Part Two: Quantum Subjectivity and The Holographic Model.

Dedicated To RD Laing
Energy = Information



The Relationship of Objectivity and Observers
"Eternity is the infinite existence of every moment of time. ... Eternity has one dimension more than time. ... If the space of time is four-dimensional, then the space of eternity is five-dimensional. (and) The sixth dimension is the line of the actualization of all possibilities."
-PD Ouspensky

"Then there is the further question of what is the relationship of thinking to reality. As careful attention shows, thought itself is in an actual process of movement. That is to say, one can feel a sense of flow in the stream of consciousness not dissimilar to the sense of flow in the movement of matter in general. May not thought itself thus be a part of reality as a whole? But then, what could it mean for one part of reality to 'know' another, and to what extent would this be possible?"
-David Bohm

In Part One, we looked at several aspects of consciousness in terms of interconnectivity in relation to the phenomenon of ghosts. In the holographic model of consciousness, each differentiated individual is only so on the surface, an all are facets of a much larger form of consciousness akin to what has been referred to in the past as a universal mind, which is an earlier holographic model of the same principle, less the mechanism which provides it. The linkage between this holographic or "universal" mind may be found in the quantum principle of non locality as applied to consciousness. In other words, our point of observation may be non local as pointed out by both John Lilly and Evan Walker among others, this presupposes the brain is a transceiving organ, which then certainly would be the primary medium in which the experience of encountering the "ghost image" of the person(s) would be aligned within our locus of experience. Dr Evan has suggested that the quantum potential state found in the neural net, specifically in the synaptic cleft, may be how we "log in."
Also, we examined briefly the concept of consciousness as perhaps overly anthropomorphic as in the example of the experimentations upon canine consciousness appears to indicate that if they were endowed with an appropriate larynx, they would be fully capable of falling within our terms as being as sentient as we ourselves are.
In other words, this field may be more common than we simply assume on an axiomatic basis. Krishnamurti also expanded the defining characteristics within field of consciousness upon a holographic principle as an individual as the species and the species is the individual. So, again, if we assume a coherent unity to these various aspects of consciousness, we then ask ourselves fine,but what is the proverbial carrier wave that allows a field of interaction? Further perhaps as a sublimation, we may or may not infer as this line of reasoning may be traced to it's root in a question, does matter in of itself in it's reciprocal relationships exhibit a form of sentience within a hierarchy of nested organizational complexities ? Is the information field such a carrier wave which provides for nested individuated form beyond death? If such a locus of a holographic model of information exists and is coherent, is this similar then to also an earlier model akin to the universal mind,which is the content of such an entity, an Ashkaic record?
It is interesting to note that Jacques Vallee has tentatively dabbled in these same waters to some degree briefly in relation to the UFO phenomenon which falls into my own purview that these various forms are actually from a common source which is the interaction between the individuated state and station of the observer in relation to a larger field of energetic "thought forms" or intermediary states of information. In evolutionary terms, this is not a static or far from an entropic constant, and the phase in which we are both embedded within and participating by, may be shifting it's positional state between the observer and the observed. In control theory,as related to computer systems, the observer state may not necessarily be deduced from direct observation but rather from it's inputs and outputs. as Peter Russell observed; "Where dogs differ from us is not in their capacity for consciousness but in what they are conscious of. Dogs may not be self-aware, and may not think or reason as we do. In these respects they are less aware than we are. On the other hand, dogs can hear higher frequencies of sound than we do, and their sense of smell far surpasses our own. In terms of their sensory perception of the world around, dogs may be considered more aware than humans. A useful analogy for understanding the nature of consciousness is that of a painting. The picture itself corresponds to the contents of consciousness; the canvas on which it is painted corresponds to the faculty of consciousness. An infinite variety of pictures can be painted on the canvas; but whatever the pictures, they all share the fact that they are painted on a canvas. Without the canvas there would be no painting. The pictures that are painted on the canvas of consciousness take many forms. They include our perceptions of the world around, our thoughts, our ideas, our beliefs, our values, our feelings, our emotions, our hopes, our fears, our intuitions, our dreams and fantasies -- and more. But none of this would be possible if we did not in the first place possess the capacity for consciousness. Without it there would be no subjective experience of any kind."
In relation to our chief feature, or difficulty,even impossibility in determining self without a direct basis of comparison in the exterior portion of our reality, leads us again to the study of ourselves as a series of subjective distinctions from our fellows in terms of the referential content.And so, if we are not cognizant of a basis of this relationship as to how we consistently redefine ourselves as a dynamic process, then when we edit where or at what we are observing may be more important than what we experience.

