Science 6

We come to science six, which means that we're midway through our inquiry into a set of 12 lectures or 12 presentations on science. And these have emerged out of a previous 12 lectures, which were a previous phase called history. And there is a deep relationship between science and history. Science is the forming in a multi-dimensional continuum A forming from the process of history, and it's difficult to appreciate just how mysterious that is unless we go back and reconnoitre what history does as a process. That history as a process is very close in type, in style to the way in which visionary consciousness occurs and happens. We saw in our education earlier this year that the process of vision allows for a special kind of form. Special kinds of forms, singular or plural, To emerge and to become real. And those forms that come out of vision are works of art. They also are works of person, and they also traditionally were called spirit spiritual forms, so that persons and works of art. Works of spirit emerge out of a visionary, conscious process, which takes the place in a frame of reference in a picture of trustworthy regard. It takes the place of nature, so that in ancient times and traditional societies, for whom the access to visionary consciousness was very rare and very special. It was hard to look up from the travail of daily life, not just the travail of hunting and trying to get the animal nutrition or farming, trying to get the plant nutrition. But general tribal cultural life. Social life shies from consciousness in a natural way, because consciousness, as we saw vision as we saw, does not include itself in an integral set, but rather displays a different characteristic one of differentiation. And for traditional peoples, there was no way that differentiation Was distinguishable from moments of madness, from their experience of fraying, from. Experiences that were close to chaos, or perhaps even death. And so the traditional outlook was that transcendental states are precarious and are only allowable, or only approachable under very special circumstances in ceremonial or festival circumstances that allow for this to occur for very special individuals, or in times of great crisis, for the tribe, for the society, under only very special Cumstances proscribe circumstances that allowed for these occurrences to be excerpted from Normal Life. They were extraordinary, extraordinary. They were extravagant in the sense of the original sense of the word extravagant wandering beyond, beyond the pale, beyond the natural way. And this ancient tradition of regarding anything visionary, anything that had a poignant, conscious quality to it to be special carries over into the era of civilizations and one of the most remarkable instances of a community transcendental experience being set aside By a civilization is the development of Greek tragedy. For Greek tragedy was not at all plays that cultivated people went to sea to be entertained or to have an intellectual experience. It was a state obligation that you had to go to these festivals, especially the great Dionysian festivals in the spring. A special civic theater of Dionysius was built, and every one under penalty of fine and sometimes exile was required to go. There were special proctors who had white cords that they stretched across the major streets of Athens, and they literally herded from house to house and building to building, so that everyone at certain times of the calendar year needed to go and see. And Greek tragedy was never just a play, but was always three plays with a fourth play that was called a satyr play. And we have from antiquity only two satyr plays, one by Euripides and one by Sophocles. The fourth play was different from the trilogies, in that the fourth play was to be woven in the other three, and to synch the three into a unit, so that the trilogy was not three ones, but was a weaving of the three ones into a complex unity. So instead of having three ones. One had a triangle that was woven and cinched and presented by a fourth element that was different from the first three. In that context. The use of a highly stylized language interchange interface mode was born and received an intellectual symbolic tightening of process, because at the same time that Greek tragedy was being written, the development of the philosophical dialogue was being also developed. And one finds in the great master of the philosophic dialogue of that time period. Plato and a certain of Plato's dialogues are even stageable. I think the symposium has been staged several times in the past 20th century. Their dramatic, their dialogues and Plato's dialogues do not occur by themselves, but linked together. And there are sets of Plato's dialogues that go together. But instead of there being like a satyr play that centers them together, they are cinched together by a common protagonist named Socrates. And so the platonic dialogues are brought together, not in terms of a structure that is dramatic, but brought together in terms of a structure that is personal, so that the groups of Plato's dialogues present a different kind, a heightened sense of what Greek tragedy presents. Greek tragedy is an art form. Plato's dialogues are a historical process meant to bring forth scientific forms. So that science was cognate with art from the beginnings in classical Greek culture. And that's why you find universities all over the Western world still that have departments of the arts and sciences. Art