Meister Eckhardt puts it this way: “The soul has something within it, a spark of super-sensual knowledge that is never quenched. But there is also another knowledge in our souls, which is directed toward objects; namely knowledge of our senses and the understanding: this hides that other knowledge from us. The intuitive higher knowledge is timeless and spaceless, without any fear and now.”
LeShan concludes: “We can only fit our construct of the ‘I’ into the field theory viewpoint by conceptualizing it in a way that is harmonious with the rest of the model. To do this, we must conceptualize the ‘I’ as boundary-less in the continuum; as not being ‘separate from’ or ‘isolated from’ the rest of ‘what is’; as not being limited by specific events such as the perceived ceasing of biological activity.
“From the field-theory viewpoint, it is not only the mystic, who exists as an organic part of the total space-time continuum, but all ‘entities,’ ‘unities,’ ‘objects,’ and ‘events.’ They exist ‘always’ in the total field that constitutes the cosmos, although they may be outside the range of perception. In this conceptualization the term ‘now’ has no real meaning.
“In this sense, field theory leads as inexorably to a concept of surviving biological death as classical physics does to a concept of total annihilation at bodily death. In the sense that all things that ‘were,’ ‘are,’ or ‘will be’ exist forever in the continuum, the individual continues to be. Relatedness is primary; individuality is secondary, but very real.
“There is a sense of peace, of ‘rightness,’ of being completely at home in the universe. There is a knowledge that time and space are illusions of the senses and that one is boundary-less in the continuum. One knows he is not confined within the limits of his skin and not dependent on the body for existence, and that the usual belief that this is so is illusion—which one’s vision now penetrates.
“Our ordinary perception of the creation and annihilation of the individual at birth and death is not made from a ‘privileged position’ from which we see objectively. It is [instead] the view from one limited position, and objectivity can only be reached with a theoretical description in which the laws governing reality remain invariant no matter what the position of the observer is.
“In conceptualizing the problem of survival from a field theory viewpoint, it is important not to confuse structure and function. We are tempted, because of our common-sense orientation, to ask, ‘What survives?’ implying that the answer be given in terms of structure rather than in functional (relational) terms.
“The easy confusion between these two is illustrated by the famous story about Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was asked, ‘What is a mathematical point?’ He replied, ‘A mathematical point is a place to start an argument!’
“His answer is more profound than it might appear at first glance. A mathematical point has no length, breath, or thickness. The question implies an answer in terms of structure that cannot be given. Wittgenstein’s answer wrenched the problem back to its proper frame of reference—to the functional qualities of the point and away from the invalid implications of structure.
“In a similar vein is the incident in which the mystic Jacob Boehme was asked, ‘Where does the soul go when the body dies?’ He replied, ‘There is no necessity for it to go anywhere.’”
Lawrence LeShan, The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist: Toward a General Theory of the Paranormal (The Viking Press, 1974).
No comments:
Post a Comment