

may even ac~ommodatep ain; and frequently

this calculation involves pleasing others.

And we humans are not alone in figuring out

this calculus, nor were we first to have it.

Trainers of dogs and other advanced species

ttll us that these animals do not perform just in

order to be fed, but to please their masters; praise

is the trainer’s greatest tool. Many would, in

fact, consider evidence in dogs and dolphins a

surer sign of a scientific principle at work than

that found in man, woman, and child.

 

And just what is this scientific principle that

seems to be at work at the core of Maslow’s

pyramid of needs? If we follow Freud and

as low’s clues, and a few others, we will find

that it is the invariant element at the core of

Love, the intent-to-please. Our entire human endeavor

can, in fact; be summarized as an intentwn

to please our internal needs-structure, or

that of others. We see that to please always

means meeting this pyramid of needs; whether

in the form of food or shelter, or in the form of

meeting needs for Efficiency, Order, Individuality,

Wholeness, or any of the other

 

BY

 

Charles E. Hansen

 

A student of The Urantia

Bookfor 13 years, Hansen

holds a B.S. in business

engineen’ng and an M.B.A.

He is a professional

economist in Silver Spring,

Ma yland, and has served

on the President’s Commission

on Cost Control.

Maslow found the

need to pursue

Perfection, even if

we never reach it; the

need for Individuality

or Uniqueness,

Aliveness, and a

Wholeness to include

what one of his

subjects, Einstein,

la beled «the ideals

that had lighted his

way»: Beauty, Goodness

and Truth.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

Whatever Love is,

being pleased is

how we ultimately

experience it; much

as Jesus himself

defined it in his

words, «I do always

those things that

please the Father.»

 

[Einstein] compared

the requisite state of

mind for doing his

physics to «that of

the religious worshiper

or the lover»-

«closely akin to that

which has possessed

the religious geniuses

of all ages. «

 

needs up through Beauty, Goodnessand Truth.

But meeting needs in the most pleasing manner

also involves an integration, however subtle:

we enjoy our food more if it is beautifully

colored and arranged; we try to keep both

Simplicity and some Order in our lives at the

same time, and so on. So if we stack up all the

needs in Maslow’s pyramid form (putting the

basic survival needs on the bottom, and the

expressive or growth needs on top, peaking

with Beauty, Goodness and Truth), and then

m our intent-to-please right down the core of

it, we find our solution, a solution spanning all

our human needs. Maslow’s missing integrator

is the intent-to-please.

 

This is, of course, the same invariant at the

core of all of our energy expressions of Love.

Whatever Love is, being pleased is how we

ultimately experience it; much as Jesus himself

defined it in his words, «I doaluxlys thosethings

that please the Father.» For Love’s actions must

always please the object or intend to do so. So

we seem to encounter a case of perfect symmetry.

Our intention to please ourselves and

the intent to please others is essentially the

same invariant principle at work as Jesus suggests

with the Golden Rule. And it can operate

only in relationship. We get nowhere, our

development stops cold, by attempting to

shortcut this symmetry and please ourselves

without pleasing others in the process. In fact,

modem ecology informs us that we had best

consider even what pleases the trees; that is,

what satisfies their needs.

 

We begin to see why the language of Love

and its invariant, theintent-to-please, infiltrates

all of our seeking and finding-whether we are

seeking our most fundamental survival needs

for food, safety and esteem, or our higher, more

expressive needs for Beauty, Goodness and

Truth-the peak of which to many of us is

actually finding relationship with God himself

and partaking of His thoughts.

 

Now this talk about Love and about ‘king

pleased» is a long, long way from the cold halls

of hard science. However, if we listen to perhaps

the greatest scientist of our era, Einstein,

we find something rather strange. Einstein expressed

his entire scientific endeavor as not

only one of being guided by Beauty, Goodness

and Truth, but more so as wanting to «know

God’s thoughts.» Said Einstein, «The rest are

details.05 And how is this to be done? Einstein

gives his formulae: he recommends «the compassion

to embrace all living creatures and the

whole of nature in its beauty.’I6 He even defined

this «embrace» as one of «cosmic religious feeling»

which embodies the highest statesof being

pleased. Einstein called it «joy,» «wonder,»

«awe,» and «rapturous amazement.» To be

more specific he compared the requisite state of

mind for doing his physics to «that of the

religious worshiper or the lovern7-«closely

akin to that which has possessed the religious

geniuses of all ages.’@

 

Of course Einstein’s views are not held in

particularly high regard by most scientists

today. Einstein believed there are objectively

real foundations in the universe, fundamental,

unchanging or invariant principles that we do

not invent in our heads, but have to pry out of

Nature by using our heads. In this process

Einstein held that we had to rely upon a «preestablished

harmony» between ourselves and

the universe. Such talk finds little favor with the

prevailing scientific views that there are no

foundations in the universe, no objective

reality, but only one (or more) that we create in

our minds for our minds to satisfy our local

cultural and linguistic conventions. Any suggestion

that we are dealing with the real Mind

of God, and in even approximate harmony or

relationship therewith, as Einstein held, is

hopelessly outdated in most halls of Science.

 

Einstein’s demise is usually credited to the

loss of his famous arguments about quantum

physics with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.

 

Quantum theory had reached a point,

with much help from Einstein, where only

statistical methods could be used to make

predictions at the atomic and subatomic levels.

 

The mathematics and methods of quantum

theory, by their own definition, act as kind of a

blanket beneath which we cannot peek. Quantum

events add up to give nice, smooth curves

in the blanket, but no individual event can be

precisely predicted. The vast majority of

physicists and other scientists considered this a

sign that, at its foundations, reality operates

only by randomness or Chance. Einstein, and a

few others, objected. We cannot logically say

what was happening beneath the quantum

blanket, argued Einstein, and surely it could

not be pure Chance because God would not

play di& with the universe.

 

Obviously, such arguments did not carry

much weight in physics. Einstein left the discussions

muttering to himself and went off to

work alone for the next thirty years on a better

solution. Meanwhile, most of us were told that

the solution was already found. However the

actual case among physicists is still much as

Einstein expressed it in 1940: «For the time

being, we have to admit that we do not possess

any general theoretical basis for physics, which

can be regarded as its logical fo~ndation.»~

 

Today we actually have about six or seven

«acceptable» versions of reality, or nonreality,

among practicing physicists, and no agreeable

logical foundation. As many others have

pinted out, Chance holds its current position

as prime contender as a matter of default, and

a somewhat faulty one at that: physicists cannot

actually find any pure Chance operating

even in quantum physics. Chance always

manages to behave within certain limits. Furthermore,

by using it to explain anything,

Chance actually explains nothing. It has huge

support, however, from those who hold that

there are no explanations. You get some idea of

why Einstein referred to the new «religion» that

had overtaken physics, and retired from the

debate.

 

Although stalled in his pursuit of a solution,

Einstein tells us that in order to make any

progress in establishing more logically

coherent foundations for physics we would

have to search out some new fundamental

principle of Nature.Io It would, in fact, have to

encompass the totality of our experience, up to

and including humanity itself. Its general features

would have to be quite easily grasped: it

could not be called a ‘logical foundation» if

only a few experts could understand it.

 

Now we normally think that breakthroughs

in physics require crucially complex mathematics,

supercomputers, and billion-dollar

particle smashers. On the other hand, many of

the crucial breakthroughs in modem physics

have been the result of attempting to explain

the most obvious. Modern quantum theory

arose from a discrepancy in physics that had

hot metals glowing the wrong color-something

the average iron-monger could observe.

 

And Einstein’s monumental achievement of

General Relativity he credited to the simple

thought of a man falling off a roof!

 

I bring these examples to attention not to

suggest that we should avoid penetrating into

nature’s hidden realms, but that by simply observing

«what is before our sight,» as Jesus

suggests, we might understand «that which is

hidden.»ll From this perspective, it seems that,

while we spend vast resources interrogating

everything from quarks and electrons to the far

distant stars and galaxies, the most profound

unification of physics, chemistry, and biology-

Humanity itself–exists right before our

eyes. And similar to the «ultraviolet catastrophe»

which marked the end of the old

physics, humanity does more than glow the

wrong color. According to our most advanced

physics, we humans should not exist at allexcept

perhaps as a «fortuitous accident» that

 

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

logically cannot be distinguished from the

impossible.

 

There is no question that Science has accomplished

great things while keeping humanity in

a «separate department of accidents.» Howwer,

it is highly unlikely that any ultimate

unification of scientific knowledge–including

physics-can occur with such segregation in

effect. There are sound reasons, therefore, why

top physicists, such as Roger Penrose, author of

The Emperor’s New Mind, are now looking at the

peak of humanity, the human mind, as the

possible key to the future understanding of the

laws of physics.

 

Penrose suggests that the most fundamental

laws of nature are somehow displayed in the

operations of our consciousness and its intentional

creativity, essentially the way our mind

operates-surely one of the least likely places

for traditional physics to look. In his book’s

Foreword we are told that «Penrose is one of an

increasingly large band of physicists who think

that Einstein was not being stubborn or muddle-

headed when he said his little finger’ told

him that quantum mechanics is incomplete.»

Penrose asks, ‘Is there a level beyond quantum

mechanics.. ., perhaps even deeper laws, essential

for the operation of a mind?»12

 

If we spelled that mind with a capital ‘%I,»

we would, of course, be heading back toward

«God’s thoughts» where Einstein held physics

to begin. If the universe itself does proceed

from God’s Loving thoughts, Nature itself

should, one would think, bear some indelible

mark of this in its most fundamental sense and

dynamic. Indeed it probably does: recall that

the invariant at the core of Love is not derived

from any considerations of God or theology.

 

That is not, for example, how Freud encountered

it, nor why he granted Love cosmological

status. Love’s invariant is derived directly and

solely from the most general features of how

our minds operate in our everyday needs-fulfilling

experience. As some of you will recall

from ‘The Mathematics of Love,» it appears to

be an invariant that penetrates all of Reality on

much the same order as any other scientifically

founded invariant principle. The Urantia Bwk

takes much the same approach. On page 137

we find what appears to be the invariant at the

core of Love described: ‘There is operative

throughout all time and space and with regard

to all reality of whatever nature an inexorable

and impersonal law [invariant principle]

which is equivalent to the function of a cosmic

providence.»

 

This sure sounds like something Science is

bound to encounter sooner or later–and will

. . .while we spend

vast resources interrogating

everything

from quarks and

electrons to the far

distant stars and

galaxies, the most

profound unification

of physics, chemistry,

and biology-

Humanity itselfexists

right before

our eyes.

 

Pen rose suggests

that the most fundamental

laws of

nature are somehow

displayed in the

operations of our

consciousness and

its intentional

creativity, essentially

fhe way our mind

operates-surely one

of the least likely

places for traditional

physics to look.

 

SCIENTIFIC SWOSIUM I1

 

. . .a beauty of

mathematics is this

tendency to almost

organize itself.

. . .the integrator of

all of the pre-logical

criteria upon which

mathematics stands,

seems to be the

intent-to-please…

and a certain «joy»

that mathematicians

acclaim when they

find a solution or

grasp some major

«truth.»

 

have to learn to live with.

So let’s take a closer look at physicist

Penrose’s work. Here we find some common

ground to investigate regardless of whether we

create reality in our heads or use our heads to

relate to a Reality that is really «out there.»

Whichever view we take, we find the most

fundamental language used by Science to

describe reality is mathematics. Although

mathematics is an invented language, «created»

in our minds we might say, the first mathematics

were probably not developed to solve

«mathematical» problems in just our heads.

