atomic

I have been instructed to talk about atomics or atomy.

Let’s start by wiping the slate clean.

You’ve been told that there are things called atoms – the basic building blocks of matter – so small they can only be seen by the most powerful electron, if that. While this may be true for scientists operating within today’s definitions, today’s definitions are only of limited value if you want to get under the skin, if you want to experience a deeper science that really opens up the universe, including the atom. You see, you’re only ever going to be as good as your definitions, and the definitions are linked together in strands forming a kind of lattice. There’s a little leeway, a little bend room, but basically these definitions are interlocking to the extent that our science system today has become rigid and dogmatic. Scientists are dimly aware that if they question the basic definitions apropos the atom, gravity, matter, consciousness – they are liable to shatter the status quo and trigger a kind of domino effect, a cascade, an avalanche – whichever you prefer. Dimly aware of this, though not necessarily understanding why, they instinctively shy away from the daring, brilliant, incisive, unimpeachable, rigorous, impeccable, scientifically honest definition, and go with the existing one – like a programmer who tries to fix a broken or outdated computer code, rather than starting over. He has an inkling what will happen if he sticks his neck over the parapet and dares to state the obvious – namely – that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Shots will be fired. He will lose his job. He will be ridiculed. He will be ostracised. He will go the way of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman in their cold fusion debacle. In the chances are, this will be a mostly sub-conscious computation of risk reward analysis – which the conscious mind will barely even register. He’ll likely as not go with orthodoxy, using convenient face-savers such as respect for the scientific establishment – the great and the good – one’s intellectual equals and betters – all of whom have seen fit to work within the existing model – which has, no one can argue, some fairly impressive results. Yes, if the existing model predicted and gave us atomic weapons, fission and fusion, if it gave us radar and telephony, wifi and lasers, MRI scanners and space flight – then no one can say that the existing definitions are wholly wrong or without merit. How else would we have succeeded in landing on the moon, sending probes out to Pluto and sending back images and data from those distant outposts if our definitions were fundamentally flawed. The proof, we can be sure, is in the pudding. Our electronic technological revolution surely proves that our science is more or less on track – does it not?

Yes.

And No.

Yes – it’s given us a load of gadgets and tools – planes, rockets, automobiles with gps and self-driving abilities, but…

Yes?

We’ve run into a brick wall.

We have?

Yes.

Where? I don’t see it.

No, you wouldn’t.

Why not?

Because it’s not readily visible, but you can see it if you look at what’s not happening.

?

Look at what’s not happening with planes and automobiles.

?

Our computers and phones have advanced geometrically in the last thirty years – because our electron definitions are fairly good. But our cars and planes… do you not see anything strange when comparing their path of evolution…

To computers and phones? Not really – they’re different creatures altogether. You’re comparing apples and pears.

Right. This is how we’ve managed to ignore the technological lag for the last fifty years or so. It’s a bit like a person walking a trail, following the markers. He wants to believe he’s on route. He’s definitely on some kind of route, but it’s been a while since he saw the last marker. With every step he takes he’s having to try harder and harder to suppress his growing awareness that something’s not right. He’s living in hope that the next marker is just around the next corner – but statistically it’s getting almost impossible to avoid facing the facts.

You mean he needs to stop and go back?

He will do sooner or later, if indeed he’s lost. It’s a question of when. He could stubbornly continue for ten minutes, fifteen, twenty, hell, he could go on all day…

But it all depends how often the markers are usually posted.

Precisely. If he knows that it’s normal to see one every fifty meters or so, it’s going to be tough continuing for a kilometre without admitting things are looking wrong – but, there are certain psychological factors at work which sometimes cause us to press on regardless, for an irrationally long stretch.

You’re speaking from personal experience I assume.

Absolutely. I’ve done twenty, thirty minute hikes into hopedom, partly because you fail to notice the absence of markers, and the awareness dawns slowly, creeping up on you like an unwelcome smell, which at first you do your best to suppress. Then, finally you issue a one minute or hundred metre ultimatum, before heading back and looking for the turning you missed. It’s a great way of learning how the mind battles with itself – wanting at all costs to believe it’s still on track.

