The Principles of Science and Metaphysics

Studying the cosmos requires a methodology and a way in which that study is conducted that gets us to answers about who we really are and what reality is really about.  In my writings I have presented hypothesis about the nature of our reality in terms that I understood from my own readings, thoughts, and visions relating to the nature of how everything goes together as a cosmic paradigm.  Those concepts however are themselves part of a general quest for knowledge that we all must take at some point in our journey into creation to explain the nature of everything we experience.

This essay is designed to be read before my other essays (with the exception of the core essay which is mostly on science) in order to explain the whats and whys of the questions of our nature in a more realistic manner for the average person.  In this I will look into the philosophy of nature itself and the reasons I see for the various ideas presented in my essays with regards to their necessity within the notion of paradigms of reality.

Some of these principles are assumed properties of a just existence.  The idea that creation can be unfair as a whole is discarded on the first thought.  The reason is that reality must be just as a whole.  No alternative idea is possible considering this matter.  While life in the physical universe may be cruel and vicious to individuals, the whole of creation must be balanced in it's entirety.  While the whole of creation isn't visible from the physical universe, only a just existence can be possible from the metaphysical point of view.  The concept of accidents, as such, is discarded when considering the total of karma that allows for creation to exist in the first place from the point of view of metaphysical just ends.

Yet philosophically it must be taken into account the idea of all arguments.  In this there are schools of thought that reject the idea of karma that preconceive the notion that we exist singularly as solitary expressions of singularity having no greater self reality than that which we are in the moment of this lifetime.  Such ideas are held by the vast majority, not necessarily because of any depth of thought, but primarily because ideas close the mind down from considering anything other than the ego.  Thus the singular life notion is the most ultimately egotistical of all ideas, relegating existence to a meaningless flash of momentary juxtaposition of themes as people understand them.

The primitivism inherent in philosophies based on rejectionism of all possible metaphysical themes is likely to remain the dominant worldview of the majority of humanity for quite some time.  But why are such views inherently inferior to views that encourage the exploration of a greater self identity than that which is left to this singular lifetime?  Indeed, this fundamental question goes to the heart of the principles of metaphysics.

It all begins with the concept of a just existence.  Death, if permanent, is unfair to the individual in question.  This is known by everyone and hardly requires proof.  No one likes death, especially when it comes to their death.  Here, at the heart of instinct, is the very reason that reincarnation offers the only possible solution to what is an injustice against the soul.  No one can ever accept the possibility of permanent death as the solution to the idea of a just cosmos.  This very fact proves the idea of the evolution of the soul, as it is impossible to construct a just cosmic paradigm without it.

Thus the first principle of metaphysics is that you are eternal and immortal as the transdimensional nature of yourself in every aspect of everything you have been throughout all of eternity.  This basic metaphysical principle sets up all the other thoughts easy and directly.  It is based on the idea that death is not just because you are not satisfied with it.  Because you cannot be satisfied with it, death is a lie, and as such though you experience it physically, you are more than just what you are in the moment.

The first principle of metaphysics leads to the first principle of science.  Science states everything is real as its first principle.  Gone is the idea that something isn't real because some philosopher questioned the nature of what he experiences in his senses.  Every thing has an existence and all things are separate in their existence in the physical universe.  As such all things vibrate within their own space, so have some sort of consciousness as long as vibration is seen as something real.  And, of course, it must be.

Science concerns itself with the reality of things as they are in the moment, whereas metaphysics concerns itself with the reality of things as they were and will be and what they are ultimately in the highest sense.  Science can only see what is right in front of it to study.  When we combine these two perspectives, we get a very complex view of creation that considers the question of the boundaries between things that are, and between things that may be but that we cannot see directly.  Philosophy occasionally intrudes into this dialogue as we question ourselves and the source of our knowledge concerning reality.

Into this basic dialogue we throw the world's cultures accumulated self knowledge about everything that has ever been written whether true or false.  In this, we, as explorers must ascertain what is true and what is false about the ideas we hear about reality on the Earth.  When we catalog that reality for ourselves and build a paradigm, as I have done, we demonstrate part of our journey into the mastery of knowledge.  That paradigm is, of course, incomplete, as it must be due to the nature of my life.  And this is the same for all seekers who wish to plumb the depths of science and metaphysics for the ultimate answers to the questions of being.

Many of the ideas we have heard have a basis in fact, while others are complete fabrications.  Take, for instance, the idea of heaven.  Does heaven exist?  Is there a transdimensional cosmos of higher planes?  Is there only one higher plane or many?  Is everything we have heard in metaphysical writings false?  These are all valid questions to ask every time you read someone's paradigm.  If you have visions, should you take them at face value or question them?  Obviously, the 2nd one is the right answer.

