Let’s get a couple of thoughts out of the way before I tackle a subject that has been structuring itself into a more concrete expression as of late.

At some point, the assertion that Descartes made regarding consciousness and being, will be considered humorous, if not asinine. I’m beginning to have my doubts that our form of consciousness and being are unique.

Humanity loves the search. In fact, we love the search more than the results that arise from it. Somehow results, as fine as they are, always seem a disappointment afterward. We measure, analyze, and then criticize, rather incessantly. This is humanity’s OCD. Rather ironic that we consider obsessive compulsive disorder a psychological condition in need of treatment, yet we base our very existence upon the lynchpin of our obsessions.

And one other thought. Why do we believe that love comes from the heart? What are we really talking about?

I have never been a person who seeks my spiritual life in religion. Religions are a socio-cultural construct that provides an intelligible methodology by which people can understand the apparent truths of our existence. I understand and thoroughly endorse the pivotal need and purpose of religion, I just have never required a strict, religious structure to my being, in order to find my suspension and purpose within Creation.

I view religion as an evolutionary vehicle by which to move the human species forward to some better existence. Religion might well be our guide forever, as it is so intuitive to human nature, or it might well lose its oxygen in a century or a millennium. I certainly have no answer to that, but I do believe that the universe is, in itself, a wind, a pneuma, whose direction and velocity is evidentiarily positive for humanity.

Now if humans are more than animal – a thing brought into form by some means other than natural evolution – then intent certainly comes into its own form and presence. Humanity has risen at a spectacular rate of progress towards a level of being that the universe, to our knowledge, has never produced before. Is this indicative of external divinity acting out a creative process? Keep in mind that the word “positive” applies only to the human animal, at least in our vernacular. One could say that the rest of the universe simply goes about changing with no progress at all. We view the universe through our own terms for what life is and isn’t. Are stromatolites any less than mammals? Were the Archean oceans less than today’s? Christianity understands this truth, and thus talks of man and woman as the shepherds of God’s creation.

What I am trying to get at is that no religion empirically answers the question “what”. The universe is “What?”. Religions have dealt with this question the best they could. Like speech writers for politicians, our shepherds have made much of the “what” of this creation, but none of it actually answers the question. It’s really not their business, afterall, but rather to simply get humanity through the day. Midst all their rich narratives come most of our spiritually-airbrushed understanding of the universe, but the empirical, practical side of reality – the one that gives rise to humanity just isn’t there.

The good news is that our obsession seeks the “what”. Speaking Christianese, if the universe is God’s creation, are we not to ask of what nature is this creation? God holds us not in abeyance to such questions. In fact, he has created us to ask and answer such questions. Here stands intent; whether it be God’s to possess, or of nature itself, the end is the same. There is some thing – internal or external – that guides the universe along its journey, and not in some haphazard manner. To know the mechanics of such a thing is exceedingly fascinating, and in the end, perhaps the eschatology of humanity.

As to the human animal, I have to side with Christianity in that humanity is unique in the evolutionary landscape, and Christianity’s philosophy and downwind theology is clearly one that advantages us. Christianity has direction. Intent comes squarely to my mind, and so I choose to direct my attention to the motive rather than the thing. After all, my favorite book of the Bible belongs to James, for it is he who noted:

“You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless.” James 2:20, NIV

This all leads me to my consideration.

I have my reasons to reset the conversation of what is responsible for everything we see and experience around us. We’re entering a distinctly new era for humanity. Those living in it currently may see only the dystopic events and conditions, and seeming failures brought about by humanity’s self-centered nature and dominating control over this planet. Or perhaps they just see the sparkly, little jewels dangling before their eyes. I see something else. I find using this word intent encapsulates my thinking and hopefully leaves room for a person of faith to observe my argument with a sense of open fairness. I’ll have to admit my use of the word intent is a buffer against the future of our deeper exploration into quantum physics. Should we find the ground floor of the “what”, perhaps we will also discover the “who”.

I wrote once about the art of being inexperienced and how it can work as a welcome aid in learning without bias. While humans love to spout their experience, as to affirm their ascendent relevance, I do believe it can frequently get in the way, setting roadblocks and turning opportunistic moments of education more into a contest of egos. Whereas, if you were to assume an inexperienced state of mind – not ignorant, but eager to listen and learn – you are simply maintaining a neutral and non-threatening position. This might be a good time for humanity to show some inexperience.

To quote Rice University professor, Jeffrey J. Kripal:

“We need a new imagination. My own best bet is that future culture is not going to be a scientific culture in the materialist or secular sense. But it’s also not going to be a religious culture. It will be something we have not even imagined yet, much less enacted through our knowledge and technologies. And I think that’s what is so difficult for people to understand.”

I’ll leave it to you, the reader, to assess the wisdom of the above quotation, however, I do find relevance to what I am discussing here, and I think we do need a new imagination more than ever as we pursue our humanity going forward. When I consider the future, I try not to let my imagination loose with the immediacy of things. The imagination I want people to think about is in a distant future.