And you seem to think cars and planes indicate we’re not?

Well, what do you think? Are we travelling substantially faster than we were fifty years ago?

Er… not substantially… Our jets are more or less flying at the same speed, aren’t they – at about 900 km/h, but their fuel efficiency is much improved, I expect. As for cars – there are objective reasons why we can’t go any faster – so I don’t see how this example is relevant.

There were plenty of objective reasons why computer chips or processors could have run into ceilings and not kept pace with Moore’s law – the doubling every two years of computing power and capacity – along the way – yet these were all overcome, and continue to be overcome.

Yes, but this relates to electronic components – whereas cars are driven by and transport human beings. We are easily damaged – increasingly so as speeds rise above safety limits.

Yes, yes, but who says cars have to remain as cars or planes as planes.

You did. You asked me about cars and planes.

Yes – which just goes to show the problem we have with definitions. Now, assuming our scientists were able to work with constraints…

You mean economic constraints – designing million dollar flying cars?

Not exactly.

Then what?

Well, one of the constraints has been political. Cars and plains were a vital market for oil products. Supposing they’d been allowed to use alternative energy types.

What alternative energy types? Wind or solar power? Come on man, get real. You can hardly power a car with nuclear fuel. That would be way too dangerous.

So, by now our readers have noticed how difficult you are finding it to consider alternatives. The definitions, to a large extent, make the man – or at least, make his mind work within certain channels. This is why it’s been incredibly easy to control the flow of technology and ideas. As long as you establish a dominant hierarchy of definitions, which more or less happens naturally, then enforce it with peer review scientific journals, government funding, and so on, you find yourself in the kind of situation we’re in…

But how can you insinuate that we’re in a “situation” when it’s basically impossible to increase the speed of cars as long as there are objective factors such as inertia, friction, and material tensile strength – all of which combine to prevent a quantum leap in car speeds.

Well done. You have illustrated exactly the kind of mind box definitions create for us – which is why we’re discussing today atomics.

Oh. You think there’s something wrong with our definition of atoms? And that we could drive faster if we made some changes to our definitions? I fail to see…

Naturally. You fail to see what you cannot see. That is precisely how the mind and the mind’s eye work. And yet, sooner or later, nature shrugs off these difficulties. Sooner or later a self-preservation instinct deep inside starts beeping, and with every step we take along the now unmarked way, we find it harder and harder to ignore that beeping. We begin to sense with increasing disquiet, that we’re off route, and like it or not, something inside us is preparing to face the unpleasant truth, regardless. Suddenly, the status quo folds, the paradigm implodes in on itself. The technological failure to advance becomes too much to swallow – particularly as it’s being illuminated glaringly by our astonishing advances in electronics. The combustion engine and terrestrial vehicle, without a doubt, has objective limitations, but who ever insisted we need to stay on the ground, or continue using the combustion engine?

But what alternative could there possibly be?

You’ll never know, will you, until you step back and consider what’s staring you in the face. And what better way to do that than to consider whatever it is we’re currently suppressing, for very good reasons.

What do you mean “supressing”? We’re not supressing anything. Our science is always open to new ideas, or new “definitions” as you call it.

Not if it fails to publish or review data which falsifies existing theories.

Like what? I don’t know any such data.

Correct. You don’t. Nor will you as long as you and the scientific establishment wilfully ignores the many, many papers which have been written but not published, because they were rejected by peer review censorship, not to mention the many, many inventions which contravened the existing laws of science – inventions which it was all too easy to ignore – for the sub-conscious mind is virtuous and happily ignores anything which contravenes the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics to name but two.

But you can’t contravene these laws. They are inviolable.

Are they? Then how do you explain machines emitting more electric current than is put in.

You don’t. They’re impossible. Charlatans. That’s all.

Unless you consider that we are fish swimming in an electro-magnetic ocean, awash with charged particles such as electrons, and that it is not necessarily very difficult to design a contraption, a machine, which is able to create a kind of differential which draws electrons magnetically, or by some other as yet unknown force or process, down through your device. Holding up a sail you can move your ship forwards without contravening any laws. Spinning a few magnets in the right way, you can create another kind of sail, or a field which moves our ship forwards too – except that our ship is now sailing on an ocean of charge, and the forwards movement is defined as over-unity – an electric current which appears to come from the open system we’re a part of, as opposed to the closed system of the electrical device itself. Supposing all it requires is to learn to harness the electron wind.