forms and science forms are cognate and they are not the same. They are distinct in Kind from forms in nature. Natural forms are forms of like material that exist. The book, the chair, the tree, the flower, the bird, the existential objects of the world exist in a cycle of integration. Their integral forms, their alignment is meant to bring action to a focus in emerging as something existential, something which has a ritual objectivity because it can be repeated and one knows how this works and understands, so that the mind begins to have integral objects that are Correspondent to the objects in the world. And the mind's objective forms the various symbols, the various ideas are also integral forms, and they align and tie up with the things of the world. What unites the things of the world with the things of the mind. The objects of existence, with the objects in the mind is a process that generally is known as myth, and myth is the realm of experience. It's the realm of experience that is expressed by language. It's the realm of experience expressed by language that has an emotional feeling tone substrate to it. So that the correspondence between things of the world and things of the mind have a mythic horizon of feeling toned language experience which help integrate them together, and they can become aligned and integrated to an incredible degree of accuracy. What is not in that scale at all are the differential forms of person and cosmos. They don't occur there at all because they are not integral forms. They are a different kind of form. And to not know this fundamental is to not understand transformation, because differential forms require a transformation of the entire line of alignment of Existentials and symbols. An entire transformation of the feeling, tone, language, experience that unites them, that bridges them. To not know this is to be co-opted and swept up by a mental realm exclusively. And the greatest student of Plato was one of the earliest who was co-opted by the mental predisposition. His name was Aristotle, and Aristotelian science is a very special case of a kind of Greek philosophy that was called, is called now, has been for quite some time, is called pre-Socratic. The pre-Socratic philosophers in Greece looked for the air element. They look for the primal thing that would synthesize and integrate the entire array of natural things, of mental things. And there were 5 or 6 really great pre-socratics who said, the world is all of water, or the world is all of fire? One of them, Heraclitus, was very clever, said, the world is unified by change. You can never step in the same stream twice. Aristotle is a pre-Socratic philosopher. He's not a Plato Platonist at all, but his single, unifying, synthesizing, integrating thread was the method of mental correlation, that that was what was the fundamental thing. And so Aristotelian basis of science 2400 years ago is actually pre-Socratic and is quite different in kind, different in process, different in orientation from the development of a process that was founded upon a protagonist like Socrates, uniting an inquiry in philosophic dialogue language to come not to a measurable correlation of existentials and symbols, but to undergo a transform so that one could engender a philosophic person who was differential, who didn't look to include themselves or be included in a scale of measurement that was purely integral. But who was able to look back in retrospection and by looking back in retrospection to recalibrate the measurements of integration with an added dimension of consciousness, so that you began to get a weaving of differential and integral together. And this was the first time that the transcendental idea of a real, which is outside of the exclusive purview of the mind, became expressed in a discursive language. And the masterful figure at that ancient time, 2500 years ago who expressed this was Pythagoras. And the way that he expressed it was quite extraordinarily simple. He said that musical ratios. Are indexes for the real and relate to the differential form of the spiritual person, and allow for a harmonic to be developed with a living cosmos, which was also a differential form, and that this spiritual differential person and this differential living cosmos had their own kind of regard for each other, not on the basis of alignment, but on the basis of deep resonance, and because their resonance was real. It could be factored back into the world, back into the mind, with its symbols, its integral symbols, and back into the world with its integral existentials, and that one could transform the mind and the world, that the world was not just to be taken as it was, but also could be developed into transformed aspects of it that were not there in nature, but that nature accepted the transforms as well. And so the way to talk about nature in those times was that nature was mysterious. It was a mystery. It was a mystery because whatever was the deeper reality of nature, Nature accepted not just put out existence, but accepted from persons. Transforms that changed the nature of nature. This was something that became not just an issue of art, as in Greek tragedy or science as in Plato's dialogues, but the link between art and science was no longer myth. The link between them was history, so that the historical process, the consciousness that the historical process is a transform of myth, of the mythic process. That mythic images and mythic figures, and the mythic stories