"The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change; until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds."
-R. D. Laing

Valuation As A Bias Toward Results
What is interesting to compare the variation found in the experience of those who experience ghosts, UFOs, abductions and other psychic phenomenon as being indicative of the state of the observer being a steering principle to the state of the message.
If I said to twenty individuals,a simple statement such as "God has no sexual identity", some may construe this as a feminist statement, some may view this as a statement of incomparability, some may find it insulting, some may view it as a gay rationalization or a truism. If I make another statement of only one word, "spaceship" how many visualizations can we muster among billions of variations, as many as there are individuals? If we, as Krisnamurti pointed out if we view ourselves as the species and the species is you individually as a holographic principle, then is there an aggregate consensus toward a visualization, does this bias or individuated conceptual form then appear in the sensate visual field according to the level of consensus of formulation toward it? Take the example of a human being and a potential observer in the application of subjectivity in relation to context. A person who is inclined toward engineering, would see this as a example of a mechanism. a person with a psychiatric background would examine this in terms of behavior,a naturalist in terms of environment. The Sufi take on the positioning of the observer in relation to conceptualizing and manifesting the results of same is the truth is colorless and tasteless liquid that takes on the color of it's container. If, in a laboratory environment of absolute neutrality, where such phenomenon are studied, does this represent the withdrawal of input into an interactive process and then being surprised the results are at best, mixed or at worst null, and then assuming there is no phenomenon present, is this counterintuitive?
Then there is the matter of interactive human "ghost images"....What is the observer's relationship to such a experience, what is the intent and motivation of the observer?
I have watched several "ghost hunters" plead for a manifestation with, "we just want to help you.."when it is patently obvious that this is far beyond their capability. Is this an ethical matter?I think so. The entertainment factor or the vicarious desire to make a flashlight go off is neither a valid rationalization for this behavior nor is it an experience the alleged "ghost hunters"would want to experience if the shoe was on the other foot. As William Greider observed; "If one benefits tangibly from the exploitation of others who are weak, is one morally implicated in their predicament? ....Our values are defined by what we will tolerate when it is done to others." In other words, if you determine ghosts exist as a critical assumption and precursor to hunting them,then where do your values apply when you insert yourself as an intermediary?

Context As A Determinant
Again what is missing is context, in both ghost and UFO experiences, as a tool to examine the reconciling manifestations that appear between the observer and the observed. What is indicative of the results of these encounters is another missing factor, which can be deduced from the state of the observer via their behavior, one of valuation.Why is this experience valued, or desired? What relationship is there between self value and the value of experience and the resultant claims made by those who profess them evangelically in the public square?
If the quantum experience is based on a wildly variating state of the observer, is this not the essence of subjectivity? If this is so, are we using an appropriate round peg to insert into a square hole by the misapplication of a non existent state of a constant.... objectivity? Why do we not explore the terms of subjectivity in relation to what is observed? Certainly, this aspect has been traditionally applied to discount, devalue, dare we say debunk the existence of these phenomenon as a form of reductionism, however, these may not be in opposition toward each other in a quantum context as a matter of defining these phenomenon is a enfolded and certainly at worst an entangled process. Even such a simple matter as instinct has enfolded characteristics as Gregory Bateson pointed out in this correspondence found in They Threw God Out Of The Garden: Letters from Gregory Bateson to Philip Wylie and Warren McCulloch, outlines an exploration of why and what we observe by an instinctual sense as applied to scientific methodology.

"The engineer’s question is: on which side of the fence do you want to place the complexity? Is normal life simple and pathology complex? Or vice versa? Now, we know from genetics that there are some cases in which a single gene determines a definite (?single) characteristic; and my namesake Gregor Mendel (my namesake is bigger than yours, Dr. Skinner) was lucky enough or cunning enough to happen on some of these. But, as genetic progresses, it becomes clearer and clearer that the characteristics of animals are determined by complex, interacting, overlapping and ‘redundant’ ( in the technical sense) constellations of genes. And this probably is progressively more so as we approach more ‘fundamental’ characteristics (the great homologies, symmetry, etc.).If this be true of physical characteristics, it is probably also true of behavioral-physiological characteristics, and it then becomes nonsense to ask the engineer’s question, above. The complexity is on both sides. And I do know this, that the older an automobile gets and the further it is from the engineer who designed it, the more complex it gets with multiple ‘pathologies’ and the more it takes on characteristics of a living thing - moods, caprice, etc. New cars are ‘it’ but an old car is ‘she’. So - I personally avoid the word instinct because it suggests to the reader a specific tag or gene or something which determines directly a specific ‘piece’ of behavior. There may be such tags for the dancing mice, but I doubt it for such constellations of behavior as are denoted by words like territory. Norbert Wiener once described ants as ‘cheap mass-produced articles,’ and it may be true that insects with their extremely economical circuitry are constructed on the engineer’s plan but even this I doubt. Consider the lilies of the field - they are not racked by separable purposes; and yet neither Darwin nor B. F. Skinner was ever arrayed like one of these.
The whole trouble (or a lot of it) results from the instinctive (innate) vulgarity of scientists, which is derived from the same ‘instinct’ as is the vulgarity of magic. (Even old Fraser knew that magic and science were somehow one.) The innate component of this vulgarity is relational. It is the relation between mind and consciousness - a relation of partial separation. You and I and Darwin and Skinner are all genotypically built upon a plan whereby that small selection from mind which appears upon the ‘screen’ of consciousness, is, for the most part, those bits and pieces which will inform our purposes. (The conscious/unconscious barrier is surely both an engineering necessity and genotypically determined. Whether the principles governing the selection of items for the screen of consciousness are also genotypically determined, I don’t know. There is surely some learning and habit formation in this business. That attention and the content of consciousness are linked must be laid down deep in the genome. But, no doubt, the directions of selective attention are part learned and part instinctive. There are always difficulties of this sort whenever we ask about components of an ‘instinct’.)"

In the next post perhaps it is this enfoldment as traditionally defined as quintessence, or the five folded nature of a conceptual model that would be useful in exploring further, the unknown.