Mathematics was more likely developed because

someone needed a simpler or more eficient

method of ordering everyday, real-world

experience-keeping track of fish, sticks,

stones and loans. This suggests that the human

strivings for Simplicity, Efficiency, and Order

predate or «underlie» the first mathematics.

In fact, even the most advanced mathematics,

which we usually consider as depending

solely on deductive Necessity, actually depend

on many other equally valid, pre-logical, «judgment-

forming criteria,» as Penrose labels them.

They are almost innate tendencies of the human

mind, long predating mathematics itself.

 

If we begin at Mathematics’ foundations, we

find Meaningfulness first on a long list of notions

that are themselves more fundamental

than mathematics. As Penrose reminds us, «It

is indeed ‘meaning1-not blind algorithmic

computation-that gives mathematics its substance.»

 

13 In addition, we of course find

Simplicity, Efficiency, and Order vital to mathematics,

followed closely by «pre-logical»

criteria of Completeness, Perfection, Complexity,

Nonpartiality, and, of course, deductive

Necessity. Then there is Self-sufficiency or

 

Selforganization:

a beauty of mathematics is this

tendency to almost organize itself. Other notions

such as Chance or randomness are vital to

many mathematical undertakings. We find that

even Individuality enters in at the foundations

of mathematics in terms of the discreetness and

uniqueness of each natural number. Mathematics

also uses the more inclusive criteria of

Wholeness. And Penrose points out how vital

the «pre-logical» notion of Beauty is to mathematics,

not asan extraneous frivolity, but asone

of its core guides. Plato even equated mathematics

with Goodness, and modern mathematician

Whitehead noted a similar affinity.

 

Finally, we find mathematicians must employ

some notion of «truth» which exists before and

goes beyond mere mathematical equations.

Now we have quite a laundry list here, with

a bit more to add. What is missing is a means

of integrating all of these notions. We need an

integrator or we should, for example, end up

pursuing Simplicity without regard to Completeness,

or Order without regard to Efficiency,

and so on. I think here we find our most

likely suspect; and it, too, predates formal

mathematics. Mathematicians will recognize it

as that constant wrangling to be pleased with the

endeavor at hand.

 

Indeed, the integrator of all of the pre-logical

criteriaupon which mathematics stands, seems

to be the intent-to-plense which actually begins

as the arbitrator of the most fundamental judgment-

forming notions of Simplicity, Efficiency,

and Order-and peaks as those aesthetic experiences

of elegance and Beauty, and a certain

«joy» that mathematicians acclaim when they

find a solution or grasp some major «truth.»

 

It is not surprising that Penrose concludes

that the non-dgon’thmic «judgment-forming

criteria» which underlie mathematics are closely

related to the operations of our mind as a

whole. They might even require the notion of

Aliveness which, so far, we can’t quite get on a

silicon chip. That mathematics must reach outside

of itself for its own foundations has been

acknowledged since Kurt Godel’s famous

proof on the question; but we are now able to

describe such foundations more accurately and

moreobjectively. These are not subwively imagined

foundations. Mathematical Simplicity,

Efficiency, Order, Completeness, Perfection,

Beauty or even ‘Truth» cannot be just in the eye

of the beholder; indeed, Penrose finds that we

must appeal to «one universally employed»

non-algorithmic system by which judgment of

mathematical truth occurs and can be communicated

among mathematicians themsel~es.’~

 

Now we cannot help but notice that this «one

universally employed system» of pre-logical

judgment-forming criteria upon which mathematics

depends and from which it has emerged

is identical with the expressive attributes of

Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs. And we cannot

help but notice that they are all brokered or

arbitrated by the same invariant principle, the

intent-to-please. Should this surprise us? Not

really. Physicist b h r explained that «…much

as all living organisms are constructed in accordance

with the same laws of nature,

and.. . from approximately the same chemical

compounds, the various possibilities of logic

are probably based on fundamental forms that

are neither man-made nor even dependent on

man.» l5

 

In other words, Bohr is suggesting that the

pre-logical operations of our minds and

Nature’s operations have the same objective

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

foundations. Einstein went a bit farther and

termed this natural relationship one of «pre-established

harmony,» wherein the logic of our

minds tends to find a match in the underlying

logic of the universe around us. And Heisenberg

makes it plainer: «If nature leads us to

mathematical forms of great simplicity and

beauty … we cannot help thinking that they are

‘true,’ that they reveal a genuine feature of

reality.»16 Heisenberg spscifically agrees with

Einstein when he says: ‘7 believe, just like you,

that the simplicity of natural law has an objective

character, that it is not just the result of

thought economy.»:’

 

Of course we are now ready to suggest that

thereare many more attributes involved in this

relationship between mathematics and Reality

besides just Simplicity and Beauty. We know on

themathematical sideat least that mathematics

must necessarily haul a lot more than Simplicity

or Beauty along within it. This we have

just demonstrated, as does Penrose. We need

Maslow’s entire expressive pyramid, and the

invariant at its core.

 

And here we find a solution to the most

fundamental problem facing modem physics:

Why does mathematics work at all in physics?

Why do mathematics and physical reality

«match up» even if approximately? This problem

is a logical catastrophe of the highest

order-about like hot iron glowing the wrong

color, only worse. Current answers to this enigma

actually include terms like «miracle,»

«good fortune,» and «unanswerable.»

 

Could it be that the pre-logical structure underlying

mathematics is the same as the structure

underlying objective reality … mks and

all? And I do not mean just for «Simplicity.» I

mean for the entire pre-logical structure and the

invariant at its core.

 

By the late 1960s, Maslow was already thinking

along this very line, boldly claiming that

orthodox science was due for «a critique (a la

Giidel) … of the ground on which it rests, of its

unproved articles of faith, and of its taken-forgranted

definitions, axioms, and concept^.»‘^

 

Maslow then proceeded, in his terms, «to raise

the radical question: can all the sciences, all

knowledge be conceptualized as a resultant of

a loving or caring interrelationship between

knower and kn~wn?»‘~

 

Maslow said that it ‘looks probable» that

scientific «truth» itself, the way Reality is, «is

finally definable, only and altogether, by all the

judgment-forming attributes we have just

described.» In Maslow’s own words, «…truth

is ultimately beautiful, good, simple, comprehensive,

perfect, unifying, alive, unique, necessary,

final, just [or non-partial], orderly, effortless,

self-sufficient, and amusing.»20 Finally, he

suggested that «knowledge through love»

should be scientifically investigated in the

«strictest sense.»21

 

There is little room for escaping the conclusion

that the way Reality is, the way Nature

itself operates, is based on the same «fundamentaipre-

logical form» which underlies our

logic and our mathematics. Maslow was only

filling out what Bohr, Einstein, and Heisenberg

suggested; and what several others such as

physicist Charles Peirce have envisioned. As

penrose informs us, there is no way to get these

pre-logical attributes out of our mathematics;

 

and there appears, then, that there is no way to

get them out of Reality itself. The only thing

missing in Maslow’s offering is the integrator

of these attributes. the same invariant at the

core of LOV-which he indirectly proposed

and which can now be officially added.

 

This would, of course, explain why mathematics

works as a predictive rep&ntation,

however approximate, of our real world. As

Penrose observes: ‘There must.. .be some deep

underlying reason for the accord between

mathematics and physi~s.»H~e~ s uggests that

the answer will be extremely subtle, and that it

will involve not only consciousness but some

«non-algorithmic action» with a «role [in] the

physical world of very considerable import

a n ~ e . «H~e~ t hen concludes that the answer

must be «intimately bound up with the very

concept of mind.»24 Obviously we would expect

ii to center about the invariant principle at

our mind’s co-the intent-to-please.

 

Thus Love subtly makes its appearance at the

foundations upon which the whole of Science

stands. The reason mathematics works is that

it must somehow align with Nature’s fundamental

operations, what Science calls Nature’s

causality. Both must play off the same invariant

princip1e;and that principle is now coming into

clearer view: It must be the invariant principle

at the core of Love that is the heart of Nature’s

causality.

 

Causality takes us deeper than any identifiable

force or particle of Reality; it takes us into

how such fundamental processes of nature

operate. And there is nothing more fundamental

to Science. As Einstein observed, the concept of

causation is «the ultimate basic postulate of all

natural science.»25 And this remains true even

if we invent all of Science in our heads, or claim

there is no causality. This is as close to logcal

foundations as we can get.

 

Einstein in fact felt that the answer he was

seeking might be found in a new «Super-

«. . .can all the sciences,

all knowledge be

conceptualized as a

resultant of a loving

or caring interrelationship

between

knower and known?»

Causality takes us

deeper than any

identifiable force or

particle of Reality;

it takes us into how

such fundamental

processes of nature

operate. And there

is nothing more

fundamental to

Science.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

Nature’s causality

seems to be best

described as a kind

of synergetic superposition

of these

attributes integrated

by the same invariant

we find at the

core of Love.

 

Persuasion offers

itself to more than

individual forces

such as gravity; it

seems to apply to

how such forces

operate in the

Universe as a whole.

 

If suggests a general

direction, a guiding,

without dictatorial

control. Yet, nothing

can escape its

influence.

causality.»26 It would have to accommodate those

features of Reality’s operations which could not

quite fit into the old mold of Newtonian

mechanical Necessity, or entirely into the new

mold which attempted to credit everything to

Chance.. . and modem thinkers have found it

will have to accommodate a lot more.

 

It is indeed startling to find that even for our

most advanced physics, the concept of causality

is wide open for an infusion of the attributes

and the integrating invariant I have been

describing-essentially the non-algorithmic

foundations that Penrose’s work touches so

clearly. Nature’s fundamental operations cannot

be viewed as a couple of simplistic notions

like Chance and Necessity any more than the

foundations of our mathematics can be. Many

other physicists, as far back as Peirce, have

argued that something more subtle is needed

to integrate Chance and Necessity; and which

can also account for the Complexity, the Order,

the Efficiency, the Simplicity, the Wholeness,

the Individuality, the Aliveness, and so

on.. . that we actually find in experience, peaking

with the need to accommodate the creative

developmental thrust we experience with the

operations of life and, most notably, the human

mind and its seeking after Beauty, Goodness

and Truth. Peirce even proposed the solution:

the Supercausality of «evolutionary love.»»

 

Indeed our modern study of causality takes

us straight to the same answer. We find both

philosophers and modem physicists informing

us that a «wider and richer» schemeof causality

is needed-a «synthesis or integration of causal

factors» which «can be analyzed with the help

of logic; but cannot be reduced to logical

terms.»28 In a word, they are pre-logical; and it

seems they are the same set of irreducible attributes

we find at the foundation of our mathematics

and the needs-fulfilling operations of

our minds. Nature’s causality seems to be best

described as a kind of synergetic superposition

of these attributes integrated by the same invariant

we find at the core of Love.

 

And what would be the hallmark of this

causality that even a physicist could not miss?

Our answer is that Love operates only by Persuasion.

In fad, here we encounter theone word

which completely encapsules the new Supercausality

in language that the most advanced

physicist-as well as the child-can grasp:

 

Persuasion.

There is mounting evidence that Naturedoes

indeed operate by just such Persuasion. Our

foremost clue is that Persuasion can only

operate by interactive communication of information.

Physics now recognizes that all the

known forces arc «mediated» by «messenger

particles.» We can call it force, but it is essentially

interactive communications at work-just as

Persuasion requires. And it is not coincidence 1 that Einstein redefined our understanding of

gravity as exerting «its authority not with force

but with persuasionu-the persuasion of the

most efficient paths laid out by communicative

fields in space and time.29

 

Persuasion offers itself to more than individual

forces such as gravity; it seems to apply

to how such forces operate in the Universe as a

whole. It suggests a general direction, a guiding,

without dictatorial control. Yet, nothing

can escape its influence. Thus Persuasion explains

why one or more of the matrix of causal

factors must somehow embody an «ivmersible

productivity»; a «generative order,» a «creative

predisposition» or developmental thrust in

Reality’s operations30

 

But scientists also have a valid point about

regression and reversibility. Any scientific logical

foundation must not only account for

Nature’s creative advances but also allow for

both regression and for thereversibility we find

in our current mathematical laws of physics.