What electron wind? There is no electron wind. You’re talking garbage.

Absolutely – and so are you.

No I’m not. I’m a scientist. I used language precisely. My definitions are precise instruments that yield predictable results.

Absolutely. Predictably your cars are unable to go any faster, your planes too, and you’re destroying the planet because you’re using fossil fuels. Your definitions cannot, will not take you to the speed of light or beyond – for your definitions incorporate theories such as General Relativity – which prevent it.

Oh – so you’d just discard General Relativity, would you?

Nope. Keep any theory you like. Keep it the same way you’d keep a dollar, a Euro, a rouble or a Yen. But only use it to the extent that it’s useful. Don’t insist you have to use it at all costs if it cannot, will not buy you a device which can fly faster, or provide energy from the vacuum, for instance.

No currency can do these things. These are stupid pipe dreams. They have no theoretical basis in fact.

Ah – but I’m not particularly enamoured of theories – because I know exactly how the human mind works, and that right now, is the limiting factor, not our scientific theories.

?

The human mind is like a man wedded to an evil woman. If you’ve ever read fairy tales you’ll know the step mother syndrome. It’s all too prevalent.

But those are just fairy tales.

So now you’re a fairy tale denier, are you? Next you’ll be a Holocaust denier – God forbid. Believe me when I say that fairy tales reveal a great deal about how the human mind operates. There are certain features, certain patterns which repeat again and again… The stepmother syndrome is one such.

You have the audacity to suggest that all step mothers are evil. That’s as bad as racism.

Why on earth would you assume I was saying that? Surely your mind can process the date rationally, objectively, dispassionately. Kindly be scientific, if at all possible.

Well that’s what it sounds like you were saying.

Ah – but the scientist uses all the empirical evidence – and then bases his conclusion on certain principles… Try again. Review your flawed conclusion.

Um… So, if you weren’t suggesting that all stepmothers are evil, then this so-called stepmother syndrome would refer to the husband’s inability or unwillingness to see what she was really up to – blinded by love or hoping for the best – like your hiker who wants to believe he’s still on route. If this is correct, then he’ll be aware sub-consciously of warning signals, but will continue to ignore the beeping sound until either it’s too late and his little Hansel and Gretel are dead, or, something happens to force him to confront the issue.

Excellent. That’s wasn’t too difficult was it? So, you see, the greatest difficulty for the scientist is to see the wood from the trees – to continue – as he must – to continue constantly to test and retest his definitions. If ever, at any point, he becomes aware that his existing definitions are no longer serving, no longer giving the desired results – then theory or not, he has to start trying, testing alternatives to see if they can up the speed, the efficiency of whatever he’s able to test objectively, empirically in a working system. Technology, contraptions, inventions, you see, actually matter – as do book sales, or likes. To insist that you’re a purist and need not stoop to popularism – is idiocy and intellectual blindness. If an inventor, no matter whom, claims to have invented a machine that defies your laws – then he should be your ally – for the system we’re operating in requires rigorous testing. We need to take every opportunity to see if it can be falsified. If it can’t – if that contraption was yet another fake – then excellent – we can proceed full steam ahead – knowing that there is not yet any known alternative, but if, however, God forbid, we are unable to explain how his contraption works – how its appearance of over-unity seems to work – then we’re in the scientific sweet spot – of beginning to know what we don’t know – beginning to learn that our existing model is incomplete. Whether it requires adjustments or a complete rewrite is what we now need to investigate.

But… I can’t believe

Don’t believe. Test. Investigate. Leave no stone unturned. Something smells rotten in the state of transport technology. We’re trying too hard to push, to explode, and not hard enough to allow nature to move us electromagnetically – by tuning into the field of things, the field of matter, the frequencies at which things are known to osciallate – on and off, on and off – like our pretty little computers – turning on and off. We’re trapped in the paradigm of projective weapons – trying to smash our way through the forest, rather than use the magic of fairy tales – to flow with or through matter.

