[GJM] Fw: "Science and the Akashic Field" - book report

[marguerite hampton]

 Hi Richard and all Co-Learner's 

 Much appreciation for this.  What appears to me is that the Akashic-Field
is composed of "attractor fields" or "morphogenic fields" (Rupert Sheldrake)
within which all intelligence is encoded in such a way a to make up the 
whole'. These fields tend to aggragate as "patterns
of life" or "lifeforms'. .   .  . 

Much of Dr. Vern Woolf's research recorded in "The Dance Of Life" (2006) 
takes us beyond Lazlo's findings, as does the work of many researchers such
as Carl Pribam, Roger Penrose; cellular biologist, Dr.  Bruce Lipton,
biologist, Dr. Mae Wan Ho; neruoscientists 
Dr. Carla Hannaford and Dr. Paul McLean, and that of physiobiolgist Dr.
Valerie V.Hunt; 
and researcher Dr. John Chilton Pearce, among others. 

While physics is largely a "theoretical field" where "the rubber meets the
pavement" today lies within the development of instrumentation now able to
record the workings of the subtle energy fields of both the human body and
of the cosmos, and to reveal how they intersect one another to create what
Dr. Fritjov Capra refers to as "the web of life". 

What is difficult is that all of these "findings" are scattered and recorded
in many different places.  It is my intent, through compiling "The Sacred
Quest," coupled with the assembly of a website entitled" Pathways to
Consciousness," to bring all of the components, so far known with regard to
human and cosmic consciousness, together in one place so that we may review 
the whole" in all of its multi-dimensionalities.  Only by mapping the 
theory of everything " in this manner can we begin to know/learn what
consciousness is and thus how to manage it effectively. 
 
In accomplishing this, it is evident that a new language is emerging to
describe "the new science"
in which consciousness is recorded.   

marguerite        

  

 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Richard Moore
Date: 01/25/07 09:52:19
To: cj at cyberjournal.org; renaissance-network at cyberjournal.org
Cc: newslog at cyberjournal.org
Subject: "Science and the Akashic Field" - book report
 
"Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything",
Ervin Laszlo, Inner Traditions, Vermont, 2004.
 
On Amazon:
http://www.amazon
com/Science-Akashic-Field-Integral-Everything/dp/1594770425/sr=1-1/qid=116972
697/
 
______________
 
In my mind, the classic paradigm of science was the confrontation
between Galileo and the Bishop. Galileo said, "Look through the
telescope and you will see the moons of Jupiter." The Bishop refused
to look and said that he knew there were no moons because that's what
can be concluded from scripture. This scenario is often characterized
as a confrontation between science and religion. I see it rather as a
confrontation between observation and theory. True science is about
respecting observation above theory. For that reason, I see as many
(or more) Bishops than Galileos in the 'scientific community' and
among 'informed citizens'.
 
One sign of a Bishop is an over-emphasis on 'reliable sources'. I get
so annoyed at readers who respond to postings with, "What are you
posting that for? Haven't you seen some of outrageous things on their
website?" I don't care whether or not Galileo has silly beliefs in
some areas, or hangs out with shady characters -- I care about what
he can teach me about Jupiter. Please spare me ad hominem responses!
Refusing to look at sources because they're not kosher is what
Bishops do.
 
As it turns out, the author of "Science and the Akashic Field" has
very strong science-establishment credentials, and bases his book on
hard-science results, well referenced. Nonetheless, I expect there
will be some Bishops in the audience, as the observations he reports
will contradict their theories / belief structures.
 
Lazlo reports on some very important findings in quantum theory,
cosmology, biology, and consciousness. All of these challenge the
belief system of today's dominant form of fundamentalism: materialism.
 
Let's start with quantum theory, because in that area what he reports
is mostly mainstream. Scientists generally acknowledge that quantum
theory is in a state of confusion. There is no consensus answer to
what has been observed. Information is being communicated at
faster-than-light speeds, for example, and there is no agreement on
how that could happen. Some scientists offer mathematical formulas
that match much of the phenomena, but that is not an explanation.
It's just a mathematical description of the problem.
 
Lazlo, and some others, observe that the simplest explanation for
such quantum phenomenon is to assume the existence of something very
much like what used to be called the 'ether'. Some all-pervasive
'field' or 'medium' that occupies all of space, something much finer
grained than quantum particles, and something that conveys waves much
faster than light. The ether was abandoned many decades ago, because
experiments showed there was no 'etherial friction'. But now we know
about super-conductivity, which shows the total absence of friction
under certain circumstances. Hence those classic experiments were not
conclusive after all.
 