 

Technically these equations work going forward

or backward in time–although most of

Reality seems to go in only one direction.

 

Again, the accommodation offered by a per- suasivecausality is remarkable. But rather than

label it persuasive causality, let us give it a more

scientific footing that gives some indication of

its superimposed elements and the invariant at

itscore. I offer the new term delective causalitydelectiue

taken from the Latin words for «highly

pleasing» and «to allure.» You will get the idea

every time you go past a delicatessen when you

are hungry. Delective causality even sounds

better than «deterministic causality,» «indeterministic

causality» or «no causality at all. It

allows all the «alluring» irreducible attributes

we have been discussing to be accommodated

under one concept whose central thesis is

Persuasion.

 

 

Persuasion is actually an old idea whose time

has come, even to the halls of Science where it

should be welcome. It is intriguing to find

physicists themselves acknowledging the mild

error in the long-standing tradition of holding

causation to bea one-way concept, which tends

to ignore the interaction of the effect back

toward the cause. This interactive, interrelated

feature of Nature’s processes is a fact of physics

that we must re~ognizeV. iewing causality as a

one-way process is only an approximation of a

much more subtly interconnected, two-way, or

actually all-way operation by which Reality is

in constant interactive communication.

 

Our old concepts of causation typically considered

cause to be a matter of exerting extemal

forces on substance that was internally inert;

composed of tiny dead billiard balls. Prevailing

definitions of causality still retain much of this

internal deadness of the Newtonian era. But it

is only a useful approximation, one which runs

out in both quantum theory and in life. A more

«adequate picture is provided,» as one physicist

explains, «by a synthesis of self-determination

and [external] determination, in which external

causes are conceived as unchainers of inner

processes rather than as agents molding a

passive lump of clay … .»31 In order for such

«unchaining» communication to occur, information

must appeal to common elements of

internal structure, common «inbuilt patterns of

respon~e»~~-the» needs» or «attribute» structureof

the participants, whether humans, dogs,

trees, rocks, or electrons.

 

We also find something else occurring in

Reality’s two-way, interactive, more «participatory»

causality. As physicist Mario Bunge

explains: »Room is made for the may at the

expense of the must; novelty is seen to be pos-

~ i b l e . «T~h~e l anguage of may is, of course, the

language of Persuasion. And as to novelty,

there is a certain intrinsic freedom of response,

an inherent self-determination, in a «dipolar»

causality that relies upon communication of

information. Indeed we have a frecdom beginning

at physics’ foundation that seems strangely

reflective of a truth that will set us free in the

most fundamental manner suggested by Jesus.

 

Freedom is no longer tacked on at the end. Yet

this Freedom is not without guidance. Although

delective causality offers a freedom

which allows novelty, diversity, reversibility,

error, pain, and regression, the persuasive invariant

at its core is always present.

 

This is a causality that can accommodate

mind as well as matter, essentially linking the

two. The causal nexus of the mind can only be

termed one that operates by a k i d of interactive

influencing of energy-matter by Persuasion.

 

Thus mind is no longer separated from

matter; nor from physics, but intimately linked

to both, as Penrose suggests.

Surely the evidence mounts that we have

found the Supercausality that modern Science

is missing. Delective causality offers us a relational

Reality in which there are probably no

transactions of Nature on any scale which do

not have their interactive information components.

This means that even the remotest

ultimate entities of energy-matter must somehow

retain an «internal» capability of handling

—

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

the attributes of delective causality, however

subtly, with the invariant at its core. Many

physicists have already concluded that Reality

essentially has an informational basis; and not

a few have suggested a «mental component»

therein.» We are simply giving such thinking a

firmer shape, yet not so firm as Einstein might

have wished. Persuasion is not veiled determinism.

Persuasion must always retain at least an

element of Spontaneity-Chance. But an element

is not the same as a foundation. We see that

communication of information must alwavs

embody such an element of Spontaneity-

Chance in the response if not in the information

itself. This alone would account for the statistical

nature of all the laws of physics in general;

 

but this is not pure Chance operating any more

than it can be a matter of pure Necessity. It is

possible that current theory has already

reached this threshold where Spontaneitychance

of self-determination cannot be

further penetrated, where Nature’s freedom of

choice, as physicist Bohr once referred to it, is

protected. It is also possible that more subtle

information interactions are going on beneath

the quantum blanket, and may eventually be

made known. Either way, delective causality is

themoreexplanatory solution. And either way,

Einstein ends up being more right than wrong;

that is, «Chance» cannot be the logical foundation

of physics, but only an element thereof.

 

Delective causality also explains why, in

quantum physics, the individual observer

seems to play such a vital role, so vital that

many physicists suggest Reality is observercreated

and nothing but ethereal wa,..es of

potential until we look at it. Delective causality

tells us, on the other hand, that it is not so much

an observercreated Reality as an observer-Elated

Reality we are involved with. It is extremely

provocative in this regard that Einstein’s

principle of Relativity is not a law of physics, it

is a law about the laws of physics. Einstein’s

fundamental breakthrough holds that the laws

of nature will appear the same to each individual

observer. He held that this was the

result of the inherent rationality of the universe

and our harmony within it; and for physicists

it remains among the most fundamental tests

for «truthfulness» of any proposed «laws.» But

Einstein’s Relativity is kind of passive; all it

does is ask the observer for the time and space,

so to speak; whereas quantum theory holds

that reality itself becomes actively malleable to

the individual observer. We can now see, I suggest,

that the rationality of Nature which relates

to «truthfulness» artd the malleability of Nature

Indeed we have a

freedom beginning at

physics’foundation

that seems strangely

reflective of a truth

that will set us free

in the most fundamental

manner

suggested by Jesus.

Persuasion must

always retain at least

an element of Spontaneity-

Chance. But

an element is not

the same as a foundation.

–

SCIENTIFIC SWOSIUM I1

 

This problem of

emergent order.. .

seems destined to

require delective

causality, a causal

process with a

developmental thrust

toward not only the

more complex. . . but

toward that which is

capable of being most

pleased in the process.

We simply take survival

of the fittest

and augment it with

«flourishing of the

pleasingest»-thus

spanning all our

needs from biological

survival to the

highest cultural

expressions with

the same invariant:

the core of Love.

 

which relates to «usefulness» are irlcxtricably

linked. «Usefulness» has no meaning except

being «serviceable to our needs.» T h u s the malleability

of Reality that we seem to encounter in

quantum theory is only a further ex(-avation of

the «user-friendly» universe which Einstein’s

Relativity first detected-an excavation no

wise complete, for we have only clipped the

peak of the Intent To Please the individual

which apparently pervades even the physics of

the universe.

 

Science is, of course, more than physics. Our

solution must account for the inherent Becorn-.

ing in Reality, its incessant self-organization

which the current laws of physics do not address.

 

This problem of emergent order, running all

the way up through evolution of life and

humanity, seems destined to y u i r c delective

causality, a causal process with a devclopmental

thrust toward not only the more complex,

which allows richer autonomous relationships,

but toward that which is capable of being most

pleased in the process. Humanity thus becomes

the emergent product of Kealitfs delective

causal equation, and is no longer quite so «accidental.»

As Einstein’s fundamental principle

would require, our solution must be capable of

such massive accommodation, including

humanity and our mind itself as part of

Universe, and all that we do, are, and can become.

 

A scientific logical foundation could do

no less.

We can also close the long-standing gap between

biological and cultural evolution. We

simply take survival of the fittest and augment

it with «flourishing of the pleasingest»-thus

spanning all our needs from biological survival

to the highest cultural expressions with the

same invariant: the core of Love. Natural selestion

itself needs just such an interactive, persuasive

broker, one that can accommodate not

only survival, but the purposeful, judgmentforming

operations of our minds–evolution’s

true missing link. Evolution theory nwds this

motivational integrator, a striving that involves

a little more than raw survival of our selfish,

little genes for a few scconds of universe time.

 

And there is no greater motivator bridging

reproduction, survival, and the creative socialcultural

order, than the striving to be pleased;

«to be loved.» Surely, we cannot much longer

ignore our actual experience and attribute the

progressive nature of biological and cultural

evolution to some blind interplay of Chance

and Necessity which just accidentally happens

to evade entropy’s law of decay and waste.

 

While even Jesus tells us the Earth will pass

away, the ultimate «New Story of Science» will

have to do with something more than the wast~.

products generated.% It will have to do with

what generates them. As many others have

concluded, we need a logical foundation o:

growth to which entropy’s death, decay and

~vastea lp secondary rather than primary. I’his

would be the growth process of what Peircc

termed «evolutionary love,» the main business

of the universe with which we humans atv

intimately and eternally related- «at one and

the same impulse projecting creations into independency

and drawing them into harm

~ n y . «It~ s~ho uld not surprise us that the

fundamental language of this business of Ek.-

 

corning bears the hallmark of the Intent-To-

P!ease. What else would a Father have in mind

for His children? Is not «all the rest».., j?~st

rlc.tails?

 

When Peircc sketched this solution a cct~tury

ago, he said: «If thinkers will on1 y be

to lay aside their prejudices and apply thwnselves

to studying the evidences ~f this

doctrine, I shall be fully content to await the

final de~ision.»~~

 

As that time draws near, we are finding that

all of Science, from the physical to the political,

is, at its foundations, the Science of Love.

 

1. C) 191 Charles E. ! Iar~sen All rights reserved,

 

NOTES AND REFERENCES

 

1. jonathan Lear, 1.m and Its Place in Natun (New

York: Fanar, Straus & Giroux, 1990), p. 150. An

excellent discussion of the growing significance of

Love in science, from a modern psychologist’s

persphve of Freud’s work.

2. Albert Einstein, ‘The World as I See It, translated by
3. Hams (New York: The Philosophical Library,

1949), p. 2.

3. Abraham H. Maslow, Therarther Reaches offluman

Nature (New York: The Viking Press, 1 Wl), pp.

318-319,331.

, Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences

(New York: The Viking Press, 1970), pp. 91-95.

. .. . . — — , Toward a Psychology of Being (New –

York: D. Van Nostrandcompany IqhX! FP P: h.1

Frank G. Cable, The Third Force: The IJsychology of

dbraham Maslow (New York: Washington %pare

I’ress, 1970), p. 52.

4 .\.I3. French, ed., l~instein: A Cm:rrar? I;>lu.~ti

(Cambridge, Mass: I larvard Univtmrty i’rer,.;.

197P), p. 67.

5 Quoted from Ileinz K. Pagels, i’erfec,t Symmetry

(New York: Simon and Schusttr, 1985),. p. 362.

6. Albert Einstein, ldeffi and Opinions, tr3nslatcd by

Sonja Bargn~ann (New York, Bonanza Books,

1954), F. 39.

7. Ibid., p. 227.
8. Ibid., p. 40.
9. lbid., p. 3.34.
10. Ibid., p. 324.
11. 7’he Cojpel According to Thomas (San Francisco:

flarpr & Row, 1984), translated by A. GuilMAY

17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

laumont, et al, p. 5.

12. Roger Penrose, The Empemr’s New Mind (New

York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. vi.

13. bid., p. 105.
14. Bid., p. 417.
15. Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond: Encounters

and Gmwrsations (New York, Harper &

ROW, i9n1, p. 138.