It is a truth in our quest for knowledge that the final version is the only version that matters.  I have discarded many ideas in the quest for a better version of the paradigm I utilize.  Most of those ideas I discarded were cherished ego based notions of what I wished to be within.  Not that anything is wrong with wanting to be greater than one is, but the truth of the cosmos must ultimately be upheld for you are what you are.  So thus, we discard many false notions of self before we discover the truth.  Metaphysicians seek to know themselves in the ultimate form of who they truly are, but they also have to live ordinary lives and the quest isn't safe to perform while we have major life threats to our existence or while we are engaged in ordinary every day work.

So then, where do we start regarding the questions of the true nature of our cosmos.  It seems the most basic place to begin is the look at the most fundamental division in our understanding of the cosmos, the conflict between materialists and spiritualists.  Materialists do not believe in any higher planes.  Spiritualists do.  This fundamental divide immediately cleaves humanity into two camps based on their belief about what is real.  There is a third school, closely related to materialists, who can be called practical realists who ignore any spiritualist speculation to focus on their material lives only.  Conversely a forth school exists that denies the existence of the material world at all, the nihilistic spiritualists.

Between these four schools we find every possible variation of theme in terms of the basic opinions as to the existence of the higher planes and their natures.  We have many traditional religious dialogues which have been invented by writers in the material world to tell us how they saw things.  And without visions as proof, or more precisely, without true spiritualist experiences, no one can have proof of these ideas.  How can one tell?  It is by the density or intensity of the experience that mystics of the spiritualist school can ascertain the science of the mysteries of existence.  It is only by these direct experience that we can truly know anything about higher dimensional realities.  Although, intuition can give us clues, we cannot truly know until we have experienced full vision.  Only such an experience would destroy the doubt that is built into us by the nature of our struggle to survive in this harsh world.

The second principle of metaphysics is that this world is not the only one, but that the world is composed of at least two planes of reality, the world we live in, and the world we return to when we die.  This basic idea is well established in all religious and spiritual traditions on the planet and everyone in the cosmos for sure.  This basic idea, which is accepted by the majority currently, is that indeed our existence here is not the sole purpose of spiritual existence.  It is merely one piece in a complex puzzle about what we are in total as souls.  While accepted blindly by most and rejected harshly by skeptics of the materialist school of thought, this idea is the one around which will take place The Great Debate.

Without proof how can we know?  If we have proof in our own internal experiences as mystics, how do we share them?  If these experiences then line up with other mystics who share our vision, then, and only then, do the spiritualists truly win the debate.  It requires extraordinary proof to demonstrate the connections in spirit.  And what purpose would such a quest entail?  For what end goal would such a lofty exercise in spiritual discipline truly deliver?  In my opinion, it is to end the age old debate of what is possible with consciousness.  It will be the opinion of the majority that it is not possible to have full consciousness of what one is in this world until someone comes along and proves that idea wrong.  Indeed, one could call this idea the ordeal of the mystic, one that must prove the spiritual properties of the cosmos are accessible to anyone.

Where is the science in all this?  Well if you know you know.  Proving that you know takes quite an effort.  After all, very few people actually know that much, though many pretend to know a great deal more than they actually know.  But the scientist must explore the cosmos in his or her own way so that those who are going to go on the journey into knowledge by right of the mystic aren't going to ask permission from a closed minded realist.  They are simply going to go out the door into the unknown and dig it out of their own souls however they do it.  If the theory of metaphysics is true, then at the end of that journey a group of mystics will discover each other and collectively will have a group vision that is identical out of which a map will be created to guide others to the truth they have discovered together.  But, such a thing is a long way off indeed.

Until such time we must grapple individually with principles.  Principles are the foundation of all deep thinking.  They are essential ideas that must be true and that create archs of thought concerning reality that are fundamental to observational analysis.  Again, we speak of the idea of that which is here and material in this world and that which is invisible and immaterial in the other world.  There is the idea of cosmic gods and goddesses and terrestrial small minded beings such as ourselves.  If certain ideas are true, then others follow.  This creates a chain of reasoning whereby we draw a map of all possible rationality concerning the nature of the cosmos.

If it is true that this cosmos exists, then either it was created or not created.  Either it has existed forever here in a state of some sort of flux or it hasn't.  If it was created then some processes and/or being or beings created it.  If it was created then there was a process involved in that creation.  If it has always existed here in a state of flux, then there will be proof in the science of the cosmos that indeed that is the case.   If anything doesn't add up, then someone's version of reality isn't complete.  Are we the co-creators or are we just fools participating on a lesser level?  Each of these questions has answers, and each of those answers has a price for answering it in time and energy expended searching.  Are the answers worth the price?  What do we gain from having those answers?

Can we know?  Obviously the answer to that question is ultimately yes.  Sometimes it isn't possible to know right now though.  Perhaps that is the most frustrating part of the journey for those who are curious and looking for the final ultimate satisfaction of an answer that is complete.  We are humans so inherently the limitation of our lives impose a limit as to how much of the ultimate questions we can have answered.