Lazlo calls this hypothetical field the 'A-field', or the 'quantum
vacuum field', or the 'Akashic field', in honor of the Sanskrit name
for the same thing. In this as in many other areas, we seem to be
finally rediscovering the wisdom of the ancients.
 
Cosmology is also in a state of confusion. Even assuming the maximum
possible amount of 'dark matter' -- to pick just one area of
confusion -- there is still not enough gravity to hold the universe
together. There must be forces we don't know about, conveyed by some
medium we don't know about, to explain the universe we observe. Once
again, Lazlo demonstrates that an Akashic field could provide an
'Occum's razor' basis on which to explain the observed anomalies. I'm
not trying to give here the details of his arguments, but to outline
the scope of his investigation, and hint at the kind of observations
he is working from.
 
The Akashic field, according to Lazlo's reasoning, is ultra-dense,
ultra-energetic, frictionless, and carries waves at several billion
times the speed of light. Tesla was hot on the trail of tapping
a-field energy, and finally scientists and engineers are again
pursuing his long-suppressed work.
 
So far, most readers are probably not having much trouble with this
material. I haven't asked you to look at any disturbing moons yet.
It's been about physics, which most people don't try to understand
anyway, and so there's no significant conflict with belief system...
unless one is a fundamentalist about relativity, or the
impossibility of 'perpetual motion' (zero point energy).  But things
may get more disturbing as we get into biology and evolution...
 
Let's start with 'rate of information transfer' in biological
systems. Observations show that organisms (including humans) respond
with a whole-body coherence that exceeds the speed of nerve
transmissions, let alone hormone diffusion. It appears that every
cell is instantaneously 'in touch' with the state-of-the-whole, and
responds to events even before nerve signals get the news out. Cells
seem to interact at the quantum level as well as at the biochemical
level. Each cell seems to be 'conscious and intelligent'. Again, the
a-field provides a basis for explanation.
 
Now here's a disturbing moon: natural selection, based on random
genetic variations, simply fails as an explanation for evolution.
Entirely new major species appear too quickly  (10,000 years in some
cases) for randomness to be enough.  There must be some connection
between a living organism and its genetic machinery, something that
in some way informs DNA in an intelligent way. And in fact
experiments have been carried out, with tiny organisms, where a
created environment results in genetic adaptations within a
generation or two. I'm not talking about a 'range of mutations', in
which some turn out to be adaptive, but about isolated genetic
adaptations, related specifically to the environmental conditions.
With just a tiny bit of 'intelligent help' at the DNA level, the
observed rates of evolution begin to make statistical sense.
 
It turns out that some of the arguments put forth by creationists
actually do make sense, even if they are motivated by dubious
mythology. There are many examples of evolutionary developments where
none of the intermediate stages are adaptive, but the final result
is. People like Dawkins try to explain this kind of thing away, but
their explanations are a long ways from Occum's razor, more like
Occum's axe. The evidence for a 'design' influence is strong, but
there is no reason to assume a Grand Designer in the Sky. We need
only assume, Lazlo argues, a quantum-level a-field, which carries
information everywhere instantly, and with which cells (including
those related to DNA sequencing) can interact in intelligent ways
that we don't yet understand.
 
The subject of consciousness also brings in disturbing moons. The
experiments here have been repeated all over the world, time and time
again, under the strictest scientific constraints, in respected
research institutions. Telepathy is real. Consciousness and memory
formation in the absence of all electrical brain activity is real. It
can still be the case that there's lots of fakery and suggestibility
involved in 'psychic circles', but the fact remains -- if you believe
in science -- that these phenomena really happen as well.
Consciousness, Lazlo argues, seems to be a phenomenon that happens in
the a-field, below the level of neurons. The brain is a tool of
consciousness, but does not provide the basic mechanism of
consciousness. By means information carried by waves in the a-field,
resonance can occur between minds (consciousnesses), over long
distances and instantly, particularly when the people have strong
emotional connections (ie, they're on a similar 'frequency').
 