and the collection of all these things into a mythology was also a part of phase of nature that could be transformed, and that the transformation of myth into history allowed for the bringing together in consonance the differential forms of person and cosmos, that they were not aligned, nor were they bridged on the basis of myth, nor were they based on the basis of feeling toned experience on the language that is cognate with feeling toned experience. But that history was a bridge between art and science on the basis of an expanded, transformed Language that whereas in nature one had a sense of being able to refine by the mind, by symbols, to even abstract the way in which language would work into an arithmetic. That number is a way to index symbolically the integral cycle, and that arithmetic accepts the transform of conscious vision and becomes mathematics so that someone who could 2500 years ago, who could undergo this special transform from myth Death to history, from existentials to artistic person, from symbols in the mind to a differential cosmos that was livingly real. Someone who learned to speak that transformed language was called a mathematicae. And they were a member of the inner circle of the Pythagoreans. And what they saw, the way that they saw was no longer in terms of identification, but always in terms of ratio ING, and hence the original meaning of the term. The rational person. The rational person sees proportionately, and in that proportion has an array of possibility, because the proportions can be developed to almost any extent that you wish. And when it was discovered that in that kind of ratioed of the real seeing that there was a possibility of having not only natural numbers. Cardinal numbers with even ordinal possibilities among them, but that there was additionally a possibility of imaginary numbers that operated in an expanded reality in nature. It was a shock that we could create imaginary languages that would affect the world and the mind. And that was as far as classical antiquity went. They got scared off by that. They got scared off by the infinite possibilities of transformation and curled back from it. It was a challenge as to put it in Arnold Toynbee's great language. It was a challenge which was not met. And classical antiquity, not putting a response to meet that challenge curled back upon itself, and for a thousand years went into regression, became a hospital case. The Dark Ages used to be called the medieval world. And one of the curious things is that history is the accurate index of the way in which the resonance of art and science is not matte, and you can always tell because the history reduces regressively to a mythic level of ritual comportment with cognate reduced ideas and simplistic symbols. And we've seen in 2001 that this happens very quickly. The entire world has regressed to 1000 years in one year. We're back to 1000 A.D. we're back to medieval crusade life that has no place in the 21st century at all, is a massive regression of billions of human beings at the same time. How can this happen? Because of a misunderstanding based on a miseducation, so that the crucial experience for Pythagoras, for Socrates, for Plato, for Aeschylus, for Sophocles, for Thucydides, for Herodotus, for that whole group of people was a process called paideia. Paideia is the education of the people to be able to live in an expanded, conscious time space and bring themselves into differential form and apply that in transforms to the world about them, especially to the mind, so that they don't carry the old mind and its ritual habits into a new situation where it's useless, and they become distraught because they can't carry through things they imagine and soon experience helplessness and voluntarily go back to a reduced world. One of our figures that we're taking now, Roger Penrose, published a book in 1989 called The Emperor's New Mind, subtitled Concerning Computers, minds, and the Laws of Physics. Now, the curious thing about Penrose is a famous professor in England at the University of Oxford. In fact, he's the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, one of the great figures intellectually in European academia. And one of his students was Stephen Hawking. And it's Stephen Hawking disagreeing with his old professor, Stephen Hawking, who is now Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. Also at the top of the heap. So you have an Oxford and a Cambridge man. Teacher and student. And they argued together in one of our books that we're using the nature of space and time. And that Hawking and Penrose are very curious combined, because they are arguing a diagrammatic position that was let go of 2500 years ago, because it has a lack of traction in actuality and a lack of implication, clearly in, um, development, that the position that they argue becomes distributed evenly in a loggerhead that the mind cannot distinguish between. Equanimity and being at a standstill. In that condition of standstill. The mind being consulted by the ego thinks that everything is all right because it's all solved, whereas life in reality never solves everything. And it should be a sign of poison that now you're in complete control and complete command, because all things are solved, because there are no more tugging issues. This was exactly the mentality that obtained at the crest of the Victorian English ethos. One of the most prominent figures at that time said well, Darwin may be right and evolution may