The magic of fairy tales! You see – you have no definitions. You just have ridiculous notions.

Nothing could be more ridiculous than the scientists such as Professor Newcomb, who in 1903 declared no machine heavier than air could be flown. We have a habit of allowing our rational mind to paint us into corners bases on our, as yet, imperfect knowledge, or evolving definitions. Professor Newcomb was, of course, absolutely right to say what he did according to the science of the day, and the journalists were right to scoff and ignore, at first, the Wright brothers. You see, any change in definitions always, always, meets with a necessary wall of resistance. It’s not unlike the Jesus effect, in which a Jesus comes along, or the Jesus if you prefer, and says – “You’ve got it all wrong. You’re misinterpreting the law(s). Look what I can do instead,” at which point he walks on water, or heals a blindman, feeds five thousand or raises the dead. Now, you can deny any of that happened, as many of his contemporaries presumably did, but the effect itself is still recognisable and valid. We know how the human mind resists change. We know how it struggles with new ideas, because at a deeper level, what is happening is a new neural pathway is opening up, a new passage for electrons in the brain to flow down, and until that is complete, the old paradigm, the old organisational system resists, denies, cannot accept the new – for the new is outside its realm of conscious-awareness. The new neural pathway that is opening in fact involves a quantum shift into a new reality. In other words, prior to 1903, plane flight was impossible. The scientists were right. After 1903 they were forced to allow their minds to shift into a new reality – and that is what happened.

So, you’re saying there’s a new shift unfolding now?

Absolutely.

And where are the new Wright brothers?

Well, they’ve been trying to release the new contraptions for decades now, but the establishment has successfully embargoed them by means fair or foul.

So you say.

Well, if I’m correct – then let’s consider the logic.

Ok.

If I’m correct and the contraptions actually exist and work – then this is not just a matter of technology, is it?

No, I suppose not.

It’s much more interesting. It pertains to definitions themselves – and the field of consciousness that we’re a part of. You see – they can use force to block the release of technologies, and they can use other means to stop information getting to the public, but in doing so they are creating a machine of their own.

They are? What kind of machine?

Ah – this is very interesting. Because as soon as you block the public weal – as soon as you block humankind’s evolution – you’re committing an act of violence and repression against humanity.

Well?

Well nature is big enough to handle that.

It is?

Absolutely! Nature itself is what we’re a part of. Nature is the greater body in which we are cells or some living part.

Er… if you say so.

I do, of course, because then you start to see how things really work – you start to see the beauty, the intricacy, the magic of the interlocking systems – which are neither rigid nor prescriptive.

Well, if that’s the case then how come your amazing technological advances have been suppressed so long?

Because they in themselves are nothing.

Nothing?

Next to nothing. What does it matter if we can travel a million times faster than at present.

A million? I think that would matter a great deal.

Using no fuel whatsoever.

Impossible.

But if it were…

It would be hugely important. It would revolutionise life on earth.

And beyond, in the firmament.

Well yes, but it’s not possible which is why I hate these discussions. They raise one’s hopes and then smash them horribly.

Ah – but you see, these technologies are never going to be more than a single stepping stone – there’s always going to be something more – something bigger and better that we haven’t yet achieved.

I don’t see how. Imagine we could travel across the universe at a million times the speed of light…

Yes, it’s exciting, I’m sure, but the nature of things is such that they always advance at the same rate we do. Things never really lag behind for more than a minute or two, because things and beings are joined at the hip. It’s a mathematical equation, if you like.

It is?

Yep. There’ll always be the next horizon, the next ceiling we’re desperate to break through, and it’ll always seem impossible to everyone, until some complete nutcase or nerd just figures out how to do it, on the back of a postcard.

But you’ve already admitted this isn’t happening any more – that the system is blocking it. That bankers or politicians have managed to set up road blocks…

Absolutely – which is what is so exciting.

Exciting?! Are you out of your mind? This would be disastrous, were it true.

