Thursday, August 28, 2014

Literature Lane: The Celestine Prophecy & Quantum Physics:




A friend of mine recently lent me a copy of a short best-selling novel called the, ‘Celestine Prophecy’. It had a massive impact on me. And, from what I've gathered from other friends who have read this book, it seems to do the same to them. It's quite a unique novel; a kind of philosophical self-help book written as an adventure story. I recommend that you read it if you like that kind of thing, and often find yourself thinking about correlations between things like science, nature and humanity. 

 On page 62 of this book one character suggests the following:

“After the recent discoveries of modern physics, we may legitimately ask if the universe is not more dynamic than that. Perhaps the universe runs mechanistically as a basic operation but also subtly responds to the mental energy we project out into it.” – James Redfield, Random House Publishing, 1994



It was a theory I've been trying to put into words for quite a while, but never could. I was stunned that there was someone else out there who was thinking along the same lines. I had an idea that quantum physics and experiments like the double-slit theory might represent the interconnectivity between people, animals and the rest of nature and space-time. 

Recent science and developments in the study of physics have shown that observation may suggest a key building block in the world we see around us.

We live in an age dependent upon the scientific-medical-clinical discourses. Our current behaviours and lifestyle trust in the suggested truths those practitioners of these discourses give us. Philosopher Michel Foucault suggested, in his discourse analyses, that the lexicon through which we determine truth can be just as important as the individual ideas. I.e. If we can understand and accept something because it is presented to us in a scientific medium, that does not mean it hasn’t already been presented to us through another lens – only that we did not accept or understand it then. We are, after all, products of our scientific age. Yet, as discussed in our lecture, these new developments open legitimate questions about the connectivity of the universe:


The disciplines of spirituality and philosophy have already discussed and explored many of the theories which naturally occur in a post-quantum think tank. However, these disciplines (western spirituality in particular) seem to always return to their classical mindset, especially when the possessor of a particular question crawls back out from their own mind and remembers the feel of grass under his or her feet. Perhaps it is because the quantum world is so far removed from OUR physical world – which is much, much larger than the quantum world, yet made up of it.

Perhaps this also sheds some light on the flaws in dualism, the mind may exist between these changing photons, as an outside source, and as a collective human consciousness we share based on factors of the global village and spheres of influence – the mind, and mental patterns which we develop throughout our lives in acts of personal evolution, might be the only evidence of an individual ‘self’ – yet, as our world grows more and more thoroughly interconnected, our ‘individual’ thoughts might be even now evolving to achieve a more consistent symbiosis.  A kind of ‘hive-mind’ for humans through which we can achieve social change.
Scientific research wouldn’t be the only factor leading this discussion, heightened connectivity available in forms such as the internet, might lead to more individual thought-frames led by those who previously have not had the means to contribute largely to mass-culture and mass-thinking.

The implications of recent science, such as the double-slit theory, may also help achieve a more solid connection between philosophy, science and social sciences.

Is it possible that the consistency of change in the natural world, and the connection between human and natural phenomena, when presented through the scientific doctrine, the current popular discourse, could give rise to a less individual idea of self? Accepting not only the changing of the self, but of persona, activity, thought, and the illusory quality of anything we view as ‘normal’ (i.e. consistent) that is not constant change.

Here's some more information about the double-slit theory and what I'm talking about:



Wouldn't it be amazing, if, using the scientific discourse, the idea of people and everything being 'one' helped us all help each other? 

Xo, Ellen