Exhibit Space Agreement - National Association Of State Fire Marshals: Fill & Download for Free

In my view, I think of CONSCIOUSNESS = AWARENESS OF ‘IT,” WHATEVER ‘IT,” IS.In short, from my perspective, I tend to favor the “TAO OF PHYSICS” typologies that are expert in mathematics, sciences, comparative theology and culture, symbolism, quantum physics, that discuss quantum metaphysics/mysticism.My perception involves the interpretive principle of “synchronicity” as a methodological approach.Then I try to picture the broadest vision of an “OBSERVER.”Bertrand Russell suggests,“It is natural to suppose that the observer is a human being or at least the mind but he is just as likely to be a photographic plate or clock. That is to say the odd results as to the difference between one ‘point of view’ and another are concerned with the ‘point of view’ in a sense applicable physical instruments just as much as to speak to people with perceptions” (The ABC of Relativity p 138).I think of Einstein’s view,“In Einstein’s vision, the universe is like an organism in which each part is the manifestation of the whole” (Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind p 76).I notice that each of us are made in the same image of “whole” and “parts.” Everyone is composed of sub particles, atoms and molecules, chemical dna, bacteria, organs and so on (multiplicity) while simultaneously acting as a person (unity).Some can visualize this same image impressed as social structures.Alvin Toffler in Foreword to Nobel Prize recipient Ilya Prigogine, and Isabelle Stengers book, Order Out of Chaos, says,“Imagine a situation in which a chemical or other reaction produces an enzyme whose presence then encourages further production of the same enzyme. This is an example of what computer scientists would call a positive-feedback loop. In chemistry it is called ‘auto-catalysis.’ Such situations are rare in inorganic chemistry. But in recent decades the molecular biologists have found that such loops (along with inhibitory or "negative" feedback and more complicated "cross-catalytic" processes) are the very stuff of life itself. Such processes help explain how we go from little lumps of DNA to complex living organisms. More generally, therefore, in far-from-equilibrium conditions we find that very small perturbations or fluctuations can become amplified into gigantic, structure-breaking waves. And this sheds light on all sorts of "qualitative" or "revolutionary" change processes. When one combines the new insights gained from studying far-from-equilibrium states and nonlinear processes, along with these complicated feedback systems, a whole new approach is opened that makes it possible to relate the so-called hard sciences to the softer sciences of life-and perhaps even to social processes as well” (Order Out Of Chaos p vii).I would note that even lower forms, the same image,Termite, ants, bee colonies and so on. If one tries swatting a bee, for example, the individual does not have to have clue as to what happened, yet the broader “organism” steps up to the plate and may do something about it.Mold cells without brains emerge to become slime mold, resembling the same structure as neural cell firing, to exhibit as if intelligent behavior.We can take this to another level. Mathematician physicist and theoretical physicist Professor Wolfgang Pauli has a dream illustration, his “countries mandala” (shown here below on the left side of the table) which ironically is analogous to his own “Pauli exclusion principle,” where electrons appear as if jumping into another level.The reason I am referring to Pauli’s dream illustration is that he also discusses the analogy between an individual (dream) and collective unconscious * and uses the same four functions of the psyche’ that the psychiatrist Dr. Carl Jung used in therapy for the individual.* Pauli prefers to use the term “u-field” when around physicists. “All sorts ideas crossed my mind on hearing this: Among physicists I sometimes use the term ‘U-field’ for the unconscious ...” (Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters 1932–1958 p 144).It is as if we can visualize and individual “I” simultaneously in another spectral coherent orbit or level emerging as a sort of Ultra Human with a collective “I.”Paleontologist theologian Pere’ Pierre Teilhard de Chardin admitted,“No doubt it is true, scientifically speaking, that no distinct centre of superhuman consciousness has yet appeared on earth ( at least in the living world ) for which it may be claimed or predicted that one day it will exercise a centralizing function, in relation to the associated human thought, similar to the role of the individual ‘I’ in relation to the cells of the brain” (The Future of Man p 174).And yet we are hearing experts in mathematics, science, quantum mechanics discussing quantum metaphysics/mysticism that appear to form a coherent image that can be seen from Greek metaphysics, Eastern mysticism, touches of Egyptian symbolism, dream language, theology and more as pieces of the puzzle.Depth psychologist Dr. Ira Progoff suggested that we compare Teilhards vision of the noosphere with the work of Pauli and Jung’s collective unconscious and synchronicity (Jung, Synchronicity and Human Destiny pp 7–10).And indeed, TeilHard’s vision of a thinking earth and noosphere that spans across the galaxies and permeates the universe, is somewhat like some of the images of far out space, even a transparent brain.And Teilhard does persist in his enthusiasm to describe his vision.