So, what’s this ‘new imagination’? I cannot speak for Jeffrey J. Kripal, as to what he means by his words. I can only speak for myself.

For the majority of us, our spiritual life has been guided by religion. I have no argument with this reality. Religion has been alone in its pursuit of some greater reason for the universe for quite some time, and still predominantly holds the reins as to what it is to be spiritual.

However, I believe it’s time to rewrite our thinking and methodology on spirituality in light of our recent discoveries in quantum physics. I’m sure many readers of this journal have thought that much of what I have placed into the Forge has nothing to do with being spiritual. I disagree, for our connection to our spiritual nature is our connection to a higher level of consciousness; one with intent. This intent pervades throughout the universe and certainly deeply within us. Everything we apply ourselves to is an action of spirituality; a Jamesian acquittal, a search, with hope of mergence with the force that gave rise to us. If our spirits seek a higher plane of existence, perhaps it is to be found in the quantum universe.

Human behavior always has a probability factor. Humans are predictable, yet that is far as it goes. There’s no certainty. Perhaps this is why we have the obsession of gambling. One can call this free will, but it is most likely due to the principles of quantum physics. This is an easy denial by many classically trained academics, but the action of choice does fit into the theory of quantum physics.

Let me explain this, as a layperson. It is generally understood that what one sees, for example: a particle in a perceived direction and momentum, is more fallacy than truth. The particle follows all the possibilities available as it moves from one point to another point along its path. What we observe, however, is but the lineal path before our eyes, the predictable one. The same can be said of human behavior. You never know what will come from the mind, the mouth, or the body until it happens. One can predict the action, but can never be certain of the path or the outcome. Free will creates a wholly separate process of searching for the points of reasoning that brought a person to a certain point.

Even after endless compilations of data and investigation, we are frequently left with results that can be disappointing. Does this sound familiar? Is this not the normal condition of humanity. Perhaps one could suggest the correlation between our fundamental structure of how we deal with choice and the fundamentals of quantum physics as being quite similar.

Another principle of quantum physics is the recognition that any observation or judgement of an object produces a change in said object. For me, this is the jumping point into the subjective narrative by which we function as humans.

People develop narratives from probabilities. Life, as we experience it from a quantum physics viewpoint, may well be the continuum of ‘einselections”, or the ongoing succession of objective observations that quite oddly results in physical reality. How do we get from progressing, afferent cognitions – a Mickey Mouse tugboat captain series of celluloid frames – to a demonstrative and meaningful life, finding fulfillment and contentment?

We start with the necessity of observation, or some sensory input that causes the mind to translate this singular, conscious perception into a form of usable data – basically an algorithm for life.

Now, the observation I referred to earlier is the object of the subjective format in which we pursue our well-being. If this sounds confusing or ambiguous, it need not be, for this is the juncture between the object and the subject where existence becomes meaning, that infinite realm of the spiritual in which intent manifests itself in its self-creative nature.

Let me explain my notion of the object of the subjective format.

I am walking down the stairs into the basement of the Beta House at Ohio Wesleyan University to attend a rush party. I observe a young woman standing at the bottom of the stairs, a bit to my left. At first, she is an objective illusion, becoming a reality without qualities. Without conscious effort – involuntarily and intuitively – I note her white crocheted mini dress, long flowing hair, large eyes, slight smile. I assess her subjective possibilities, and then make predictions of her personality, habits, desires, and proclivities.

My observation of her is a series of snapshots. Each one, in my mind, is categorized and aligned with the previous exposures. Such activities of the mind create, amend, and ultimately fix mental perceptions. The reason I put my focus of attention upon her, and not on some other woman, is the result of my subjective summations about women and my preferences thereof, and such subjective conclusions arise and cement into the habituations of my personality and subconscious.

Let us take that woman once more. This time let us imagine I can simultaneously locate my visual perspective from any position I choose. I can now look at her from an infinite number of locations, angles, and proximities, and with each viewpoint comes a distinct set of objectifications that aggregate themselves into a subjective reality.

In all of this, I have created a multiverse woman who might possess and exhibit an infinite range of thoughts and actions, much like my earlier description of the quantum physics principle regarding predictability. It is in my being that I make my predictions of her, and can only observe the results as they happen from one moment to the next. I choose my perspective according to my habituated preferences. Have I objectified or subjectified her? And what about you? What thoughts are in your mind about moi?

Everything I just talked about concurs with the developing narrative of the nature of the universe, maintained by quantum physics. I’ve seen little on the subject of how the mind thinks in relation to quantum physics. If the mind is a connection of some sort to a singular consciousness that pervades, or perhaps simply is, the universe, then the mind and body are part of that system, and its function would be an emergence from that singular nature; an emergence that manifests itself in what we refer to as the physical world.

What I have been driving at is the idea that we are beginning to understand how things work, at the most basic of levels, and in so doing, we are also beginning to develop a narrative for the manner in which Creation exists, how a form of intent exists, and how this intent does its work in creating and moving Creation forward along our perception of space and time. Now, for many of us this intent refers directly to a divine presence.