work for monkeys and apes and for primitive people, but we have crawled ashore from the ocean of evolution, and we have perfected ourselves and are civilized. And it was exactly that world that received its most devastating critique from a novelist named Henry James. That that fragility of mechanically distributed equilibrium, which the mind cannot tell from true equanimous experience, is indeed a forerunner to the fall. It is exactly what pride in its hubris was in Greek tragedy. And we saw that, of course, the the Victorian fragile world crashed into. World War one and shattered into smithereens. And not only will never. Be put back together was not able to be ever put back together. At the same time, science was doing something which it has always done. It was coming into a deep differential transform, because there were persons who found themselves capable of bringing a visionary consciousness back into the world and seeing that transform happens, not only can we transform materials and things, but that we can transform our minds. And two of the great protagonists of that transform were Einstein and Niels Bohr. And they also had a dilemma. Einstein and Bohr. Here's a book on them and the quantum dilemma. Einstein saying, finally, in two different phases of a theory, the specific theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity, of understanding that space time was a continuum, and that what happens in the universe happens because of curves and Bends and pools and a whole interesting landscape of change and distortion from flat to curve to peculiar shapes of space time. Niels Bohr, on the other hand, looking at the way in which atomic structure the atom as the basic building block of all things itself, has a structure, and that going into subatomic structure, one came to understand that this filigree of the natural world has an aligned filigree with the way in which the mind not differentiates. It can with differentiation, but changes the way in which the mind integrates. And that one did not have at all an exhaustible trustable philosophy of integration by the mind, by just depending upon the ancient Greeks. That in fact the ancient Greeks as a whole made some radical mistakes, some choices that were unavoidable given their provinciality, and that once one went outside of the provinciality of the classical Greeks and the classical Romans, who just aped them, once you went into other traditions, other classical traditions, you began to see that there were completely other ways of handling integration completely. One of them was India. Another was China. Another was Iran. Another was Egypt. Another was the North American Indians. That there are. And the South American Indians. There are many varieties. There are many ways, not only of being human, but many ways of handling integration vis a vis nature, and that the existentials in nature offer their alignment to these ways of integrating as well. They align with those kinds of mind just as easily as they do with the Greek. And Boer for himself, because of his affinities, his personal affinities chose the Chinese. He chose the Chinese. Daoist, The Chinese I-Ching Taoist because he was an inheritor of the first European to understand the Chinese in a mathematical way. A man named Leibniz about 300 years before born. The first European to ever see the I-Ching in a translation. He saw that in Amsterdam. A Jesuit translation into Latin of the I-Ching. Not very good, but Leibniz, even at 20 years old, was so smart that he could see that there was a different kind of natural mathematic that was available to the human mind. In fact, he wrote a little essay on it after a couple of years, and it lay for hundreds of years untranslated. And finally, about 20 years ago, the University of Hawaii Press brought out Leibniz's philosophy of natural mathematics of the Chinese, an appreciation that change in the Daoist e cheng was not just change like the Greek idea of change, but had an exchange of centers quality to it, and that what exchanged centers was always a symmetry, a pair of transforms that things existentials don't change centers and minds in the natural integral sequence don't exchange centers, but that when you have symmetrical politeness, both subject To transforms at the same time in the same kind of space. They can exchange centers in such a way that they now have their essential, their essence, their integral, operating in each other's continuum of existentiality and of symbol of receptivity and cognate ness. And this was a very great surprise to Bohr, because when he looked at the way in which atomic structure opened itself up, it occurred to him right away. By the time of the First World War, that subatomic structure was opening up a new world of mind to man. It wasn't that we were going to become Chinese. It was that we were going to become sensitive to correlations and integration of a subatomic realm, which would give a completely different base never seen before on the Earth. And that when that kind of mind transformed, instead of being the emperor's new mind, would be of a world in which there were no emperors at all. And perhaps even the word mind would have to be changed. We'll come back to this, but I want to be just before our break. Bring this out. The sequel to The Emperor's New Mind. After about five years, many people were startled by Penrose's book, and they criticized him. They added things to it. And he brought out in 1994 a sequel called shadows of the