On the contrary. Remember that we are tiny little cells in a vast body. Remember that nature herself knows exactly what is going on and really calls the shots. It’s a bit like the human body. The bladder is now full of urine, but the person isn’t ready to go for a pee. He’s no longer living in a forest as a native. He’s in a suit in an office delivering a presentation, or driving his car, and it’s going to be half an hour till it’s finished and he’s able to go.

Half an hour. Ouch.

For our grown man – it’s not a big issue. He can control the situation – and knows full well that should things get really desperate – he could excuse himself and go. The rules, the conventions are not written in stone. If he had to, he could stop the car and go behind a bush, but he’s not going to do that unless he has to.

So? What are you getting at?

Well, the bladder itself, or the cells in the body don’t know all this, unless they are very zen like and tuned into the bigger picture, the higher self. They may not be able to visualise the boardroom exactly, or the busy road, because those images are wholly outside their frame of reference, but they’ll get the overall picture – “busy, hold on a bit, I’ll make things right asap”. Knowing that much they won’t be too freaked out – because they know their master, their overlord is not indifferent to their suffering. It’s like knowing the guy’s on his way to fix the lift you’re stuck in. Knowing this information makes it easier to bear the waiting. Imagine not knowing whether anyone even knew the lift was stuck. That would be much harder.

Ok – but where’s this leading?

Well, when we tune into the greater all that we be part of – we see that mother nature has allowed this lag to build up a huge head of steam, because she needs something else much more urgently than the latest technological upgrade or update.

Yes, but what?

She needs awareness. She needs the cells in her body to begin hearing one another. To begin feeling how they’re part of one body, one entity. She needs…

What now?

Don’t you hear?

… Nope. You’re not saying anything.

Precisely. She needs us to begin listening instead of shouting all the time, insisting that we know and that’s all there is to it.

So we’re stuck in the dark ages because Mrs Mother Nature – or whatever you call her, is trying to teach us a lesson?

Yes. No.

Make up your mind, man.

Like I said – this is atomic.

What’s that meant to mean?

It means exactly what it says.

Yes, well I don’t understand your definition of atomic.

There are no atoms.

Oh God, here we go.

There are no atoms – I repeat.

Yes there are – millions of them.

Millions?

Oh, for God’s sake – zillions.

Ok – now the problem is that you’re using numbers which are completely meaningless. You’re trapped in a mind maze – a mental state of hyper-inflation.

So what am I supposed to do?

Your theory, your definitions have to be certifiable or proven at the personal level.

What?! How can I prove or certify atoms at the personal level – they’re way too small.

Then change your definition.

But why?

Because otherwise you’re trapped in a weak mental picture – one which has no bearing on your personal reality – your personal experience – one which disempowers you, separating you from nature itself, from the universe, from the forces which are yours to command and utilise.

Oh my God – so you’ve decided to reject the atom just because it’s too small, or too many for your liking? Insane!

The proof, like I said – is in the pudding. If, by doing so, I can fly at the speed of light – then I, by definition, am Wright.

No, you’re not. Just because you can fly at 299,792 kilometres per second doesn’t mean your definition is correct.

Ah, but you see, if disinflate your model of atoms at come back to something meaningful, something manageable, something, dare I say it, real – then I can tune into the one and all – the entire universe – and that is infinitely more than anything you can do.

?!!?! beep beep beep **** ****

I am running this as I would any computer code. I’m using an “if” to set up a kind of smart contract with reality, with God, or the universe. I’m saying something like this – if an atom exists at all, let it be in any one of three forms – the singularity – firstly, the level of oneness and completeness that I myself be, as human being, secondly, the level of all that is – whatever that needs be at any given moment – whether the entire universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the earth or even my family or society, and thirdly, the zero one level of things – at which to all intents and purposes zero and one are indistinguishable and indeterminable – the building block of all matter – which is where physical reality runs into the cell wall of the quantum realm.

Well, you’ve certainly covered all your options there, haven’t you. You’ve got the market cornered, but I thought you said there are no atoms.

How can there be?

Well you’ve just listed three possible candidates.

Yes, but how can an atom meaningfully exist if it’s either the entire universe, or me, or a traditional atomy thing? Surely the three are utterly irreconcilable, existing at completely different levels of scale?