“…what I have called its 'Brain'. As in the case of all the organisms preceding it, but on an immense scale, humanity is in process of 'cerebralising' itself. And our proper biological course, in making use of what we call our leisure, is to devote it to a new kind of work on a higher plane: that is to say, to a general and con­certed effort of vision. The Noosphere, in short, is a stupendous thinking machine.” (The Future of Man p 180).Naturally, there are many questions and profound implications. For example, when writer Arthur Koestler question regards a “subtle character” a requotes Jung,“As far as my observations go', wrote C. G. Jung, 'I have not dis­covered in the unconscious anything like a personality comparable to the conscious ego. But. .. there are at least traces of personalities in the manifestations of the unconscious. A simple example is the dream, in which a variety of real and imaginary people enact the dream thoughts.. .. The unconscious personates” (Act of Creation p 187).The image of dna characteristics in a conscious human and the multiplicity/unity of a collective invisible spirit/mind is echoed by many thinkers. For example,“Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as a creator and governor of the realm of matter...” (James Jean The Mysterious Universe p. 137, 1937 ed.).But is the universe a “body” and the “observer” similar to a dumb computer that has access to all the data of the universe and retrieves it haphazardly, or does it constantly expand, to “blow it’s mind,” or implode upon itself, or even always NOWHERE and NOWHENCE.How do we define a “body”?Blaise Pascal suggests,“I define body as that which is composed of separate parts, and I say that every body is space when it is considered between its boundaries, and that every other space is body because it is composed of separate parts.” (The Great Books of the Western World, Blaise Pascal VOL 33 Scientific Treatises p 376).Others might prefer to visualize an “organism.”Professor of Philosophy, Dagobert Dunes, refers to Bertrand Russel’s Human Knowledge (1948),“He demands that the description of the world be kept free from influ­ences derived from the nature of human knowledge, and declares that "cosmically and causally, knowledge is an unimportant feature of the universe." Like Whitehead, he holds that the distinction between mind and body is a dubious one. It will be better to speak of organism, leaving the division of its activities between the mind and the body undetermined. What is true or false is a state of organism. But it is true or false in general, in virtue of occurrences outside the organism” (Pictorial History of Philosophy p 269).It may be an interesting point that Einstein’s uses terminology “whole” and “parts” that are also used by philosophers Greek Aristotle and Roman Marcus Aurelius. Einstein’s favorite philosopher, Schopenhauer used the terms “One” and “the many.” We can use “ME” and “US,” whatever.Arthur Koestler suggested,“’A good terminology’, someone said, ‘is half the game.’ To get away from the traditional misuse of the words ‘whole’ and ‘part’, one is compelled to operate with such awkward terms as ‘sub-whole’, or ‘part-whole’, sub-structures’, ‘sub skills’, ‘sub-assemblies’, and so forth. To avoid these jarring expressions, I proposed, some years ago, a new term to designate those Janus-faced entities on the intermediate levels of any hierarchy, which can be described either as wholes or parts, depending on the way you look at them from ‘below’ or from ‘above’. The term I proposed as the ‘holon’, from the Greek holos = whole, with the suffix on, which, as in proton or neutron, suggests a particle or part.” (Janus: A Summing Up p 33).One problem, I think about the “CONSCIOUSNESS” is that most third dimension dwellers seem to have the belief that the ‘past,’ has vanished, the ‘future,’ is a not yet existent occurrence, for a very narrow perspective of ‘the present.’Two days prior to his death, Einstein remarked,“Past, present and future, as persistent as they are, is an illusion.”We have to shed our bull headed demand that only a “local” consciousness exists and consider “non local” consciousness.Mythologist Joseph Campbell, during an interview with Bill Moyers suggested that we should“look beyond the physical and see the world as a poem.”If we can combine all the above and view the world transformed into poetics, we may be able to, similar to spectators looking at fine’ art, where some become conscious of the manifold cross connections, while others may not, this sonnet composed between 1981–1983 expresses similar to a thinking planet, with dream and poetic symbolism.In a theological sense, the classical “stage” and “actors” are literal. The similarities to Professor Wolfgang Pauli’s initiation into philo linguistic symbolism occurring in his dreams**Pauli explains, “There never used to be linguistic symbolism in my dreams, but it re­appears in a later dream (see below). I am also reminded of some old draw­ings of a doubling of the eyes, dating back to 1934, as well as a dream from the same period about a "church festival where there is a lot of talk about Grottenholm." The party in Bohr's institute in this dream forms a parallel with the church festival. The arrangement of the pairs of opposites is …”(Atom and Archetype p 145).Theologian Bernard Lonergan says about linguistic symbolism regarding one of the senses of “meaning,” (Incarnate Meaning).