mind, subtitled A search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. And as if that were not enough. Within three years he brought out a third volume like the trilogy The Large, The Small and the Human Mind, complete with appendixes of critique. Holding the book together. One of the critics was Stephen Hawking, another Nancy Cartwright, who is famous for her little book, Why Physics Lies. More after our break. Let's come back to our focus and let's reconnoiter. When we were talking about history and we were going through our application of inquiry, which is different from an application of method. The Aristotelian form would be to have a method and apply it, and supposedly that's the core of scientific comportment. But it's not really. Science is a process of inquiry, and some of the greatest advances are made by being surprised at what turns up. Here, from thoughts on history, from our outline of the education. Just a few sentences, a few phrases to refresh us about the subtlety of history. The subtlety of history vis a vis mythology. With a mythological horizon. One lives within the language forms. The language forms are not contiguous. Here the meaning is content oriented and feeling toned. Psychic energy is a stream of conscious flow. A current mode. And the mythic horizon. We interiorize meaning into symbols. And here the forms of language become abstracted. And they deepen the integration. The difference from a mythic language, from a transform language sometimes traditionally called a magic language. But essentially what it is is a mathematic. A transform is that it allows for one to emerge from being contained by the language and the language forms, so that you are no longer within a story, but have the possibility of becoming the storyteller is a completely different experience. This emergence from myth was a central theme of Plato. And in Plato's dialogues. I once did 27 90 minute lectures covering Plato's dialogues in detail. And interspersed among this body of dialogues are certain mythic vignettes, and they're called the myths of Plato. One of them occurs in his largest dialogue called the Republic, which is so large that it occupies a number of books. And in book ten of this huge dialogue, the Republic is the myth of the cave. In another one of his dialogues, there is a myth of the chariot. And curiously enough, the myth of the chariot also is found in India in Indian literature, in one of the Upanishads. So that this whole emergence from myth as a theme for Plato, out of the stories of the gods into a storyteller capacity, but one emerges not just to be able to tell stories, but one emerges able to use various language forms to express not just stories, but other dimensions of person. So that at the same time that one acquires through a magic language, through a transformed language, through a visionary linguistic, one acquires the ability to also tell the truth, not to just be delivering mythic images which have symbol integrals, but to go deeper into the proportions and the ratios of hidden aspects of things. And there one gets into the realm of alchemy. Into getting into the fractions, the ratios, the proportions, the harmonies of things. And that magical alchemy of transform language lays the basis not of a further integration, but of a beginning differentiation, and that that differentiation carries and eventually becomes a historical capacity to use language which develops into science. So that to use an old fashioned way of talking magic becomes science, not through the development of any integral, but through the phase form transformation further of differential consciousness. So that someone as staid as Sir Arthur. Um. Uh, Sir Ernest Ernest Rutherford and his confreres at Cambridge, at the Cavendish lab towards the end of his life, or Lord Rutherford wrote a book called The New Alchemy. Series of lectures delivered to a scientific audience in Cambridge in 1937, at the height of the culmination of the controversy between Bohr and Einstein, between relativity and quantum mechanics, at the ways in which what really was at stake was the ability for us as differential persons to align ourselves off the straight lines of measurement into the differential arrays of possibility, so that our alignment was not in terms of lines, but in terms of arcs of resonance, and that persons then were able to align themselves. You have to put that in quotation with the cosmos, not in terms of lines, but in terms of resonances that registered in ratioed ways, so that one could come finally, to understand that you could tune resonances to a harmonic, and that there is such a thing as in mathematics, is a very big field called harmonic analysis, which is exactly the same kind of talk that you would have in musical theory, which is exactly the kind of language that makes sense in terms of a very developed architecture, which is exactly what we're doing here in this education. We're tuning Ourselves to a set of resonances that form a harmonic. That allow us to. Explore differentially both the geometry of the natural world and even the trigonometry of the symbolic world. But you also go into the peculiar calculus of differential and integral equations, and their joining together in matrices of further exploration. Remember that Heisenberg's matrix mechanics brings both the differential and the integral calculus together in the same set. And that that has its equivalents in application to Schrödinger's wave mechanics, and that all of this