CLAUS  DETTELBACHER

 

Wien - Austria

mail@ensatlantic.com

www.ensatlantic.com

 

 

@

 

ALTERED STATES CONFERENCE

Transformations of Perception Place and Performance.

University of Plymouth, 23-25 July 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yesod – the Controlling Media

 

Possible Interfaces between Organism and Mechanism,

Life and Technology under Consideration of Traditional Perspectives

- and an Apology for Metaphysics.

 

 

 

etaphysics. – A word, which still causes the modern man to shiver and subconsciously evokes an image of prosecution by an ?absolute? authority culminating in heretics being burnt at the stake. The subtle influence of the traumatic oppression of the medieval era and beyond is still felt today. Friedrich Nietzsche was among the first to probe this wound, which marks a much deeper cleft dividing European civilisation, than any political oppression could cause. Today we find traces of this historical separation especially in scientific terminology and ?culture?. Religious and metaphysical issues are frequently banned from every day?s Life, but as well as in Arts, they return when science reaches its borders, as is the case in quantum physics or artificial intelligence research.

A zenith in the ongoing cold war between metaphysics (mostly represented by members of the churches) and natural science was marked in 1922 by the formation of the Vienna Circle under chairmanship of Moritz Schlick. The members of the Vienna Circle influenced philosophy as well as science during and after WWII in Great Britain and the US. In the Vienna Circle metaphysical terminology was strictly observed, identified and occasionally punished with the shouting of ?M.!? into the round of disputants. In the foreground metaphysics was rejected with the argument of being ?useless?, though sometimes the highly emotional atmosphere of their discussions cleared the way to more serious reasoning.

Arriving from the intellectual side, metaphysics does not necessarily neglect materialistic approaches, physical laws or even Darwinism. This would be a great misinterpretation and simplification. As the word metaphysics is derived from the Greek word meta – meaning ?behind? or ?after? – it only states other and additional causes on top of the natural ones.

A general assumption about metaphysics is, that it deals with a finer, more subtle matter, than for instance atoms or even electrons [1] ; but this is only half-way true, since more effort is put on the different state of an (again) additional substance. This leads us directly to the important concept of dimension, which in metaphysics takes on the role physical scales occupy in other sciences. Instead of physical scales and ordinary mathematical instruments, it uses another kind of mathematics; that is analogy.

 

The metaphysical instrument of analogy meets its highest point of abstraction in the Sepher Yetzirah - a Kabbalistic text, earliest quoted in the 6^th century - where the source of this other scale are ?ten Sefirot of nothingness?.

Sefirah has the same root as the word Sefer – except that the former is masculine and the latter feminine. Sefirah is generally translated as ?number?, Sefer as ?text or book? and the word sippur, which has the same root, means ?telling, communication?. So with a metaphysical or metaphorical way of thinking we can come to three divisions of one root, representing quality, quantity and communication.

The ten Sefirot represent an archetype of analogical order and a seven(-plus) [2] layered hierarchy – not simply standing for the first ten numbers, but something like the most remote cause of them – whatever this may BE.

The Sepher Yetzirah does another thing: It explains the Sefirot as multi-dimensional cross, setting up a system of coordinates into the phenomenological world. This contains the dimension of time, a dimension of quality and three dimensions of space. One impressively lucid verse reads as follows:

 

?Ten Sefirot of Nothingness:

Their measure is ten

Which have no end

A depth of beginning

A depth of end

A depth of good

A depth of evil

A depth of above

A depth of below

A depth of east

A depth of west

A depth of north

A depth of south

The singular Master

God faithful King

Dominates over them all

From his holy dwelling

Until Eternity of Eternities? [3]

 

 

On the second lowest plane lies the Sefirah Yesod, the controlling media for Malkhut, being the lowest. Yesod is usually translated as ?foundation? and serves as kind of matrix for Malkhut, the latter meaning (physical) ?kingdom?. What we generally deal with is the layer of Malkhut, while Yesodian forces can be seen as the link to higher, more spiritual dimensions. It is also said to be the plane, where real creation takes its final shape, eventually filling the lowest of all worlds.

 

Translated into natural science, a good starting point and example for following up this theory could be in tracing back the work of the endocrine glands in the human body, which are often mentioned in tantric and yogic scriptures as cutting device between gross-body and prana, the life force. As far as to our research, this Sanskrit-word prana might be directly compared to terms with similar meaning, as could be Ch?i in Taoism and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) or the Egyptian Ka, also with the sense of ?life force?, the latter drawn as hieroglyph showing two raised arms with facing palms.