16. bid., p. 68.
17. Ibid.
18. Abraham H. Maslow, The Psychology of Science: A

Reconnaissance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company,

19661, p. 1.

19. bid., p. 10S.
20. bid., p. 123.
21. bid., p. 110.
22. The Empew’s New Mind, p. 430.
23. Ibid.
24. bid., p. 431.
25. Idms and Opinions, p. 261.
26. Abraham Pais, Subtle Is the Lal… » : The Science

and the Lifc of Albert Einstein (New York: Oxford

University Press, 19821, p. 465. Einstein was looking

for a more deterministic Supercausality when

he made this suggestion; however, in his later

years he offered that an indeterministic solution

would be acceptable to him so long as it reflected

reality’s actual manner of operations. Reference

letter from Pauli to Born in Karl R. Popper, The

Open Universe (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and

Littlefield, 19821, footnote, p. 2.

27. Charles S. Peirce, «Evolutionarv Love,» The

(New York, Dover Publications, 1955), pp. 361-

374. In preceding articles, ‘The Dochine of Necessity

Examined,» p. 335, Peirce specifically leaves

room for «another kind of causation, such as

seems to be operative in the mind ….» His full

attempt at definition includes other articles in this

collection such as ‘The Law of Mind,» pp. 339-

353, and other writings as well.

28. Mario Bunge, Cnusality and Modern Science (New

York, Dover Publications, 1979), pp. 166,239.

29. Nigel Calder, Einstein’s Uniwrse (New York: The

V i g Press, 1979), p. 36.

30. Causality and Modem Sdence, p. l7l.

Also see: David Bohm and F. David Peat, Science,

Order, and Creativity (New York: Bantam Books,

1987), and Paul Davies, TheCosmic Blueprint (New

York: Simon and Schuster, 1988).

31. Gzusality and Modern Science, p. 197.
32. J.L. Mackie, The Cement of the Uniame: A Study of

Causation (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1974), p.

280.

33. Gzusality and Modem Science, p. 197.
34. See, for example, Freeman Dyson, Infinite In All

Directions (New York: Harper & Row, 1988). Espe

dally, p. 292-299.

35. This reference is to: Robert M. Augros and George
36. Standu, The New Story of Science (New York:

Bantam Books, 1986); which gives an excellent

summary of the «paradigm shift» toward the

speech’s thesis now occurring in science.

36. «Evolutionary Love,» Philosophical Writings of

Peirce, v. 362.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

By

David N. Elders

 

A 20-year student @The

Urantia Book, Elders

earned a bachelor’s degree.

He has seroed as president

of The Fellowship for o m

five years. His aDocation is

coaching young people in

baseball and ice hockey, mtd

he has been seroing on the

Town Youth Commission in

Darien, Connecticut.

 

God looks from an

infinite distance into

a Grand Universe

mirror which is

framed by time and

space. In it he sees a

refledion of himself,

a refledion though

not infinite and absolute,

yet still reflective

of the essence

of his existence.

 

PERSONALITY AND WILL:

 

Increasing Mastery of the Inner

and Outer Worlds

 

At some unimaginable level of reality, God is

alone in the universe. There is none other beside

him. But inherent IN God is the potential

for the manifestation of differential forms of his

existence. By the simple choosing of his unfettered

and absolutely free will, God gives life to

an infinity of unified, yet diverse, expressions

of his being: potential and actual, personal and

nonpersonal, finite and infinite, material, mindal,

and spiritual. This is not a linear occurrence.

 

This process is an inherent part of God

and simply is … always.

One consequence of this eternal process of

God’s self-existence is the qualification of a

segment of God’s infinity into an expression

bounded by time and space, limited to the experience

of his material, mindal, and spiritual

realities, and unified by personality.. .a fourdimensional

expression of God in the finite,

that is, «in finity.» Called by some, «Supreme,»

it all takes place in a space called the Grand

Universe.

 

What is this place called theGrand Universe?

What is its purpose? Who knows that they live

here? In whom does its value reside? Which

thoughts are thought here? What matters here?

These are some of the questions of the four

dimensions.

 

God looks from an infinite distance into a

Grand Universe mirmr which is framed by

time and space. In it he sees a reflection of

himself, a reflection though not infinite and

absolute, yet still reflective of theessence of his

existence. As he moves closer to the mirmr, he

knows in it the fullness of those aspects of his

being which can be expressed in such a mirmr.

 

Closer yet, he chooses to experience those

aspects of his being which have been selected

to interact for a time in such a space. Closer still

to the mirmr God sees himself as many sons,

per-sons.. .a reflection of himself through each

of whom he is expressed uniquely and from

each of whose unique perspective he is known

as God. At the end of time and throughout this

space, each son recognizes his Father and once

again, as always, God is alone … and yet …

accompanied by an infinite number of sons

who are a part of his personal presence and

who share his will, the very same will which

gives these sons their lives.

 

God is personality. » (*28) ‘Tersonality is the

exclusive gift of [NOT FROM1 the Universal

Father.» (77) Could it be that even though each

one of us is not God, that God is-LITERALLY–

each one of us? I AM Dave; I AM Steve; 1

AM Berkeley; I AM Melissa; I AM Marta.

 

«Mortal man is more than figuratively made

in the image of God. From a physical

standpoint this statement is hardly true, but

with reference to certain universe potentialities

it is an actual fact. In the human race, something

of the same drama of evolutionary attainment

is being unfolded as takes place, on a vastly

larger scale, in the universe of universes. Man,

a volitional personality, becomes creative in

liaison with an Adjuster, an impersonal entity,

in the presenceof the finite potentialities of the

Supreme, and the result is the flowering of an

immortal soul. In the universes the Creator

personalities of time and space function in

liaison with the impersonal spirit of the

Paradise Trinity and become thereby creative

of a new power potential of Deity reality.»

 

(‘1281) Is the willful choice we make to do

God’s will a literal part of that same will which

separated the evolutionary finite from God’s

infinity and will cause the final actualization of

its potentials?

 

«Man attains divine union by progressive

reciprocal spiritual communion, by personality

intercourse with the personal God, by increasingly

attaining the divine nature through

wholehearted and intelligent conformity to the

divine will. Such a sublime relationship can

only exist between personalities.» (*31) Does

not divine union with God imply the final

mastery of those aspects of the divine nature

which we experience in time and space?

 

«The progressing personality leaves a trail of

actualized reality as it passes through the ascending

levels of the universes. Be they mind,

spirit, or energy, the growing creations of time

and space are modified by the pmgression of

personality through their domains. When man

acts, the Supreme reacts, and this transaction

I constitutes the fact of pmgression.» (‘1286)

 

Does not true mastery of the inner and outer

1 worlds take place as each per-son-ality allows

the gifts of God to be realized in self-consciousMAY

 

17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

ness, that is, as the growth of the soul?

«The Supreme is God-in-time; his is the

secret of creature growth in time; his also is the

conquest of the incomplete present and the

consummation of the perfecting future. And

the final fruits of all finite growth are: power

controlled through mind by spirit by virtue of

the unifying and creative presence of personality.

The culminating consequence of all

this growth is the Supreme Being.» (‘l280)

 

When God looks in his mirror, does he actually

see evolution in time, or is the self he sees

reflected in the already-complete Supreme?

«Man, the civilized, will someday achieve

the relative mastery of the physical forces of his

planet; the love of God in his heart will be

effectively outpoured as love for his fellow

men, while the values of human existence will

be nearing the limits of mortal capacity.»

 

(q306) Is it not through the choosing of a

relatively free-will personality that this

mastery takes place &d the true potentials

gifted by the Father have therefore and thereby

been fully actualized in human experience?

* * *

One day in time a birth takes place. A new

child is born to finite, material parents. Soon the

child, vaguely aware that she’s not the creatures

around her, sees her reflection in a mirror.

 

Her immature vision stops at the mirror’s edge

and she sees her body and believes that’s who

she is. As she grows kll and strong, she moves

closer to the mirror to see herself more deeply.

Though her eyes see the image reflected, her

thoughts and feelings tell her more about her

self, and she comes to believe that what she

thinks and feels is who she is. But a quiet voice

within her adjusts her vision so that she can

lookdeeper still into the mirror of her mind. She

doesn’t know it yet, but she seeks the Father in

whose image she is made. She seeks the existence

of her source and the source of her existence.

 

She seeks God. And as her knowing

sharpens and her inward sight focuses, she

moves closer still to the mirror and in finality

finds God’s face looking at her and she recognizes

it as her own. She is one of the sons God

sees reflected in his Grand Universe mirror in

finity.

 

Even now, as always, in response to existential

choice the vaults of God’s reality though

not asleep, awaken to mirror God’s reflection.

The Supreme, the living mirror which reflects

the selves of God in finity, the universal grand

in which is shown the strains of conscious self

and sonship, begins its soul-filled symphony of

light. Toward God, Supremacy reflects the

finished fusion of a multiplicity of sons. Toward

sons, Supremacy reflects a single face, the personality

of God. Each son can see this fact of

God as a reflection of her own; and God can see

each face he sees as a reflection of his own.

 

Supremacy is the looking glass in which potential

actuals are fused into an infinite visage by

the unity of will-the will of God above and the

wills of God below.

 

And the existential unified diversity of God’s

eternal selfexistence is, as always, one. At some

unimaginable level of reality, God is alone in

the universe.. .and yet. .. .

When God looks in

his mirror, does he

actually see

evolution in time,

or is the self he sees

refleded in the

already-complete

Supreme?

 

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

by

Brendan O’Regan

O’Regan’s work with the

Institute of Noetic Sciences

has involaed him for over

12 years in the duafion of

bminlmind function and

extraordinary human

capmMties.

 

[Editor’s Note: Brendm,

O’Regan died of cancer at

age 47 during the summer

of 1992. The organizers of

Scientific Symposium 11 are

grateful to share this aiav

of his life’s work.]

 

The science that we

have at any given

time tends to edit

realityfor us and say

this is real, or that’s

not real ….

New Models of Mind.

Order, & Chaos

 

Good morning, everyone!

 

Well, this is a s p e d moment. One of thegoals in

preparing thesymposium w s tofinda scientist who

wasn’t necessarily a reader of theThe Urantia Book

who would come speak to our group about his field.

W v e been veryfortunate to actually meet this goal.

Brendan O’Regan, from the Institute of Noetic

Sciences, is here with us this morning. The Institute

was fonned in 1973, by Astronaut Edgar Mitchell,

who was the sixth man on the moon. Brendan is the

vie president for mearch at the lnstitute and he has

been with them since 1975. He’s been on the leading

edge of science for 20 years. We are very fortunate

that he’s here with us today.

 

Right now he works with granting funds for

research programs in mechanisms of healing,

altruism and exceptional human abilities and

causality. He previously worW at the Stanford

Research Institute on a project called the Changing

Images of Man, in which they were looking at how

science drives the type of person in society. Previous

to that, he worM with Buckminster Fuller. He was

involved with a project on Fuller’s book: Synergetic~~:

e o m e tofj ~ h i n k i ni~n w, hich he k sin

charge of keeping track of new Mopments in

scienceand how that would affect the contents of the

book.

 

Right now, he’sinvolved in a Survey of Remission

Research and an eight-part series on the healing

mind that will be televised on PBS and BBC, and

this is an international program. It’s going to have

information from, 1 think sewn to ten different

countries. Maybe he will go into that a little.