was an observation seen by a mathematician named Paul Dirac. P m Dirac, who late in his life ended up in Florida for his health out of foggy Britain. And in order to teach a little Florida American audience relativity, he wrote this little book, The General Theory of Relativity. It's about 60 pages in which he doesn't boil it down, but he presents it in this beautiful way of this great mathematician, this Pythagorean mathematics of nuclear astrophysics. And. Begins with a simple sentence that drops us right into the way in which the integral Forms a set for the space time of physics. We need four coordinates. The time T and three space coordinates x, y, z. And then he gives us that. He sets the calibration of t equals x with a zero exponential. X equals x exponent one, y equals x squared and z equals x cubed. So that. With this calibration so that the four coordinates may be written together as a set of four as a matrix of time space x. And then he uses the little exponent superscript. He uses the Greek term for. M mu. So x to the mu then becomes a mathematical symbol for the set of time. Space in its four coordinates, and that once you have this kind of algebraic. Presentation, there are many transforms that can be brought to bear, and one can. Open that possibility of time, space, that set of time space as a locus to open it up to an amazing infinite array of possibilities. And as soon as we talk in this way, in this fashion, the ancient Pythagorean Wisdom tradition comes into play. And somebody at Caltech once said, you know, we are all still Pythagoreans. The ancient mnemonic technique, the memory technique, was always to begin with the integral loci et foci, locus and focus. And that what one did was transform that because there is not only the set of the four coordinates for the time and the three space elements, but the fact that they are brought together in a matrix constitutes a focus so that the matrix does not have four coordinates, but five. It has the context of the storyteller put there. And this is what Niels Bohr recognized even as a young man, that consciousness was a dimension of time space, computation. And it wasn't because of some uncertainty principle. It was because of a reality check. Because time space never focuses to a single point of four coordinates unless there is some one consciously doing that, and you then contribute to that. So that memory in its activity becomes an integral part of nature. Nature is literally remembered exactly at that moment, that the exactness of the moment carries the signature of he or she who is remembering to do this, then. And the very term remembering goes back to the ancient process of Isis and Osiris. In order for ISIS to give life, she can give birth as a woman, but she also has the capacity to give life again, as in rebirth. Because she can remember Osiris, she can put his disparate cut up body members back together again, and he will live again so that life not only has the capacity to birth in nature, but to remember and rebirth in consciousness. This is the ancient Hermetic wisdom 5000 years ago still plays itself out, recognizable to anyone who knows the tune, who not only knows the tune, but knows how that melodic line of that tune plays out in its chamber piece through the instruments and ensemble, and that while there are only four instruments playing in that quartet, there's always the composer whose piece they are playing, who is there with them. Every Mozart quartet that you hear has the four performers, and Mozart, as the magical fifth in show business, is called the fifth business. There's always the unseen presence that is there Are composing the storyteller. The magical language always has some one, some spirit, some personal spirit whose differential consciousness is at work as to transform not only in terms of an operator when it's in the integral, it works as an operator. Such mathematical transforms are operational, but in the differential such transforms work as propagators. They rebirth nature in new ways, literally remembering them. And one of the great brilliant makers of a remembering language was the man that we just took as one of our pairs. Feynman. Feynman. So that when you come to wanting to put Einstein's relativity together with Niels Bohr's quantum mechanics, because they had completely different takes on the way in which the universe works, the cosmos is expressible. And here's a recent, the quantum relativity, a synthesis of the ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg, done published in Berlin, but in Germany, uh, in English, uh, by David Ritz Finkelstein, 1997. Quantum relativity bringing together a synthesis but not a synthesis, because that would just be an integral. Bringing together relativity from Einstein and quantum mechanics from Niels Bohr and Heisenberg and Schrödinger, and giving a dynamic wholeness to it. But this is late in the game, and something earlier in the game is a book like this that already bears the title Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, published in 1964 by two professors at Stanford, will not exactly at Stanford, but at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, SLAC. And these two professors, Bjorken and Drell, when they open up Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, 1964, it was published the very first thing one finds in the preface the very first sentence, the propagator approach to a relativistic quantum theory pioneered in 1949 by. Feynman. Richard