Also the Greek word ?ether? might be counted among the same type of substance and so providing an important link to western understanding. The above expressions can of course not simply be exchanged, but they refer to a similar phenomenon, fluidum, state of consciousness; what exactly this is, which aspect of it is represented by what term and tradition, and how – must be subject of further study. In the most optimistic assumption they might be all seen as facets of one source principle and maybe Yesod could be the best root and meeting point, simply because of its declared spiritual remoteness as ?Sefirah of Nothingness?.

 

 

rganism presupposes consciousness; and this consciousness is mounted on a mechanistic counterpart. This addition of consciousness is not to be understood being equal to something coming into existence out of the mechanism itself. There is a fine difference between being born through, or created from (the mechanism). In the first instance, the mechanism is used as a vehicle in the most literally sense, a tool of transportation and transformation; artificial intelligence is what we get on the other hand, where a machine creates a matrix-like structure, that resembles the human mind or even consciousness. But still in the most complicated structures this resemblance fails to hit the goal; today?s artificial intelligence is still confined and limited, depending on given parameters and mostly not able to program itself or seriously modify its operation system.

One main characteristic of the difference between mechanism and organism seems therefore to lie in the boundaries of their definition. The mechanism is acting as a strictly confined entity, while the organism to a certain degree has to be connected to the cosmos in a holistic way. Mechanistic structures can also be summoned under the laws of cause and effect, while organisms reflect infinite and sometimes circular properties, like auto-poietic systems.

Since the field of organism and mechanism is a very human construction, depending of two blunt words, it seems, that they can never be separated totally from each other, if we prefer to treat them in a scientific and not Manichaean way.

 

At this point we enter the aspect of consciousness, which happens to be an even more unsharp term. Ouspensky says, that self-consciousness, which is only one stage in the vertical hierarchy of consciousness, is tightly bound to memory skills. Any consciousness of whatever grade will elevate a machine to an organism and is therefore depending on a continuum of remembrance.

 

In the Greek-based European metaphysical tradition, memory is mostly associated with a physical understanding. This goes hand in hand with the assumption that the wakeful state of, for instance, humans is continuously connected with  ?memory?. What we generally call memory and the ability of remembrance, is often formed after the images of computer-technology and perceived as RAM-, Cache- or hard disk-like abstracts.

Traditions as shamanism or modern theosophy, the latter being origin of the New Age-Movement, neglect this viewpoint if it is applied to organisms. [4] In their opinion, memory is constantly existing and accessible, built up in the most immaculate way. They further think, that it is consciousness, which makes the (absolute) continuum accessible to an individual, the ability of concentrated witness-like observation from above. This function of consciousness is it, that builds the links and cutting devices to an always perfect and all-pervading memory.

 

When Paracelsus quotes Hermes Trismegistos, he says, only the soul alone can be the mediator between spirit and body. He goes on, that in Alchemy ?sulphur? takes the place of this mediator, but not the commonly known sulphur, since ?? the soul is another thing, not an inflammable or destructible corpus, but a fire itself.? And further, ?this sulphur is the quintia essentia sulphuris ??. [5]

At least here we reach the point of thinking, metaphysics must be something very obscure, contradicting any scientific approach. We cannot bring together these links of an irrational chain, until we get used to the perception of pattern and analogies again. Analogy can serve as the metaphysical counterpart to the Aristotelian tradition of logics, which stretches out its teachings beyond Newton and the Vienna Circle. Not contradicting the two-folded logic, it adds a vertical dimension to the field of perception.

Coming back to the sulphur, we find it also described as a fire that masters the four elements, ?? the principle which imparts form?. [6] Chains of analogies can now be linked to this ?sulphur?, like planets and certain centres in the human ?body of light?, which has been mentioned in Sufi-literature as well as in Chinese Medicine or Hindu-Buddhist scriptures on Yoga and Tantrism. But it should definitely not be understood as something like the human soul itself, though they together might have a common higher principle as their source – rather as a impersonal and more general medium between matter and spirit, which can appear in several layers of existence. As the area between intersecting circles, this ether-like fluidum has to be treated as part of both, the spiritual world of impulsion and the world of nature and evolution.

 

Consciousness studies do often have their roots in arcane traditions. Because these traditions seem to be not approachable by modern science, they are rather seldom used as foundation towards the general public.