In his presentation this morning, Brendan will

focus on kleas that suggest new ways of thinking

about mind and the physical world and the conelation

of the two. He will be showing us new concepts

of how order and physics change our own concept of

reality. So it is indeed my pleasure to introduce to

you,from Sun Francisco, Brendan O’Regan. * * *

 

Thank you. Let me just get a few things in

order here. I’m not going to cover all of this, but

it’s a very interesting experience for me to be

invited to talk to a group such as you. In essence,

what I have been doing under the guise

of working for different organizations and

people for the last 20 years is really asking those

sort of simple questions: Who are we? Why are

we here? and, What is reality anyway? In attempting

to do that, of course, wealways want

to try and avoid the pitfall of what I call the

curmudgeon’s definition of theology, which in

theology is the effort to explain theunknowable

in terms of the not-worth-knowing. We want to

avoid the not-worth-knowing, but it’s a curious

thing that a society driven by a particular view

of science, a particular view of reality, has very

often tried to strip the meaning out of things.

We end up with a view of things in terms of the

not-worth-knowing sometimes.

The science that we have at any given time

tends to edit reality for us and say this is real,

or that’s not real, as though they have some

kind of inner track. The fad is that, in every

society and in every culture, there have always

been groups of people operating with an expanded

view of the human being. I fist encountered

The Urantia Book over 20 years ago,

and if ever I saw an expanded point of view

about the human being, it certainly is in there.

 

The question is, can we expand to take it all in?

I couldn’t, but I can only take it in small doses.

Yet, you know, if you have a wide-angle lens

and you are forced to work with something a

little less wide angle, you can refer back quietly

in the dark of night sometimes to what the

wider angle view says and ask, ‘Well, is there

any confirmation of this?»

 

Now you have among you people who have,

in a much more detailed way, looked at that

question. I haven’t been consciously doing that,

shall we say, but what I have been doing sometimes

is referring back to this wider view. It’s a

curious process. If you begin to ask about an

expanded view of the human being, or you

begin to ask questions about who we are, you

find that society is selling us short on a certain

level of who we are. Then very curious things

start developing in the society.

 

I’ll give you an example: Melissa mentioned

about the pro*, «Changing Images of Man,»

at Stanford Research Institute which I was

working on during 1971-72. We were asked to

look at how did we get this view of the person that

says the National Science Foundation should 1 fund this kind of research and not that kind of

research, or that NIMH views health this way,

not that way. Of course, at that time, the

dominant view of the person was behaviorism,

the whole idea that the mind was irrelevant, it’s

a black box. There was input, there was output.

You concentrated on fixing the environment

1 and everything else would magically rearrange

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

itself, which, of course, it didn’t do. At that time

we began to look at what would happen if an

expanded view of the person came into science, if

the mind re-entered, and consciousness reentered?

What would we have happening both

in science and in the culture? We proposed that

kind of view 20 years ago, with a lot of people

saying you can’t be serious, you know, is this

really there? The argument then still remains

part of the argument today, about the reality of

paranormal powers, the reality of telepathy, the

reality of psychic kinesis and these kinds of

things.

 

I happened to be at Stanford Research Institute

at the very time when the notorious, or

nefarious, Uri Geller showed up there. It’s interesting.

If you tak to a p u p of scientists

almost anywhere in the world today, they will

say, «Oh, he was discredited, wasn’t he?» It’s

pretty sure that a certain editing of that story

took place, through a very aggressive campaign

by skeptics who perceive themselves as

the keepers of the truth and protectorsof reality.

They say, ‘Well, oh, that was all dismissed.»

 

Well, not really. It wasn’t. It was driven underground.

The big irony for me is that, while I was at

Stanford Research Institute, I was on one side

of the equation. A few years later, I was working

at Noetic Sciences, which funded the work on

Uri at Stanford Research Institute, so I was on

the other side of the equation. The great irony

for us was that here was a program at a rnapr

research institute which we began with private

money, but which rapidly b&e inac&sible

to us because it was taken over by the military

and became a classified program. The reason

that you don’t know what went on there, and

the &son why the skeptics could successfully

edit reality for you, was because the real information

was kept classified. That remains the

case, though we may be at a kind of an interesting

time now, because initial classification of

information is for 20 years. Well, it’s 20 years

now. Maybe some of this stuff will start to

trickle out, or maybe adventurous people will

file Freedom of Information Act kits in the

right way, and start to pull out some of that

information.

 

But, let’s have a look at some of it that one can

say. One of the reasons it’s one of the great

ironies, I suppose, is that the evidence anddata

for the best experiments suggesting an expanded

capacity for the human being has to

remain classified, because the verification of it

really comes from surveillance satellites. Well,

at that time, the cold war was in full swing. The

Soviet Union was the great enemy, and of

course, the great need was to know where their

missile bases were, what they did in them, and

so forth. A primary effort of the remote viewing

work at Stanford at that time (remote viewing

is a nice term for clairvoyancc+you are seeing

at a distance beyond shielded perception) was

to describe missile bases in the Soviet Union.

 

Where were they, and could that be done by

remote viewing? I remember participating in

the documentation of one of these experiments.

(I had not signed anything about being in a

classified domain so I am not violating anyone’s

agreements here by saying this.) I was not

really an official participant. I was an excessively

interested kind of nuisance who kept showing

up and saying, «What’s happening? How

do I find out more about it?» I didn’t really

understand why, Ididn’t really know the whole

military base behind it that was emerging at the

time.

 

 

One of the things that happened was very

interesting. We did an experiment where one of

the subjects who was not Uri Geller would

randomly pickcoordinates on the map. Vially,

somebody would sort of stick a pin in the

globe, and you would come up with certain

degrees of longitude and latitude, down to

minutes and seconds of arc. On this particular

occasion, the subject was to describe the location

that happened to be in the Bay Area and it

happened to be an area that I thought I knew.

 

He proceeded to describe the section of the bay

between the Golden Gate Bridge, between the

city and Marin County. I thought, «Oh well, this

isn’t going to count as an experiment, because

we all know this area.» Then he proceeded to

describe some features, and I said, «Well that’s

not there. nere is no runway by the Golden

Gate Bridge. That’s crazy. This is not there, and

that is not there.» I’d been driving past this

thing for years and had never actually gone

down into the Navy base area. And there is a

runway next to the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

So I began to think, ‘Well, maybe there is

something to this.» Then another curious thing

happned at a later experiment that I was not

present for. He described a Soviet missile

facility and produced a map-+ little drawing

of, well, the silos are here, and the buildings are

here, and so forth. This was, in due course, sent

off to Washington. They came back and confirmed

that «this part’s right and that part’s

right, but this part’s wrong. There are no buildings

in this part of the site.» He said, «Oh yes,

there are. Wait till you get your next satellite

pictures.» The following week, the next fly-by

took place, and there were the buildings. They

had been put up rather quickly. That kind of

If you begin to ask

about an expanded

view ofthe human

being, or you begin

to ask questions

about who we are,

you find that society

is selling us short on

a certain level of who

we are. Then ve y

curious things start

developing in the

society.

 

The reason that you

don’t know what

went on there, and

the reason why the

skeptics could successfully

edit reality

for you, was because

the real information

was kept classified.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

You do what you can

to set up experiments

and take the most

rigorous approach

that you can.

 

There is a period of

time in which the

substance of the

material is interfered

with in some way,

so that it no longer

has the rigidity that

it had….

thing went on for a number of years and did

suggest that there were expanded capacities

that people could use. It still goes on, but

nobody admits it.

 

So we have this very interesting problem.

When reality is being edited by the power

structure in an interesting way, you have to

wonder about it.

 

Another version of this happened when I left

Stanford after that project. I moved to England

where I lectured foia year. I don’t know if many

of you know of the physicist, David Bohm, who

is really one of the people proposing the idea

that there is a certain kind of order, a nucleic

order in reality, which is sort of a holographic

concept that space and time are folded together

in a way where properties of the whole system

are contained in even the tiniest part. That’s

really an extrapolation metaphorically in physics

from the idea of a hologram.

 

You are probably all pretty familiar at this

point, that you can take a hologram, and let’s

say it’s a 2 x 2 square photograph which contains

these interference patterns on it. When

you put a laser light through it, the image pops

out. You can cut out a tiny little piece of the

hologram, put the laser light through that tiny

piece and the whole image comes back out. I

thought if anybody could make sense of all this

stuff with Uri Geller, surely David Bohm could.

 

I arranged for the two of them to meet each

other in London. Part of it, 1 suppose, was that

I was thinking maybe I imagined all this back

at Stanford. Maybe we should just get a whole

other group in another part of the world to start

over, do it again, and see if it would still happen.

(You do what you can to set up experiments

and take the most rigomus approach

that you can.)

 

So we set upa situation where John Halstead,

who was then head of the Physics Department

of Birkback College, one of the divisions of the

University of London, would arrange for this

experiment. David Bohm designed it, and Arthur

Koestler came in to watch. Arthur Clarke

happened to be in town, the man who wrote

2001, and he came by. We tried to keep it from

becoming a sort of celebrity dog-and-pony

show.

 

The following sequence of events occurred

and ought to have been in a journal, but thereby

hangs <he story I’m going to tell you. One of the

interesting problems, of course, with someone

like Uri Geller, is everyone was determined that

he was faking it-that with sleight of hand

when you weren’t looking, he was taking the

objed, bending it, and bringing it back out.

 

That’s what the James Randi’s of the world will

insist takes place. They all refer to it as «metal

bending.» Well, of course, anyone who has seen

the phenomenon first hand-up close, where

it’s happening in your own hand-knows that

it’s not metal bending at all. It’s metal softening.

 

There is a period of time in which the substance

of the material is interfered with in some

way, so that it no longer has the rigidity that it

had, and during that time either the weight of

the end of a spoon, or residual stresses and

strains in the object, can cause it to appear to

move by itself. It’s soft for about 30 seconds. I

have held this kind of material. During that

period, it’s not hot; it’s very slippery. It feels sort

of spongy. You almost feel like you are putting

your fingers through it in a strange kind of way.

 

So David Bohm thought, well, if we are really

interfering at the core afiangement of matter

some way by this, maybe something will

change that we don’t normally observe. Normally

the inertial mass and the gravitational

mass of an object are the same. He decided to

see if, under the conditions of this bizarre interference,

the two were different.

 

He handed Uri a key, which was a master key

to Birkback College, and he asked him to work

on it. It was not the kind of thing Uri was likely

to have in his pocket. This key had been

weighed by the head of the physicsdepartment

(whom you’d think could weigh a key) to 4 or

5 decimal places on a very fancy pan balance.

Let’s say, for description, that it weighed 12

grams; not very heavy. Uri got the key and did

his thing, and was, I think, puzzled that Bohm

wasn’t &lly paying attention to how he did it.

 

If Uri was doing something really paranormal,

mass and gravitational mass of the object

would diverge; but if he was just faking it, it

would be the same. So there was a control built

in that didn’t depend on us observing how Uri

did it. (That was a built-in thing I don’t think

you find skeptics thinking of.) But anyway, so

the key induecourse was now like this [indicating

its modified shape], and was put back on

the balance and it weighed 11 grams. (I’m

rounding off the numbers.) There was this kind

of puzzlement-you know, was there a piece of

it missing? No, it was all there, but it didn’t

weigh the same. They said, «Oh,» and they

weighed it again every 10 minutes. I tell you

that we weighed that thing for 2 hours, every

10 minutes, and put it back, put it back. They

said, «Well, this is impossible. It must have been

a mistake.. . it was probably 11 grams all along.»

You know.. . it just couldn’t be. So everyone went

home.

 

The key remained in the lab, locked up in a

box. Many phone calls flying back and forth.

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

What do you think? What do I think? You

know, everybody was talking on this business.

They all came back in the next morning and-

12 grams! Oh, probably was never 11 grams,

you know.

 

Now we tried to write this up and we wrote

down the detailed description of the experiment.