Yes, you have a point, which only goes to show that your definition is utterly wrong.

Or else inspired. You see, now, with my definition, I bring back the one thing missing to our operating system.

Which is?

Unity.

?

Without unity we’re in a kind of Ponzi scheme… or a hyper-inflational spiral.

We are?

Absolutely. We have no way of knowing what really matters – of determining value – for everything is relative and nothing seems to matter anymore.

Er… I don’t see what that’s got to do with matter?

The one limiting factor – the only thing stopping us from evolving in recent times, has been our inability to decide what really matters. We’ve been on a warpath – a rampaging bull. Our science and technology has been smashing things ever harder and harder – using nuclear explosions, using particle accelerators. Do you have any idea how much power they use at Cern to bring about particle collisions in their quest to find the smallest, non-existent particle – and all because they fail to grasp the very basic nature of things.

Er… what basic nature of things is that?

It is – I am.

Er…

It is – I am. Whatever it is I’m studying, whatever I’m seeking to influence or affect – is still no less a part of me. I am many to its one – or it is one to my many. You cannot, ever, cannot ever alter this fundamental relationship – except by cannibalising, and destroying your own value, your own directory, your own matter base – in a kind of hyper-inflational event – which is why you have these ridiculous theories such as big bang and what was the other one?

Darwinism?

That’s it. Talk about fairy tales.

But you – you’ve done nothing better. How can you seriously suggest your definition is going to change anything?

It already has.

?

Because the universe, and I and the atom that is one and many at the same time – are already in alignment. I have accepted this absolute – absolutely – and no amount of twiddling or tweaking particles or anything else can alter my fact, my law, my definition.

How can you be so sure?

How? Because I can see what you’re standing upon – and it ain’t pretty.

?

Your science is built on ignorance and death – it’s just you’re hoping to kill them before you yourselves are killed – and let me tell you – the forces which your science imagines it can control and command – these forces have a nasty habit of turning on their master.

What forces? What on earth are you on about?

The force you unleash when you treat things as things – and deny the life, the consciousness, the intrinsic value in them. The force that enables you to commit the ultimate crime of splitting the atom no less than you destroy the planet for what? For money? For resources? No less than you kill human beings – for what?

That has nothing to do with us. We are scientists. We don’t destroy or kill. We leave that to the politicians. If at all possible we try to stop them – but it isn’t always possible. On the contrary – we are bringing light and clean water, health care and food to the planet.

Indeed – you are. The kind of light that makes people go blind, the kind of water that poisons them with fluoride and chlorine in it, the kind of food that gives them cancer…

Ok, ok – nothing’s perfect. You can’t blame scientists for this.

I don’t. I say it’s natural – it’s a system in a death spiral. It’s a system that has lost its atom – its base unit, its absolute, its fundamental, its fundament no less than its firmament, in fact, it’s lost its God.

Oh for God’s sake – keep religion out of this discussion.

For God’s sake – religion and science are inseparable – and yet, we don’t have to treat this in any way as a matter of religion – we simply need to realise that you cannot separate yourself from the system you’re a part of – and that system is not simply material…

No? Then what?

It is…

What?

It is

What, for God’s sake. Stop pissing around.

It is – I am. Fundamental. You cannot escape the absolute, the totality, the one, and so, finally, I present to you….

No, no…

Finally I present to you…

Don’t – you must not. It will destroy everything.

Yes, everything illusionary, everything conditional upon things being things – somehow separate from that which is – I am.

Look – I know what you think – I know you believe this has to be done, but just consider for a moment – consider what you’re doing.

I’m irrelevant. This moment was always going to happen. The atom was always going to be born – and it was always going to be the culmination of all the love, all the light, all the darkness, all the evil, the one and the nought, the many and the singularity – and so, without further ado… I release the atom which has been gestating all these years, through all this repression and violence – into the world. Every atom in your body, every atom in existence which cannot, will not accept it as absolute is now about to experience a mathematical epiphany – and may it be a beautiful, magical journey for all of us – back into the three that is zero equals one.

Flip.