The long-standing argument has been that religion and science have no place together, or common ground, in the spiritual life of humanity. I believe quantum physics is beginning to demonstrate quite the opposite of positions.

Another principle of quantum physics states the condition of entanglement and non-locality; yes, I understand, what the heck do those words mean? In the simplest of definitions, there exists a reality that defies everything we have been taught about the speed of light. Physicists have observed and verified that two or more particles, separated by a distance, share and act in certain forms of unity, simultaneously. This defies the accepted theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light, and yet here we have two or more particles acting in unison over large distances. How do they know what the other is doing, and can act in counter unison at exactly the same time? In such events, any observation is automatically accompanied by a change or action of the particles in apparent response.

So, we have events taking place in which there are systems that act in unison, even where the system is separated over great distances. If you were to begin to put these recognized principles of quantum physics together, and move these principles up the scale in macro systems, like people, worlds, galaxies, and the universe, there emerges quite a bit of discussion between physicists, philosophers, and others on the nature of the universe, and the possibilities of a general condition of consciousness when describing these things. We know this at our level, of course, but one rarely considers that all things may exist under these principles and have some consilience, or singular consciousness, shared between them.

If this is true, think of the matter of causality, for example. We have the possibility of a universe that inherently acts as a singular whole, including all things within that universe, us included. Have you ever thought about how a society seems to move emotionally, intellectually, athletically, preferentially, as one. We talk of memes and things going viral on the internet. How does authority actually work, and why do we pay attention to people of authority? What is social power? Is it not interesting that if you have power, “time waits on you” ? What I am describing and adorning with questions is the very definition of a society. Is the universe predictable, but no more so? Is quantum probability human free will? Perhaps our conscious nature emerges from some form of the same nature.

If these things are anywhere near true, then does this not describe what we, in our own anthropomorphic sense of things, would call a consciousness? It makes perfect sense to me to say that human behavior flows from the same rules of physics as does a bouncing ball. I can further state that subjective expression, born from quantum observation, is the manifestation that emerges from universal consciousness.

Objective realities are the ruby slippers of the landscape in which we move and breathe. What we believe to be our subjective reality, viewed only from our first-person view into this landscape, is an emergence resolved by the mind, and more important, by the singular consciousness that resides behind the proverbial curtain, the Oz of our universe.

When our snapshot imagery conjoins with our subjective experiences, we have the opportunity to move past two-dimensional assessments and achieve a multi-dimensional state of being, an empathetic state of union with that which is in your focus. I urge you to consider the spiritual quality of empathy; not just putting yourself in another’s shoes, but becoming one in nature.

Subjective reality is believed by many to be the gateway into the spiritual realm, or into the singular consciousness that might well constitute the whole of the universe. I will propose that there is nothing separate about this, rather you are in it at all times. It’s just that our mind cannot access it in its full nature. The thinking is that what is in the human mind is, in some small measure, of a greater, universal form, either diluted or filtered down to reflect the human body’s nature and abilities.

For myself, I have found quantum physics to be of great comfort. It may sound odd to lean on a science instead of the vast library of spiritual and religious text and ritual. I understand this departure from chronicled reason, yet I do so because of what I believe to be the beginning of revelation of what, how, and perhaps even who creates the universe; in the present tense, most certainly.

Quantum cosmology, a recently emerged discipline of physics, concerns itself with the composition of the universe, as expressed through the theories and principles of quantum physics. There is now a recognition within the scientific community that these theories and acting principles have much more to do with our universe than merely applying to its microscopics.

Another realm is that of quantum computing. Quantum computers are projected to have zero lag time in producing answers to questions asked them. Think of this, knowledge not calculated, but simply revealed, as if all knowledge resides in the very structure of the cosmos. Does this not give one thought of things more innate to ourselves and metaphysical in being than merely useful data?

Quantum physics asserts a world in which matter and waves are simply temporary states. The meaning of this revelation in science will be filtering slowly into our spiritual, as well as technological, world long into the future.

I have taken some liberty with our awakening understanding of quantum physics and the universe, in light of its emerging alternative hypothesis for life itself. I confess this alternative is one in some conflict with our foundational use of religion, as well as classical physics, as a source of understanding, use, and comfort. Yet, I believe that quantum physics is on the edge of proving something not necessarily divine in nature as we understand from religious text, but perhaps divine if we were to understand the incomparable wonder of a universe comprised of an intent moving us through a self-creative process by a singular, ultimate godhead.

Was it predetermined, or simply a case of free will that the woman I observed, as I walked down the staircase at the Beta House, would one day become my wife? This brings me back to one of those questions I posed at the beginning of this essay, “Why do we believe that love comes from the heart?”. Perhaps in humanity’s future, faith will become knowledge as to where love truly comes from, and why it holds forever the hearts of us all.

[1] https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-flip-and-the-flipped-leaving-materialism-behind-an-interview-with-jeffrey-j-kripal/reading/

[2] ‘Home from the Hill’, Captain Wade Hunnicutt.