The head of the physics department at

Birkback normally would have entry to the

better journals and certainly to Nature and

Scienceand so forth. He knew John Maddox, the

editor of Nature, personally. There was a

physicist from Cambridge, Bowman Housted,

and myself as the co-authors. The paper was

sent in and we got a phone call saying we can’t

print this, this didn’t happen! You can’t say that

this happened. You can only say that you had

a difficulty observing these phenomena. You

can write a piece about the difficulties of doing

work in the area of paranormal research, but

you cannot publish this data. So that’s what got

published in Nature. Nature, you know?

 

Now there are far worse things than this that

happened. For example, John Halstead had the

Cavendish Labs in Cambridge make a disk, a

little flat disk of silicon carbide-+ very tough

substance. It’s about the same toughness as a

diamond. This was sealed in a glass tube. You

could hold it in your hand, but you couldn’t get

at it without breaking the glass. Again, this is

one of these situations where Geller was

brought in without preparation. He didn’t

know what he was going to be handed. They

worked on it, and he was trying tobend it. Well,

that was an interesting idea, because of course,

a substance like that wouldn’t bend, anyway. I

mean, that’s not a property that it has.

 

Well, what ended up happening was that it

looked like a bite was taken out of it. I mean,

that area from the 6 o’clock to the 3 o’clock

position of the circle was just missing. That piece

was not rattling around inside the tube, it was

just gone. I looked at John, and John looked at

me and said, ‘Well we can’t even call John

Maddox about this.» So at a certain level, then,

I began to sort of think, «What am I getting into

here? If I do observe more and more things that

become more and more outside the realm of

what I’m supposed to we.. . .» Well of course,

we know what you call people like thatthey’re

crazy! You become the bearer of the

unacceptable to a degree where you are considered

to have lost it.

 

I very much rather carefully backpedalled

from all this research asa result, because I could

see what was going to happen here. Needless

to say, it’s very interesting. David Bohm has

never said a word about this. You won’t find

any writing about it. John Halstead did write

about it. He’s written several books and discredited

himself in the process. People shake

their heads and say, «Well, you know, poor

John. Not the same, you know.» It’s all very

subtle, or maybe not so subtle on some occasions,

but one wonders what we are doing to

ourselves in our culture by this process.

I began to look later, then, at safer things.

 

There were all kinds of other things that wedid.

I began to look at the phenomena around other

kinds of mind-people with multiple personality

for exampl-nd this was an area that

I really went into because of talking to other

doctors. Every couple of years I attend the

American Psychiatric Association meetings,

just to keep in touch with what’s going on.

 

Around 1984, I attended the meetings and

ran into people like Dr. Frank Putnam at the

National Institute of Mental Health, Bennett

Braun at Rush Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago,

and Richard Kluft from the University of

Pennsylvania. These were all people who had

patients who were multiple personalities. I

began to hear some rather wild things that were

true of these people: that they were allergic to

a drug in one personality and not in another,

that they had diabetes in one personality and

not in another, that they needed eyeglass

prescriptions in one personality and not in

another. (Here is another entry point into the

study of what we call the plasticity of the mind.

 

There is an ability to modulate and control. It

was a big rage at the beginning of the 1970’s

when biofeedback happened and we found we

could alter brain waves and could alter blood

pressure mentally by giving people feedback.

 

We thought a whole new era had arrived which

would develop an expanded human being, but

that’s been edited out, too. In fact, in many

generations it’s forgotten, but it’s still sort of big

news. I have people coming in to me at Noetics,

not knowing how long I have been around this

stuff, and saying, «Have you heard about this

extraordinary thing? We can aLl modify our

own brain waves.» And I say, ‘Yes, I did it 20

years ago.»)

In these cases of multiples, some other things

go on that pose even more difficult problems. I

thought I was making it simpler by keeping

away from this other stuff. Little did I realize I

was actually going to make it more difficult.

 

What began to happen was that I had to take a

completely different view of the human mind.

It was a completely different situation. Unfortunately,

there was a deeply sad part to this.

 

Multiples by and large are all a phenomenon as

a result of extreme physical abuse. They have

You can write a piece

about the dificulties

of doing work in the

area of paranormal

research, but you

cannot publish this

data.

 

If I do observe more

and more things that

become more and

more outside the

realm of what I’m

supposed to see.. .

well of course, we

know what you call

people like thatyou’re

crazy!

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

How do you process

this reality wherein

a parent, who is

supposed to be the

loving one, turns

into a monster and

starts doing these

kinds of things?

 

The interesting thing

is that you say:

«Well, what are we

dealing with? Are we

dealing with a mind

breaking into pieces

of itself, or are we

dealing with a mind

that does that and

then attracts other

things, other bodies

of knowledge?’I

all been abused physically and sexually over

many years. These are people who have

developed the mental resources to escape an

appalling reality. That’s really what’s going on.

 

They can’t be there. Most of the time this is

happening because of aberrations by parents

with children. How do you process this reality

wherein a parent, who is supposed to be the

loving one, turns into a monster and starts

doing these kinds of things?

 

I made a very deliberate choice in the reports

that I wrote about this for the Institute, which

are available from us. I decided that I would not

write about that at all, because I did not want

to even bring out into the culture an awareness

of that sort of thing. Some of these people were

really quite amazing, because they would have

abilities in one personality that they didn’t have

in the others. One very famous case which you

can read about is in a book called Tk Minds of

Billy Milligan. I don’t know if any of you have

seen that book, but it’s available in paperback.

 

1 spent time interviewing Cornelia Wilbur, who

is one of the therapists called in. She also was

the therapist for the woman described in the

book, Sybil, which was a movie that %lly Field

was in. I also interviewed David Cowl, who

was a therapist for Billy Milligan.

 

Billy was a very interesting man. He is still

an interesting man, though I think he’s back in

jail. The curious thing is that male multiples

frequently are criminals in one form or another.

I believe many of the serial killers in our prisons

are multiples who become other people, do not

know what they are doing, carry no memory of

it, and have an activity that they carry out in a

covert way. The female multiples, by the way,

tend not to be involved in the criminal activity.

 

It’s a very interesting difference.

In Billy’s case, he had a personality (which I

intend no pun on my own name here) called

«Ragan.» (I always hate it when my name is

mispronounced that way). Anyway, Ragan (in

his case) came from a functional name of a

property. Ragan was «rage again.» Ragan had

superhuman strength. Billy was born and

raised in Lancaster, Ohio, so he had a certain

kind of cultural background. Ragan spoke

fluent Serbo-Croatian, a language from a completely

other part of the world, which he had

not heard of. He had another personality

named Arthur. Arthur spoke with an English

accent, and believed that he was a doctor who

grew up in England. Arthur had another ability

which was that he could read and write fluent

Arabic, which is all rather peculiar.

I came up to David Cowl and I said, «Is this

really true about Billy?» He said, «Yes, but I

don’t want to talk about it. I have trouble

enough getting these cases taken seriously on a

psychiatric level, because the psychiatric

profession doesn’t really want this diagnosis to

be real at all.»

 

This isa big argument right now in what they

call the DSM 3 which is The Diagnostics and

Statistical Manual that defies psychiatric diagnoses.

It’s being rewritten at the moment by

David Spiegel at Stanford and FrankPutnam at

NIMH. A multiple is most likely to be misdiagnosed,

on average seven times, and on average

be classified as a schizophrenic or a borderline

case or a temporal-lobe epilepsy case or various

other kinds of things. The interesting thing is

that you say: ‘Well, what are we dealing with?

Are we dealing with a mind breaking into

pieces of itself, or are we dealing with a mind

that does that and then attracts other things,

other bodies of knowledge?» Now that gets

into a very peculiar business which is sort of

akin to what we’ve all become rather familiar

with in the culture of the phenomena of channeling,

where people disassociate. This is the

common denominator. There is a dissociative

state, a trance state, a removal from the present

input, the present perception, and a person

then saying, «I am available.» You know …

«Anybody out there? I am available.» Then

they begin to manifest phenomena. Thecurious

thing is that we don’t really know how to conceptualize

this at all in the Western modelof the

mind that is with us now.

 

It so happened that at the same time I was

doing that work, I was also visiting Brazil and

looking at healing practices. I don’t know if any

of you have been there or know about that

culture, but it is one of the most fascinating

mixes of races and ideas and metaphysical systems.

 

That is one example of an entire culture

driven by an expanded view of the person.

They, of course, have these kinds of situations

down there, but they conceptualize it quite

differently. The Candobe and Ambonda

religions are Afro-Brazilian religions that came

in with the slaves that were brought from West

Africa, and which then ultimately blended

with the Amazonian Indians. It’s a very curious

mix. They have the whole thing figured out in

a different way. They say it’s all «externalized

spirits.» If you are behaving properly, you have

incorporated good spirits; if you’re behaving

badly, you have incorporated bad spirits.

 

I remember at the University of Sao Paulo, a

woman anthropologist telling me about a case

she investigated. This was a fascinating story

because if you think about what would happen

to the same person in this country or this culMAY

 

17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

t w , versus what happened down there, and

you put the two across from each other, you

realize that we both are rational-both end up

in a result that you would call healing. In this

case, there was a woman who was normally a

quiet, conservative mother of two in a poor

suburb of Sao Paolo, a huge city, bigger than

Manhattan. She would be found on the street,

in a completely different personality, comrnitting

petty crimes and selling her body. She was

taken to the mental hospital many times where

she had been given shock treatments. She’d

been given drugs, she’d been given this and

that. Multiples don’t respond to any of these

treatments the same as any other person. You

don’t know which personality you are giving

thedrug to, and whetherthey areallergic tothe

drug or not.

 

The family realized this was about the

seventh or eighth time that this had happened.

They went to the hospital and they pleaded

with them. They said, «Let us take her to the

Ambonda center,» which was the Afro-

Brazilian religion that is predominant in the

Sao Paolo ar&. Each of these centers is run by

what they call either a Midisanto or Pidisanto,

Mother of the Saint. That is a person who can

incorporatebring in-a spirit of great power.

That’s how they are chosen. They have that

ability.

 

So the woman was brought in, in a strait

jacket, and was laid in front of the Midisanto,

who said, «Well, take off the strait jacket.» But

they said, «Oh, no, she’s going to be violent.»

 

She said, «No, no, do it when I say.» The

Midisanto entered her form of prayer and

called in her spirit, and simultaneously the

woman lying struggling in the strait jacket just

went completely limp, lying there quite peacefully.

 

The Midisanto studied her for a while,

and said, «Ah, there are seven different spirits

fighting for control of this soul.» They called in

seven trained transmediums, who happened to

be all women, who lie on the floor like spokes

of a wheel with their heads to the center. One

spirit is cast into each one, and this huge argument

erupts. They all start shouting at each

other, «Who the hell are you? How did you get

in here? This is my body!» An enormous sort of

fragmentation, but it’s the first time that all of

them can speak together.

 

Now if it was in this country, hypnosis would

be used to draw them out oneat a time. It would

be videotaped and the record would be stored.

 

The person would be gradually shown them

and the amnestic barrier between the personalities

would be slowly broken down.

That’s what we do here. That’s what fusion of

I a multiple involves in the United States. Down

there they get into a slightly more expanded

process and they have seven people working,

and they all do it together. There was a negotiation

in which the Midisanto said, «Look, you

have a choice. The destiny of this soul is not

your destiny. You either help it or leave. What

do you want to do?» They negotiated a truce.

They all wanted to stay and they all wanted to

see if they could help out, but they all wanted

to come back and talk again in a month in case

it wasn’t working. The whole thing continued

and they were all reincorporated back into the

woman, who then reached consciousness and

said, «What happened?» She had no memory

of what was going on.