Feynman has provided a practical as well as. Intuitively appealing formulation of quantum electrodynamics. Qed. One of our texts that we just took the past science one, two, three and four. We paired Feynman's QED with Mary Leakey's Discovering the Past. For very deep and profound reasons. If you remember, Mary Leakey. Remembered the body of man not in terms of a mythological Osiris. But in terms of a body related to ours that was millions of years old. She is like an ISIS of a cosmic scale. If you look at the end of this book on relativistic quantum mechanics from two of the great leaders of the Stanford Linear Accelerator 37 years ago, two appendixes. The first one is an appendix on notation, because you need to know the calibration of your language. And the second one rules for Feynman graphs. They were called graphs. Then there are Feynman diagrams, because his transform language, his differential conscious language, was able to go back and be an operator integrally and be a propagator differentially, with the very same language operating with this symmetrical interface. It's very, very, very deep quality of a magic language that it be able to tell the truth by being able to go both ways to be applicable to the world of existentials and to individuals, whether they're on the tribal level or the national level or even the civilized level, but also be available for those transformed individuals, transformed into persons who have a home whose limits are not determinable, who lives comfortably and unboundedness as well, who is at home in the entire not universe, but cosmos is at home in not just any tribe, and not just any culture, who are not just any civilization, but is at home in any star system. Or any collection of star systems is at home, wherever they will be. Even in imaginary worlds, they're still at home. For such a person, the mere integrated individual is like a child's building block that only has certain limited letters on only six facades. And that's about it. Nothing wrong with that on tribal cultural level. But when you're at play in an infinite cosmos, you don't want to stay a child's building block. You want to learn to speak in terms that could be heard and sung and responded to on vast area, vast, vast area. When we come to Penrose's Shadows of the mind, the sequel to The Emperor's New Mind, his very first page is Consciousness and Computation. Because one of the things that gets in the way of maturation now is an egotistic confidence that computability is the secret encoding that individuals, once they have, will be able then to index and measure anything, including themselves. And one of the reasons that Penrose wrote this book is that he understands deep enough and does not agree with that at all, that that's not at all possible or even And desirable. And what he doesn't say here is that one of the most delicate issues involved in that is the way in which history, over the last 200 years has been commandeered by a massive strategic game called political economy, and that that massive strategic game called political economy received a tremendous mathematical shot in the arm in 1947 with theory of games and economic behavior. Johnny von Neumann, one of the world's great mathematicians, and his last little book, Just a Thin Little Book. It doesn't have to be very big. Yale put it out and published it, 1958. These are the Silliman lectures at Yale. The computer in the brain. Even by 1958, it was already apparent that by taking what had been done so far that computers could be evolved to eventually take the place of the brain, of the human mind and work much faster and much more detail. And that if you had a political economy organized by massive computer network, you would have a perfect running society. There's an ancient Jewish word for this. It's called golem. It's a Frankenstein is a quality of projection from the ego, fortified by the naiveté of the mind, which cannot criticize itself on beyond certain levels. And so one of the next books that we'll take in science is a science fiction novel. You can use the other Nancy Kress book if you want, but this one called Beggars in Spain. About a future society based on three levels. And Nancy Kress takes it to an almost ultimate realization. The very excellent work, because our investigation of science is not to learn physics or to learn alchemy, or to learn history of science, but to further our ability to inquire and carry our inquiry. From its beginnings two years before, in the simplest beginning possible to start wherever we are, with beginning to become aware of nature. And in a couple of months, we'll take one more excursion into that two year cycle and the very first thing that we do. Nature one is from wherever we live, we walk out the door and take a walk and come back home. That simple process has enough cosmic traction to begin a process of inquiry. There's something so fundamental in the bipedal, symmetrical pacing of a walk with your own place, wherever you live, as a starting point. Your own random walk, whatever it encompasses, and the return back. Everything needed to master not only universal wisdom, but to bring forth a cosmic consciousness. Is there already in just that? Penrose? 1994 one of the world's greatest mathematicians, struggling to begin a 500 page book on shadows of the mind. And how does he begin? 