The ability to tap into this a-field resonance seems to be something
that occurs relatively frequently, except in cultures where people
have been conditioned to filter it out. Lazlo reports a case, which
he says is typical, where someone from an indigenous culture sits up
in bed, says with total certainty "my father just died", and gets up
immediately to make his travel preparations for home, where it turns
out his father has indeed just died. And by setting up suitable
conditions, not even involving anything so strong as psychedelics or
hypnosis, most people are able to 'tune in' to remote resonance.
 
In all of these areas, these latest scientific observations echo the
'wisdom of the ancients', what has been reported by sages, and what
some indigenous cultures have always believed. With the a-field,
statements which seemed like conundrums begin to make some kind of
sense: 'Consciousness is in all things', 'we are all connected', 'the
universe is intelligent', etc.
 
Let me now be a bit more specific about Lazlo's model of this
'a-field'. His presentation of scientific 'anomalies', and 'new
observations' are solid. And his assumption of an a-field seems to be
inescapable. But his specific model of the a-field can only be
speculative, an 'early hypothesis' in an expanding field of research.
 
As a metaphor he talks about the wakes left by ships in the sea. If
the water is very calm, and you're looking from an airplane, you can
see the wakes for miles behind a ship. You can see interference
patterns among wakes of different ships. If the sea is really calm,
and you can sufficiently examine a small patch of interfering wakes,
you can calculate the sizes, speeds, and directions of the various
ships that contributed to the interference pattern.  The
'interference patch' acts as a kind of hologram, containing within
itself 'information about the whole'. This is, by the way, how
holograms work: they are interference patterns of light waves, where
each patch is about 'the whole'.
 
In the ocean these wake-waves travel slowly, and are eventually
damped out by friction, even if the oceans could be totally absent of
other disturbances. In the frictionless a-field, however, the 'wakes
of events' would last forever, and spread everywhere almost
instantly. At each point in space, the a-field contains a 'hologram'
of all events everywhere, past and present. That's the essence of
Lazlo's model.
 
It's an appealing model, and I imagine this hologram-effect could be
part of the truth. It addresses the universal availability of
information, but it doesn't really address consciousness itself. It
tells us  how we can know things at a distance, but it doesn't tells
us what knowing is.
 
I'd like now to turn to a less famous investigator in this same
field, someone whose basic line of investigation is the same as
Lazlo's, but who doesn't have the track record to get his stuff
widely published or seen in scientific circles. He also sees the need
for an a-field (which he calls something else) and his reasoning and
evidence are very much the same as Lazlo's. But his model is a richer
one, and explains much more. Not only does it have an explanation for
consciousness, but it presents a simple mechanism for how an a-field
might have come into existence.
 
This researchers name is Ronald D. Pearson, and I posted his theory
last summer:
         22 Aug 2006   CONSCIOUSNESS AS A SUB-QUANTUM PHENOMENON
            http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1594&lists=newslog
 
I didn't spend much time trying to defend or promote Pearson's model
to you at the time, because I figured I'd be a Galileo among an
aroused posse of Bishops, unnecessarily damaging my credibility, such
as it is. Not only is Pearson's model 'way outside the box', but I
could only find his material on the Internet (the presumed land of
nutters and conspiracy theories). It would be too easy for everyone
to dismiss. I posted it for the few who might appreciate it, and left
it with little comment.
 
Lazlo's book, however, is more difficult to dismiss. He's done
everything right from an academic point of view, he's got very
impressive credentials, and his book has loads of commendations from
respected big names. I'm assuming only a small posse of Bishops will
rise up against Lazlo, and I'd like to build on that.
 
The only difference between Lazlo's theory and Pearson's, is in their
speculations about the detailed nature of the a-field. It seems to me
that in a very real sense Pearson deserves to 'inherit' whatever
credibility Lazlo has, and that we should be able to judge for
ourselves the merits of the two models.
 
Pearson starts with a simple sub-quantum model. He assumes two kinds
of particles (much smaller  than the quantum level or strings). A
'positive' particle accelerates things in the direction they are
going, and a 'negative' particle slows things down. When these
particles collide, depending on the angle and directness of impact,
sometimes they annihilate one another and sometimes they give birth
to yet another particle, and the collisions generate energy at the
level of the a-field.
 
A set of  assumptions like this might seem arbitrary, but it's no
more  arbitrary than string theory, to pick just one example. That's
what physicists do, they build their models by dreaming up mechanisms
that would lead to observed results. No one's ever seen a 'string',
but if strings existed they would explain some of the anomalies in
quantum physics. That's the only reason people believe in string
theory -- because it works (to a limited extent). Pearson's mechanism
is worth looking at for exactly the same reasons, and it is much
simpler and more explanatory than most such models.
 