 

It’s interesting.. . take the same phenomena

in different cultures and look at it through different

lenses and what do you get? You get very

different outcomes sometimes. Of course, for a

multiple, fusion is a terrifying process because

it’s a kind of dying. It’s a kind of saying goodbye

to a part of you. The interesting thing about

them is that they will havepersonalitiesthat are

there for a particular purpose, to take the pain,

for example.

 

I remember one case where a woman that I

had met, one of the most extraordinary ones

that I ever encountered, had one personality

that was completely anesthetic, could feel no

pain at all. She had to have some way to deal

with that. Now what does that say if the mind,

by a decision, can switch on and off throughout

the whole body, the sensation of pain? That’s

quite amazing. I think we need to understand

that, not in the way-the sad way-that it arrives

in these people’s lives, but in a more

constructive kind of way.

 

Now there are other pieces to this. You could

say, «Well, how does this ultimately lead us into

thinking about reality in the physical sense as

well?» There really are some completely new

ways of thinking about mind and about information-

not just in the person, but in time and

space itself-that are beginning to correspond

here, which is very, very interesting.

 

I think I’m partly looking at these phenomena

through another lens, as it were, when I am

looking at the phenomenon of spontaneous

remission of cancer. We have the largest

database in the world of medically reported

cases of remissions from cancer and other

major diseases, and these are cases where it

could be lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma,

genito-urinary. The whole spectrum is represented.

 

Normally, in a majority of people, these

things progress to their demise, but in these

cases something changes it, and a disease that

. . .take the same

phenomena in

different cultures

and look at it through

different lenses and

what do you get?

You get very

different outcomes

sometimes.

Now what does that

say if the mind, by a

decision, can switch

on and off

throughout the whole

body, the sensation of

pain? That’s quite

amazing.

 

SClENTmC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

. . .in these cases

something changes it

and a disense that is

normally irreversible

becomes reversible. A

plasticity of some

kind is present.

 

The w u mis

supposed to mean

nothingness, the

absence 4 matter.

Well, it may be the

absence of matter,

but it isn’t the

absence of energy.

 

Even down at the

level of what they

call absolute zero

temperature, there is

still movement.

 

is normally irreversible becomes reversible. A

plasticity of some kind is present. When we are

looking at this, we are saying, ‘Wait a minute,

we have left out a whole chapter.» You ask

yourself, what is it about these things that is in

common with how the physicists arebeginning

to view reality?

 

Now, it is very popular to talk about the Tao

of physics and holographic theories, and so on,

but when you come right down to it, you have

to ask about concepts of order and the rearrangement

of order in the body. That’s what’s

going on when a tumor is reabsorbed, reversed,

removed. The order in the process, or the disorder

in process, the loss in growth control that

is a cancer, is that something comes in and says

‘No!» to it. These are sort of discontinuities.

These are forms of looking at order that are

quite different. In chaos theory, which is

peculiarly named, you have the recognition of

a new kind of order in a process that previously

looked disorded. It ends up d ybei ng a physics

of information, and it’s a physics of information

that is at the level of the molecule and at

the level of the body, and, 1 think, at the level of

the mind in a strange kind of way. Some of that

is beginning to @very, very interesting now.

Our whole concept of energy, I think, isabout

to go through a big plt of change. One of the

things that is now beginning to happen is a

reexamination of the idea of the vacuum. One

of the things that got banished at the end of the

last century was the idea that there was the

ether, the all-permeating form of energy. That

may be resurfacing in a new form, and what is

interesting about it is that they have begun to

look at the vacuum itself. The vacuum is supposed

to mean nothingness, the absence of matter.

 

Well, it may be the absence of matter, but it

isn’t the absence of energy. Even down at the

level of what they call absolute zero temperature,

there is still movement. There is still energy

present, which is now called the zero point

energy of the vacuum. The interesting thing is

that when the physicists start calculating how

much is there, it turns out to be enormous. It is

as though we live in this dimensional interface

where &onnous forces are exactly poised and

canceling out. If you just slightly push that off

balance, an amazing amount of energy can be

released.

 

The curious thing is that Sakarov (the famous

Soviet physicist, who you have all heard of

because of his political problems), who is really

the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb project,

in 1951, wrote a paper that is ignored most of

the time, except by a few people, in which he

said, «What if gravity itself is not the product

of huge masses, planets, moons, earths having

fields that affect each other at a distance? What

if it is in fact coming from fluctuations in the

zero point energy of the vacuum itself, that it’s

down at that level that gravityis created?» That

physics is now beginning to be pulled off the

shelf, dusted off, and people are beginning to

realize that it’s a very viable way of thinking.

 

 

There are a series of papers that have appeared

now in physical review letters. Ironically,

the author of them is the same man who did

the work on Uri Geller and the whole psychickinesis

work at Stanford all those years ago.

 

Those of us who internalized all that information

20 years ago, haven’t forgotten what we

saw. We’re simply saying, is there a way to

make sense of this in some new way? Can it

comeout into another form? The irony with this

is that it may mean that new forms of energy

devices are possible, involving the creation of

fluctuations in the zero point energy of the

vacuum.

 

Some of this is what’s going on with the

so-called cold-fusion research, which is not

cold fusion-neuer was fusion. They misnamed

it, and, of course, got into the whole editorial

censorship of th; scientific community for

making a mistake on naming a phenomenon.

There is a phenomenon. I was at a conference

on all this-at Stanford, a day-long meeting in

which everybody called each other every name

in the book. It’s amazing how the ad hominem

attacks, you know, and I said, «Look, can we

get back to the phenomenon here?» There really

are these bursts of energy that come out in

these experiments, but they can’t predict when

they’re corning.

 

Well, if I had more time, I could give you a

whole story about why I think that is, but this

sort of thing is going to-shift our view. he other

side of the coin is that there is another whole

body of information that, again, we edit outwe

say it’s not real-and that’s the whole area

of the better research on extraterrestrial contact

and UFO research. If you say to yourself, ‘Well

all right, maybe these people are deluded, but

let’s lookat thebest cases.» Let’s lookat theones

that the National Security Agency says it

doesn’t follow, doesn’t research. How is it that

Freedom of Information suits have revealed 280

documents in National Security Agency in an area

that they don’t follow? You go into the CIA, you

go into NASA, you go into DOD, I mean.. . you

know!

 

I have here with me a book that has not come

out in this country. It just came out in England,

which really pushes the limits altogether here.

It’s called Alien Liaisons, the Ultimate Secret. It’s

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

looking at the whole idea that in fact we actually

have in our possession crash examples of

these technologies, and we are actually using

some of this technology now. You say, ‘Well,

what’s really going on in Nevada, and how did

the Stealth Bomber, the invisible aircraft, suddenly

get into our hands, anyway?» There’s all

sorts of interesting stuff there.

 

What is going on in that research, according

to the anecdotal stuff that comes out of it, is

microcontrol of gravity. It is the same thing: it’s

the zero point of energy of the vacuum. We are

beginning to get a conceptual basis that would

lead to a logical extrapolation for creating the

kinds of phenomena that you would say are a

part of a very advanced civilization.

 

Now I have spoken at some length with the

man who has decided tocome out and blow the

whistle on some of that research. And I said to

him, and I will end with this, «Bob, my guess is

that we have brains and brain-mind link-ups

that were designed to operate in stable gravity.

 

And my guess is that if you were working on a

device that could change the local gravitational

field, it would distort your perception in a

strange way, would it not?» There was a sort of

a pause, and he said, «How did you know

that?» I said, ‘7 don’t know it, I could just infer

from everything else I have learned over the

years that a technology that could in fact

manipulate gravity would change the spacetime

fabric in the region in which it was operating,

and that, if you turned up the power, it

would become invisible, because the light coming

from it would no longer travel in a straight

line. It would bend around in a circle.» He said,

«Yes, that’s what happens, and that’s why it’s

so hard to work on this technology. When you

switch it on, youcan’t seeit.» It also has an effect

on the brain. The irony about UFO research is

that you have people saying, «I thought I saw

this, or it did this and then it disappeared.» He

points out that in any technology that is based

on gravitational control, you are never seeing it

as it actually is. You are only seeing a distorted

picture of it. We all accept that what we see

coming from the heavens is as they were many

light years ago. We know that’s not a real time

image in the sky out there, so we accept that,

but we don’t deal with the fact that close in

manipulation of space, time and light would

actually affect our ability to perceive reality in

the first place. So what if where we’re heading

here is really a place that only the mind itself

can go? I think that’s the exciting part of the

next decade.

 

I Thank you very much.

So what if where

we’re heading here is

really a place that

only the mind itself

can go? I think that’s

the exciting part of

the next decade.

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

by

Marta Elders, Ph.D.

 

A student of The Urantia

Book for many yems,

Elders remmad P h.D .

in counseling psychology.

She is presently working at

Washington S q m

Institute in New York City;

Center for Hope in Darien,

~onn&icut; hnd with a

national program for

minority students.

 

. . .where our consciousness

is, where

our awareness is, has

a powerful impact on

what we actually see

and acknowledge in

front of us.

 

Psychology as a

of Religious Expe

Author’s Note: While this talk was spoken extempore,

it has been modified here to adjust to the

written word.

* * *

 

Hello. (The audience responded.)

I am going to try an exercise here in the

shifting of consciousness. First I greeted you

and you greeted me back in the initial hello.

 

And that is the way we frequently acknowledge

one another, without too much thought

beyond the fact that this is another person in

front of me. NOW this(demonstratingihehands

placed together in front of the chest with the

head briefly bowed in acknowledgment) is an

indication of acknowledging the God within, a

greeting frequently used in some gatherings.

This behavior is symbolically quite different

from the first hello. What I am looking at here,

and what this exercise briefly demonstrates, is

that where our consciousn&s is, where our

awareness is, has a powerful impact on what

we actually see and acknowledge in front of us.

 

I’m sure many of you are familiar with the

quote in The Urantia Book that it is our thoughts,

not our feelings, that lead us Godward. The

way we hold our thinking is where we truly

live. The way we hold our thinking is how we

can be with God.

 

I was asked to speak about psychology and

what is happening in the field. But as I began

my preparation I decided to focus on the

psychological insights that are offered in The

Urantia Book. It is noteworthy, however, that

there is an increasing spiritual awareness in

certain branches of psychology, particularly

transpersonal psychology. And for those of you

who are interested in pursuing thinkers who

have addressed religion, spirituality, spiritual

development, and consciousness from a

psychological viewpoint, I would suggest

reading Abraham Maslow, Carl Jung, Roberto

Assagioli, Ken Wilbur, Michael Washburn, and

George Kuhlewind.

 

But, I chose to talk about psychology from

The Urantia Book viewpoint. And I have struggled

for months trying to decide what I was

going to say here today, how I was going to say

it, and, in fact, I am still working on it. I took the

word psychology literally; that i s t h e knowing

of the soul, the psyche logos. And I believe

that the «knowing of the soul» is where certain

branches of psychology are heading. So what

Variety

insights are available from The Urantia Book in

this endeavor? What is the soul? How does one

know one’s soul? What is identity? What is self?

 

What is material self? What is ego? What is

material mind? How does mind function? How

do these constructs and realities come into existence,

interact, develop, and grow? In an attempt

toward further understanding and to

stimulate our soul awareness I am going to

briefly describe our development as I understand

it to be presented in The Urantia Book. As

I do this, I invite each of you to bring your own

lives present, to bring them present in your

consciousness, to bring your sense of self into

your awareness, who you think you are; and

then see how the words and descriptions work

in your life. Do the words fit with your experience?

What do they mean in your life?

 

Interestingly, words, in and of themselves, are

meaningless. They are but symbols. It is only

our experience that fills out the words and

gives some meaning to us. So hopefully as you

bring your own experience to the words there

may be enrichment, movement, change, and

whatever was there before may be a little different

after.