1.1 mathematical text always have these numbers of sections. There was a philosophic work by Ludwig Wittgenstein called Tractatus logico philosophicus, and he numbered each section and number 1.1 in his book was the world is everything that is the case. 1.1 of Penrose. What is the ultimate scope of science? What are we talking about? Is it just the material attributes of our universe that are amenable to its methods, whereas our mental existence must forever lie outside its compass? This is the kind of question that Plato would have asked of his student, Aristotle, that after studying with me for 20 years, you haven't asked yourself this question. And it's curious, because we live in an age where the material existentiality of nature is so protean as to almost stagger. In fact, it does stagger the imagination. Just to stay on the existential material level. There is such a thing as an introduction to crystallography. There is such a thing as going into the structure and not just crystals as they would occur. In the normal expected way. But there are such things as crystal lattices, even on the atomic level, and there are gluons and quarks in this lattice structure. And it goes to make up atoms, atomic structure and all molecular structures come out of this. And there is such a thing as molecular crystals. There is such a thing as liquid crystals. And most handheld Little computers now have liquid crystal screens. There are many things. There are forms of elements like carbon that were never seen before. Not just carbon, as in graphite or carbon as in diamonds. But there's such a thing as C60 carbon, as in a fullerene, a buckyball discovered in 1985. So even the material world is much more complex than anyone realized. There are organizations in the material world of things called solitons. Waves called solitons. There are ways of looking at high energy photons that involve the partonic structure of photons. There are even such things as weak neutral currents. There are all kinds of things without even getting into transformation, but this entire array is not even visible in the natural measurement. Because we can't use senses and can't use the naive natural mind to even think and to recognize on this level of detail, because cognition has its limitation. One of the things that Penrose goes into, he says, it's been a assumed physiological substrate for several generations. Now, that thought takes place in the brain because of the neurons, whereas it might be the micro filigree Of nanotubes associated with the neurons that makes the networking the Gestaltung. The neuronal clouds operate in a kind of a biological plasma way in the first place. And he says, we don't know. We're going to try to find out, but we don't know. But it's becoming more and more apparent that nature in its existentiality, is far more complex. Before we even get into some of the transform things, so that one of the most poignant books, almost everyone refers to it, Penrose refers to it Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics by James Bell, Cited in almost all the bibliographies. It's not that we're dumb because something is unspeakable. We are differentially conscious that we cannot say it. Yet we can have a quality of comprehensiveness, even with the unspeakable, that our ability to synthesize is not limited to things that come together, that there are ratioed relationalities that never touch and yet are stronger than the post and beam construction of those kinds of purely physiological compositions. And that one of the strongest forms in the cosmos is a work of art, because of work of art has A at least six dimensional quality of form, and allows for the prism of the energy of consciousness through time space integrals, so that transformation itself is an art. And that one needs a sense of retrospective, of recursive, of remembering, of rebirthing, of one needs a ring to be able to catch up. It's like catching up a stitch in time. Only the stitch in time that you catch up has a timelessness that comes into play. The zeros cannot be counted, and yet they function not only as operators but as propagators. They help the propagation, and that one of the qualities of a zero operator or propagator is that it also functions logically as an infinity. And up to now it's been very difficult for the mathematics of physics, even nuclear physics, to bring into play enough consciousness to realize that you don't need to always reduce infinities down to get something that you can work with, that we are not limited to the tomahawks and spears of of things that are integral, that we can work with differential tools that include infinities without having to reduce them down, but that this takes an education. It takes an education that sensitizes us again and again, patiently. The old way of talking of it was the way in which a pearl is formed. Little layer by little layer. Even an oyster can make a pearl. And with that pearl, once it is formed, has a peculiar capacity vis a vis light. It doesn't just reflect light as in a mirroring, or absorb certain light so that it is a color, but that the surface film of an organic liquid crystal, like a pearl, is able to be opalescent and show us the subtle rainbow of all the constituents of light at the same time In a gestalt of pastel colors that shimmer before our own appreciative view and become a dimension of reality that occurs first only in art. It is in art that the dimension of beauty becomes real, and once beauty becomes real, it is able, like consciousness, to join everything in time, space and all things to a great artist can be made beautiful. The more next week.