“…linguistic analysts seem to show.6. INCARNATE MEANING“Cor ad cor loquitur. Incarnate meaning combines all or at least many of the other carriers of meaning. It can be at once inter- subjective, artistic, symbolic, linguistic. It is the meaning of a person, of his way of life, of his words, or of his deeds. It may be his meaning for just one other person, or for a small group, or for a whole national, or social, or cultural, or religious tradition. Such meaning may attach to a group achievement, to a Thermopylae or Marathon, to the Christian martyrs, to a glorious revolution. It may be transposed to a character or characters in a story or a play, to a Hamlet or Tartuffe or Don Juan. It may emanate from the whole personality and the total performance of an orator or a demagogue. Finally, as meaning can be incarnate, so too can be the meaning­less, the vacant, the empty, the vapid, the insipid, the dull” (Method of Theology p 73).Literally, the entire cosmos, considering this vision becomes a SCRIPT TOUR.The “Observer(s)” can either sit with the “celestial audience” to view the world en masse’, an “eternalism” a “block universe,” where each iota of spacetime is simultaneous, or with the audience in Plato’s Cave, staring straight at the front wall (“presentivism”) as shadows past past, without cognizance of what is happening outside the cave. The “observation” is relative.If we consider that “life is but a dream” so to suggest, and there is a “physical dream language” being expressed as Professor WOlfgang Pauli pointed, there will no doubt be objections. What can we learn from a drunken sailor? Is it possible that Pauli was no mere drunken sailor?The collaboration between physics and psychology which led to a “unified vision” between physicist Professor Wolfgang Pauli and psychiatrist Dr. Carl Jung, both of international acclaim in their own right, includes a discussion about “names.”It is a quandary, as Jung admits,“We find ourselves in something of a quandary when it conies to making up our minds about the phenomenon which Stekel calls the "compulsion of the name." What he means by this is the sometimes quite grotesque coincidence between a man's name and his peculiarities or profession. For instance Herr Cross (Mr. Grand) suffers from delusions of grandeur, Herr Kleiner (Mr. Small) has an inferiority complex. The Altmann sisters marry men twenty years older than themselves. Herr Feist (Mr. Stout) is the Food Minister, Herr Rosstäuscher (Mr. Horsetrader) is a lawyer, Herr Kalberer (Mr. Calver) is an obstetrician, Herr Freud (joy) champions the pleasure-principle, Herr Adler (eagle) the will-to- power, Herr Jung (young) the idea of rebirth, and so on. Are these the whimsi­calities of chance, or the suggestive effects of the name, as Stekel seems to suggest, or are they ‘meaningful coincidences’? (‘Die Verpflichtung des Namens,‘ 110ff.)” (Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle par 827).But that did not stop these figures from exploring and using, perhaps abusing names as if words.Jung said when analyzing Pauli’s dreams regarding the implication of names“The name Aucker could also be auctor” (Atom and Archetype p 154).The “originator” and “author” in the broader sense, projects itself through the physical dream language.German Scholar Hans-Georg Gadamer sheds some light on this idea, as translators Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall note in the Translators Preface to Truth and Method (Warheit und Methode) about the concept of Bildung (scaffolding, a “picture”).“The interrelations of Urbild, ‘original’; Vorbild, ‘model’, Abild, ‘copy’; Bild ‘picture’’; and Einbildungskraft, ‘imagination,’ cannot be reproduced in English. The conceptual argument is clear enough, but what is missed is not simply some verbal pyrotechnics, but an example of what Gadamer … describes as the preparatory conceptual work ordinary language accomplishes through the formation of word families and other devices” (Truth and Method p xiii).In other words, applying this to our vision, the invisible unconscious requires some “middle ground” in order to impress the ‘original’ idea to personate itself.They say,“What makes ‘coming to an understanding’ possible is language, which provides the Mitte, the ‘medium’ or ‘middle ground,’ the ‘place’ where understanding, as we say, ‘takes place’…Language is the Vermittlung, the communicative mediation which establishes common ground” (ibid p xviii).Which in our case, if we can get at least some crude anthropomorphic grasp of a thinking earth, similar to an individual “I,” the “middle ground” can be understood through the contents, the physical manifestations, including names of physical geographical locations and persons, especially when ‘ironic’ with some sense of the synchronicity as an interpretive principle.As we look at our “holy cosmic play,” the sporadic ephemerality sparks with names that appear as if both sensible/nonsensible, similar to a dream that appears silly, yet contains information.OmanFreud JungPUNjabsFrommTripoliHoms, IdLIBS, DamascHaffez Assad… BasharDamascus, SyriaGadamer, with the same analytics used by Pauli and Jung, says“For play has is own essence, independent of the consciousness of those who play. Play-indeed, play proper- also exists when the thematic horizon is not limited by an being-for-itself of subjectivity, and where there are no subjects who are behaving ‘playfully.’