When we look at the world of metaphysical speculation we come across the most common school of thought in western metaphysics currently, which is the new age speculation set.  We come across the idea of chakras, an Indian idea, and the idea of the seven planes, also ideas from the East or from traditional metaphysical speculation passed down for ages by the various teachers of the deepest fundamental truths known.   The idea of these planes has never been adequately explored sufficiently for my taste.  It is one of the reason I have suggested in this essay the possibility of there being only two planes, the material and the higher plane.  While my personal bias on the matter inclines me to believe in the concept of many planes, the exploration of planes is not something I think anyone on the planet currently has much to offer regarding due to the nature of the human condition presently.

What are the practical applications of the idea of the seven planes?  Can they truly be a useful idea if no one ever goes through them and visits them to check out what goes on there?  I know of no one who has claimed any real ability to observe or experience these planes.  While I assumed their existence in my own hypothesis, the reality of those seven planes is as alien to our experience as anything conjured up by religious writers throughout human history.  These are essentially stories about the fact that indeed there may be seven planes including the physical that are the common afterlife experiences of human beings.  But, we know nothing of these things.  Absolutely nothing can be found in these stories other than speculation.  Only real experience prove reality.  Stories are just stories.

Metaphysical speculation is not the same thing as the scientific exploration of metaphysical themes.  The first is merely a bunch of people talking about what other people have talked about.  The second is the actual going out and seeking metaphysical experiences in order to have experiences that are not related to this dimension.  You can see why there were so many warnings about that idea in the more conservative sections of society.  After all, the most sure way to find out what's on the other side is to get yourself killed.  Indeed, such exploration takes you far away from anything that anyone running a materialist oriented society would want you doing.  After all, if you're off in some cave doing ayahuasca looking for the secrets of the afterlife in all its glory, you're certainly not around to cook dinner.  I don't recommend such an approach, especially the ayahuasca part until you've got a solid grounding in reality anyway.  Not that I need anyone cooking for me, but nature doesn't make it easy to look behind the veil, and most young people who do get lost somewhere along the way.  It's best left to old people in my opinion who have nothing to lose by taking a glimpse.

But, none the less, people are going to go looking for answers.  Scientists will continue to explore the depths of the material universe in all its glory.  Mystics will continue to look for the holy grail of paradigms or to find some higher dimensional being to comfort them in their search for spirit.  Many will be lost to these quests, and many will be stopped from fulfilling them by otherwise well meaning individuals who are afraid of what that quest will mean for the yearning seeker.

The principles of science are easier to deal with.  The physical world is real.  Matter, in the new physics paradigm promoted by Mark McCutcheon and his students such as myself, is built on an expanding electron.  The expansion creates what we call the four forces, but who are in fact one force.  The expansion itself is based on some sort of principle of the cosmos.  Matter and energy are tied into the expansion so that they are one and the same, the expansion of fields of matter.  The expansion, which is the expansion of a vibration (the electron), is likely occurring in a medium which I have named the ether from traditional metaphysics.  Proving the existence of ether is rather a challenge though I've managed to present the case as best as I can in my writings.

Science bases it's understanding of the universe on observation.  Many of my science writings are based on reinterpretations of observation in light of the new theory that are my particular interpretations.  This is especially true when people consider my science of the new cosmos with its radically different version of how planets, stars, and other larger structures operate through the expansions pressure paradigm.  Yet the idea is clearly physical based on the power of expansion and force of physical electrons and the properties of physical matter in light of the new theory.   This, to this date, is still my proudest achievement.  The new paradigm is something I am sure will ultimately be proven true in most if not all of its ultimate predictions.  It is simply too physical to ignore, unlike my metaphysical ideas.

The principles of metaphysics will always revolve around the idea of karma, reincarnation, and the reasons for certain relationships in life between people.  The dynamics of these relationships goes into the core of why apparent injustices happen to people.  Metaphysics does not deal with how to fix a problem in consciousness that creates injustices, it only addresses the why of how those injustices that could not be fixed otherwise happened in the first place.  This sort of thinking inevitably leads to a certain degree of hostility from more conscious people who aren't interested in the elegance of divine judgement in these sorts of cases.  But, for the future winners of the karmic lottery, inevitably they are salivating of the prospect of the day of vindication for their aggravations.   Surely only a mean bastard would deny them their day of karmic justice. 

What other principles can one imagine besides these?  I have written of many in my writings.  It has always been my earnest goal to create a map of these principles to make future thinking easier for future thinkers.  The most powerful thing a mind can have is a good map of all the possible theories available.  Such a thing is inevitable to be produced.  Once we understand which of the principles we believe in are real and which are distortions or complete fabrications, it is then that we will truly be able to have clear minds about the nature of the experience of living we find ourselves facing.  But, as to what all the possibilities of the cosmos are, it is most wise to suggest that we will never have a full answer to that question.  And indeed, it is most fortuitous that we are forced to live through those possibilities instead.    For sometimes answers aren't enough, and questions should be left at the door.  So are the limits of principles.  We breathe instead and grow into the feeling that expands us outwards into the dark by the power of the light within.  Indeed, this is the one thing that can be relied upon always.