By considering how these particles would interact over time, Pearson
concludes that they would naturally cluster themselves into
neural-net formations. Neural-net formations are how the brain is
structured, they are the 'architecture' of natural information
processing, of thinking. Computers, although very fast, are primitive
by comparison. Neural nets act in parallel and in a distributed
fashion, every cell in essence a 'processor' in its own right. And
they grow new connections as they operate, like a computer that could
keep changing its wiring so as to compute better.
 
Pearson's model of the a-field arises from the assumed  behavior of
these two simple particle types. The a-field is the fundamental
reality of the universe, and it is made up of local neural nets
(locally intelligent clusters of particles) connected by
information-carrying filaments of particles. These filaments are not
themselves intelligent, they are 'neutral' carriers of information
between clusters.
 
Now let's compare Lazlo's and Pearson's models. Both provide a medium
than can transmit information super-quickly, a mechanism for
long-distance resonance, and an explanation for a 'holographic'
distribution of information in the universe. Lazlo's idea about
interference patterns is not I think mentioned in Pearson's work, and
I would count that as a valuable addition, as a mechanism of compact
information storage. But in every other way I see Pearson's work as a
major advance on Lazlo's. Lazlo makes the case for 'an' a-field of
some kind, with waves and resonance, but Pearson goes on to provide a
mechanism for those phenomena, and for others that Lazlo dismisses.
 
In Pearson's model consciousness exists only in the a-field. Your
consciousness and mine is a property of the a-field which co-exists
in the same space  as our bodies and brains. It is the combined
activity of the billions of neural clusters that exist in that space.
The brain is the sense organ that, among other things, filters and
categorizes incoming signals from the gross physical world and makes
that information available to our consciousness.
 
But why does the a-field need the brain? If the a-field is
universally connected and intelligent, our local clusters could get
any information they need quicker through the a-field than through
the relatively slow and clumsy brain. Here's where Pearson's model
gets really interesting. Pearson sees the physical world as something
that was consciously created by, is consciously maintained by, and is
energized by the intelligent intention of the a-field. There is a
Creator and it is the universe, one might say, the real universe
being the a-field itself.
 
The mystics of the East, who claim to speak from special experience
and not from theory, have always said that this world is an illusion,
and that there is a real world apart from the material world, that is
all pervasive and all conscious. Pearson gives us a non-mysterious
way to 'hold' such concepts. Or at least the mystery is pushed back
several levels: where did these two kinds of particles come from?
(Let's leave that for another day.)
 
The physical universe, then, is a simulation, a bit like in The
Matrix, or the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. When local
consciousness takes up attachment to an organism, part of the game is
that it is intentionally cut-off, to one degree or another, from the
larger a-field universal consciousness. In living a life on this
plane, we are 'taking a trip', 'having an experience', in the
simulation. We (that is our consciousnesses) are temporarily, and
presumably voluntarily, being confined to the Holodeck of the
Starship Enterprise!
 
I recently read Jung's, "Memories,Dreams, and Reflections". Jung
talks about consciousness as being apart from the body, and surviving
death. He goes on to suggest that we come into this world to learn
things that cannot be learned by the a-field (what he calls the
'universal consciousness') directly. It's sort of like the a-field
doesn't have much of a 'left brain'. It can know everything, but it
can't do much in the way of linear reasoning. Something vaguely like
that. He suggests, and it seems to be based on his experiences rather
than his theorizing, that when we die we 'report back' and 'debrief'
to our 'friend consciousnesses.' What did we learn on this plane?
 
Personally, I am drawn to the idea that our 'trip' on this plane has
an element of fun to it, adventure, challenge, and  even
entertainment. Just as we like to descend into a DVD, and
'experience' the drama, excitement, and catharsis of a staged story,
so our 'consciousness' likes to have experiences, rather than just
sit there in the universe knowing everything without adventure or
constraints.
 
         Row, row, row your boat
         gently down the stream.
         Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
         life is but a dream.
 
cheers,
richard
--
 
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org
subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:cj-subscribe at cyberjournal.org
Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Blogs:
   cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
   Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
   for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/
   Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/
   Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: renaissance-network-unsubscribe at cyberjournal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: renaissance-network-help at cyberjournal.org
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20070125/8c9615b8/attachment-0001.html