Returning to the word foundation: As mentioned before, this is also the major translation for the Sefirah Yesod, which serves as fundament for Malkhut, the Kingdom of gross matter. But not like the soil gives base to a tree or building. Yesod provides its foundation into the contrary direction. This is described in a strong and poetical but nevertheless lucid way in the Sefer Yetzirah [7] again, which speaks of a covenant or oath between ?five opposite five? fingers of God. The Sefiroth grow like a tree, but into the opposite direction, from beyond heaven and time down to the earth. This ?tree of life? may be found as common metaphor in other traditions, like in Sufism.

 

Though those mystic traditions, nourished by centuries of experience and thinking, inspired great people in all fields of arts and science, a certain antipathy towards ideas and terms sounding to metaphysical cannot be neglected. Today?s scientific language strictly avoids expressions like ?soul? and ?ether?, making it very difficult to communicate with the sometimes vast knowledge of ancestors or mystic groups and persons. Since the dominance of materialistic views and naturalism might partially still be a result of the deep-rooted oppression through the European church(-es) centuries ago, the struggle currently comes back to surface again in the United States through an even stronger ongoing quarrel between Neo-Darwinists and Creationists.

Nevertheless terminological and ideological issues of that kind should not breed a new etiquette of exclusion and hinder us from using accessible knowledge from so called ?metaphysical sources?.

 

 

 

he crucial point of any future work to do in these fields - if we accept them as a thesis - would first be to follow the hints in several cultures and traditions in search of descriptions for the glue between a gross-material world and higher aspects of Life.

 

Furthermore we would propose to erect a field of intellectual tension between the expressions organism and mechanism. The latter should then serve as magnetic centres to create a platform and separate related phenomena, applying the Aristotelian methodology.

A third step could then be undertaken in applying the results of this intercultural and inter-traditional research to concepts of cybernetics and artificial intelligence or even some problems in micro-electronics, which deal with electro-magnetic fields. Another purpose would be to synchronize the results with those of brain research or near death research.

 

 

Inally – if you found this all interesting but obscure; by this time I cannot say, that I know, what exactly I am speaking of regarding this media (and this is an experience, which seems to be inescapable when dealing with metaphysics). To say it with Robert Musil, it ?is more anticipation than belief?, since any metaphysics, if there is one today, cannot fall back into the medieval (medium-evil) way of ?knowing?. [8]

 

And since knowing ends in fixation and confinement, characterised by the medieval state of mind, anticipating should not be labelled minor to this, but could serve as a tool of a newer, more ?honest? science, of which the claims are set not only through philosophers like Paul Feyerabend, but also by a new physics, brought into Life by scientists as Albert Einstein and Erwin Schr?dinger, who proofed the relativity of space and time and introduced the uncertainty principle – and who have laid the cornerstones decades ago for a revaluation of metaphysics. [9]

 

 

 

• Colpe, Carsten; Holzhausen, Jens (transl.): Das Corpus Hermeticum Deutsch. Vol. 1: Die griechischen Traktate und der lateinische ?Asclepius?. Stuttgart-bad Cannstatt 1997

 

• Eliade, Mircea: Le chamanisme et les techniques archaiques de l?extase. Editions Payot, Paris 1951

 

• Feyerabend, Paul: Against Method - Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. New Left Books, London 1975

 

• Kaplan, Aryeh: Sefer Yetzirah — The Book of Creation. Samuel Weiser Inc., York Beach/Maine 1997

 

• Musil, Robert: Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften I, erstes und zweites Buch. Berlin 1932

 

• Needham, Josph: Science and Civilization in China. Vol. II: History of Scientific Thought. Cambridge UP, Cambridge/England 1956

 

• Ouspensky, P. D.: Tertium Organum. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London 1921 (?)

 

• Paracelsus (Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim): De generatione rerum naturalium. Liber primus der ?Magia naturalis?. In Werke V, edited by Will-Erich Peuckert, Darmstadt 1968

 

• Pernety, A.J.: Dictionnaire mytho-herm?thique. Paris 1758

 

• Woodroffe, Sir John (Pseud. Arthur Avalon): The Serpent Power being the Sat-Chakra-Nirupana and Paduka-Panchaka. Ganesh & Co., Madras 1931

 

• Zeilinger, Anton: Einsteins Schleier – Die neue Welt der Quantenphysik. C.H. Beck, Munich 2003