 

Each of us began as an embryo. As we

formed, a brain formed. Our material mind,

our use of the adjutant minds is dependent on

our brain capacity. The brain will be the

hardware and the seven adjutant mind-spirits,

which have been bestowed by the local

universe Mother Spirit, will be the software.

Whenever thebrainbegins to function, I believe

the lower adjutants have become operative.

The first five adjutants-intuition, understanding,

courage, knowledge, and counselare

considered animal, subhuman; the top two,

worship and wisdom, are considered moral or

human. After approximately nine months of

gestation, a baby is born. It is my belief that

sometimeafter birth but before attaining a year,

personality is bestowed. Once personality has

been bestowed on this living energy system, on

our vehicle, there is the potential for selfconsciousness.

We can become aware that we are.

 

I can know that I am. You can know that you

are. And as this self-conscious being we fonn

an identity. This identity that we construct, and

are most likely living out of, can be referred to

as a material self-identity and is usually how

we describe who we are. For example, a child

 

MAY 17-19,1991 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

 

might identify himself or herself as a good girl,

a fast runner, superman, daddfs helper, a bad

eater, etc. This material identity is very much

determined and affected by our family, the

community that we live in, the culture that we

grow up in, what we see on TV, etc. This social

and cultural context forms the frame in which

we decide who we are. In our exploration,

developmentally, we now have been bestowed

with personality, have begun to construct a

material self-identity, and are functioning

mostly on the first five adjutant mind spirits.

 

In the process of becoming, of growing, we

usethe sixthadjutant, the spirit of worship,and

at some subsequent time the seventh, the spirit

of wisdom. With the use of the seventh adjutant,

we make a moral decision. You and I

choose something that is greater than the self;

we make a decision that is truly moral. At that

moment a Thought Adjuster is bestowed, a soul

is initiated, and psychic circle growth begins.

 

Essentially at this point we have a child

developing along a material track that is establishing

a material self-identity, a personhood,

while simultaneously the soul, a quasi-spiritual

reality, is germinating. Our soul is in embryonic

form. This soul will be built and added to every

time a moral decision is made, every time a

supreme decision is made, every time truth is

touched, every time beauty is touched, every

time goodness is touched. There is this incredible

fabric being woven inside our beings,

that at some time will be our identity-this

incredibly beautiful, exquisite creation that

most of the time we don’t even perceive. So,

here we are in our lives making decisions in the

material world and creating our souls.

 

To me psychic circle growth, which appears

to be a stage process, is true human development,

is true maturation on this planet. As this

occurs the soul grows, there is increasing Adjuster

attunement, there is mind attainment,

and increasing personality status. Developmental

theorists have perceived aspects of this

growth and have contributed much to the

psychological literature. Lawrence Kohlberg

and Carol Gilligan have done work with moral

development. James Fowler has pursued faith

development. ErikErikson has done work with

ego development. I think each of these individuals

has seen, from a particular perspective,

the manifestations of this developmental

process.

 

Again here we are in our lives, living in and

from how we see ourselves, how we identify

ourselves, mostly living in our ego identities,

our material selves, as mother, father, teacher,

student, driver, shopper, etc. When we answer

the question «Who am I?» or ‘What am I

doing?» we will be pointed toward where we

live. We live in our thinking. When we greeted

one another before we noticed where we live.

 

That is the consciousness that we usually live

1. In reality there seems to be two selves from

which we can liv-ne the material self and

the other the soul. Given that we usually live

from the material self, how might we switch to

living from our soul selves? How do we make

that move? How do I make that move? How do

you? Certainly we can talk about prayer, and

we can talk about worship, and we can talk

about being with God. But clearly, it is more

than talking about-it is really living there.

 

One of the struggles that I had in preparing

for this talk was that when I started I believed

that the ego self was not wanted, not desired. I

believed that I needed to transcend it, to let go

of it, to not be it. That’s not quite where I am

today. The sense that I have now is that this self

in its fullness is what needs to be committed to

God. The full self in its completeness, in its

richness, in its maturity, in its full psychic cimle

growth, in its full mind mastery, is what we

need to give our Father so that he can live

through us, so that his love can flow through

us in this incredible way. And yet, it remains

seemingly difficult to shift from this material

self to this soul identity. We are alerted to the

perimeter of conflict in The Urantia Book. There

we are warned about how hard the material

mind will hold on to us, how we cling to our

material self. Especially when we have done

well. Especially when our lives are good. Especially

when we have been successful. Why?

 

Because we like it, we like how we feel about

ourselves, we like how our life is working. We

are happy. We know how to get things done.

We know how to make our lives work Why

should we shift? In contrast, if we are in pain,

if our lives are not working if our lives are

falling apart, then we are m;ch more likely to

reach out and get help. But when it is good, it’s

hard to do that.

 

So what might it be like to enter that fringe

of conflict and move into our souls? To me that

is the place where we close our eyes and we

open our hearts. That’s the place where we take

that leap of faith. I think that this place is oftentimes

best described by our poets, by our artists,

by our musicians. They have reached in, or

taken that jump, and then tried to bring their

experience back to a material description.

 

There is a line in T.S. Eliot’s «Four Quartets,»

where he describes this shift into the soul as:

«where the darkness becomes the light, and the

stillness, the dance.» That’s exquisite. The still-

In reality there seems

to be two selves from

which we can liveone

the material self

and the other the

soul. Given that we

usually live from the

material self, how

might we switch to

living from our soul

selves?

 

. . .what might it be

like to enter that

fringe of conflict and

move into our souls?

 

SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM I1

 

This injunction

works both in terms

of our being w’th

andher person and

our being open to

truth when it is

presented to us. And

yet we hesitate. Why?

 

The sense that I have

is that it’s all in

place, the only thing

we sometimes do is

get in the way-get

in our own way.

 

ness, the dance, the shift, thedarkness, the light.

I think it is darkness that we go into initially,

that we literally do close our eyes and open our

eyes of faith. Jesus commented, «…you see not

with the eye of faith, and you hear not with the

understanding of the spirit,» which says to me

we need to see with theeyeof faith, that’s where

we need to see from. We need to hear with the

understanding of the spirit. When we are in a

situation, can we take our consciousness, and

can we lookto see with the eye of faith? Can we

listen to hear with the understanding of the

spirit? This injunction works both in terms of

our being with another person and our being

open to truth when it is presented to us. And

yet we hesitate. Why?

 

In The Urantia Book there is a statement that

there are, among others, two attitudes or states

that inhibit growth, one being ignorance and

the other being prejudice. When I think of those

attitudes in terms of my own thinking, they

seem to be most active when I have a closed

mind, a prejudicial mind, when I have prejudged

a situation, when I think1 know the way

things are, when I have the answers, when my

frame is closed and 1 am not looking to know

more. These attitudes will keep me far away

from that fringe of conflict, confident in my

own limited thinking, and not hungry for

growth.Theemotions of anxiety, fear, envy,and

palousy will help maintain this position. And

the wall will keep the inside from getting out

and the outside from getting in. And I will

remain isolated in my self, defended against the

very truth I need. One time Ganid inquired of

Jesus why he had not interacted with a certain

man, and Jesus replied: «Ganid, the man was

not hungry for truth. He was not dissatisfied

with himself. He was not ready to ask for help,

and the eyes of his mind were not open to

receive light for the soul.»

 

Take a moment to again bring your own life

up, your own presentation of yourself to yourself,

and let it just be there. What are your

inhibitors? What are your stumbling blocks?

Let yourself see what needs to be opened. Let

yourself see what your fears are; see what is

getting in your way, what you need to do to

move into your soul, to commit to your Father.

 

I mentioned that one of the insights I had

while preparing was this commitment of the

selfhood from its own fullness. This was beautifully

articulated when Jesus went up into the

hills following his baptism and the two minds

were made one. And I quote: ‘The results of this

momentous season of meditation demonstrated

conclusively that the divine mind has

triumphantly and spiritually dominated the

human intellect. The mind of man has become

the mind of Cod from this time on, and [this is

the part that caught my attention] though the

selfhood of the mind of man is ever present [the

selfhood, the being that had been developed,

the man], always does the spiritualized human

mind say, ‘not my will, but your be done.»‘ It is

as if our selfhood is almost embraced by our

larger divinity. Another quote also expresses

this: ‘The marks of human response to the

religious impulse embrace the qualities of

nobility and grandeur. The sincere religionist is

conscious of universe citizenship, and is aware

of making contact with sources of superhuman

power. He is thrilled and energized with the

assurance of belonging to a superior and ennobled

fellowship of the sons of God. [And

here’s where I’d like to highlight.] The consciousness

of self worth has become augmented

by the stimulus of the quest for the

highest universe objedives, supreme goals. The

self has surrendered to the intriguing drive of

an allencompassing motivation which imposes

self discipline, lessens emotion conflict,

and makes mortal life truly worth living.»

 

One wonders what else would promote this

shift into a more divine awareness. One possibility

from the Jesus Papers: ‘To become acquainted

with one’s brothers and sisters, to

know their problems, and to learn to love them

is the supreme experience of living.» That is

supremacy. Our souls are part of the Supreme.

Our interactions with one another can be a

Supreme experience, the experience of

Supremacy. And then there is this suggestion,

«Each race must become familiar with the

thought of all races. Each nation must know the

feelings of all nations. lgnorance breeds

suspicion, and suspicion is incompatible with

the essential attitude of sympathy and love.»

 

For a moment, suppose we were able to shift

our seat of identity from material self to the soul

and live from that place, at least attempt to live

from that place some of the time. Most likely

we would be quite mature and would have

realized much of the psychic circle growth. As

we made decisions we would probably check

them out with God first, using that as a grounding

point, a centering place. What else? What

else do we need to allow to happen? What is

needed? The sense that I have is that it’s all in

place, the only thing we sometimes do is get in

the way-get in our own way. In reality all we

have to do is fully commit to this, all we have

to do is wholeheartedly choose to do it. There

is a statement that «the great problem of

religious living consists in the task of unifylng

the soul powers of the personality by the

 

MAY 17-19.1991 OKLAHOMA CITY. OKLAHOMA

 

dominance of love.» So, it’s love. Where do we

get love? Where does it go? What do we do with

it?

 

«All true love is from God, and man receives

the divine affection as he himself bestows this

love upon his fellows.» That’s where it comes

from, that’s where it goes. It’s the flow. It’s the

flow of the universe. It’s the energy of the

universe. ‘Zove is dynamic, it can never be

captured. It is alive, free, thrilling, and always

moving. Man can never take the love of the

Father and imprison it within his heart.»

 

Doesn’t work ‘The Father’s love can become

real to mortal man only by passing through that

man’s personality as he in turn bestows this

love upon his fellows. The great circuit of love

is from theFather, through the sons, to brothers,

and hence to the Supreme. The love of the

Father appears in the mortal personality by the

ministry of the indwelling Adjuster. Such a

God-knowing son reveals this love to his

universe brethren and this fraternal affection is

the essence of the love of the Supreme.» It is

supremacy. It is the coming into existence of the

Supreme. It is the living of Supremacy. «Man

can discover the Father in his heart, but he will

have to search for the Supreme in the hearts of

all other men. And when all creatum perfectly

reveal the love of the Supreme, then will he

become a universe actuality to all creatures!’

 

And here we are, with our lives in front of us,

left with the question, thegreat challenge: ‘Will

you decide to personalize the experiencible

value meanings of the cosmos into your own

evolving selfhood?» And that, to me, is

psychology, the knowing of the soul, the creating

of the soul, as a variety of religious

experience.

 

«All true love is

from God, and man

receives the divine affection

as he himself

bestows this love

upon his fellows.»