“The players are not the subjects of the play; instead play merely reaches presentation (Darstellung) through the players. We can already see this from the use of the word, especially from its many metaphorical usages, which Buytendijk in particular has noted.“Here as always the metaphorical usage has methodological priority. If a word is applied to a sphere to which it did not originally belong, the actual ‘orignal’ meaning emerges quite clearly…“If we examine how the word ‘play’ is used and concentrate on its so-called metaphorical sense, we find talk of the play of light, the play of waves, the play of gears or parts of a machinery, the interplay of limbs, the play of forces, the play of gnats, even a play on words. In each case what is intended is to-and-from movement that is not tied to any goal that would bring it to an end. Correlatively, the word ‘Spiel’ originally meant ‘dance,’ and is still found in many word forms (e.g. Spielmann, jongleur)” (Truth and Method pp 102-103).Pauli notes the appearance of a character named “Spiegler” from a dream.“‘And now I suppose you’ll be dragging me from one office to the next,’ I say to him. ‘Oh no,’ he says. We come to a counter where an ‘unfamiliar dark woman’ sits. Turning to her, he says in the same brusque, militaristic voice as before: ‘Director Spiegler [Reflector], please!’” (Atom and Archetype: The Jung/Pauli Letters 1932-1958 p 164).Pauli who some say he was obsessed with the parallels between physics and psychology. He did belong to the “Copenhagen school” of thought.“Bohr was convinced that complimentary was relevant not only to physics but also to psychology and to life itself” (Deciphering the Cosmic Number p 102).When we notice the synchronistic nature of how names appear in historical actualities, including the present, as some noted, we may recognize the cross connections, sometimes humorous, other times gruesome, or in between.The name “Trump” for example, can radiate “to trump” either ones self, or others with a “trump card,” at “the last trump” even sounding an “uncertain sound,” or “certain sound.”If we study the cluster of names surrounding the leaders in the world, the idea of parallels between physics and psychology become apparent.Caesar Augustus is purported to have said on his death bed to his friend, “Did I perform my comedy well?”We may be staring like a Monday Morning quarterback in retrospect thru a 2020 vision, judging the living and the dead, a methodological approach to a “CONSCIOUSNESS” that operates at a humongous scale. Our local consciousness may be a “reflection/reflexion” as used by Chardin.Norman Denny, the translator to Teilhard’s The Future of Man, explains,“I must cite one instance, which may otherwise puzzle the reader of this book. This is the word Refection, which is also spelt Reflexion where the context seems to require it.“In Teilhard’s philosophy, to which it is vital, the word represents two distinct thing, which, however, are so intimately connected as to be in effect different aspects of the same thing. Reflection is the power of conscious thought which distinguishes Man from all other living creatures (the animal that no only knows but knows that it knows)” (The Future of Man p 9).He further explains Reflexion …“…instead of spreading out fanwise, breaking into sub-species and falling eventually into stagnation, it coils inward upon itself and thus generates new (spiritual) energies and a new form of growth - a process of Reflexion which is part and parcel of the phenomenon of Reflection” (ibid p 9).A note should be interjected here because it may seem like pulling teeth, or “thinking too deeply.” But the same idea persists when we consider Pauli’s obsession about the letter “u,” “v” and “w” that he figured out thru a series of coincidences and how he connects them with his dreams.The etymological changes “imitate” the double vision (physics/psychology) required to notice the “complimentary opposites” meaning thru analytics from both these separate fields of discipline.Pauli’s “windaugen” also “vindue,” “vindoga” becomes “window.” His monad has “windows” (Leibniz monads do not have windows).“Oga, Oga, Oga”Pauli says,“If I now had to make a summary (of the dream and postlude), I would make this tentative conclusion: The dreams and their images are ‘Windaugen’ for me: With the resonating of a subliminal pneuma (wind), which is protective and protected, and its synthesis with normal everyday language, it produces these dreams and images a new type of visual faculty. (Atom and Archetype p 145).In his 26December1955 dream, Pauli relates,“There is an official announcement about the visit of a ‘king.’ He actually appears and talks to me with great authority, saying ‘Professor Pauli, you have an apparatus that enables you to see both Danish and English!’” (Atom and Archetype p 152).He footnotes,“(Seeing double: Seeing into one another externally and internally. V=5. A natural person, who with perceptive consciousness gets caught into the extension w = 1 the One whole person, sees “double” –namely, the external form and also the inner ‘meaning’ or breadth of meaning)’” (ibid p 152).WattIndiaBaghdadWhen I, Rey Blanco, first used that phrase it was back when Bush Sr. was the United States President. I was surprised that afterwards I heard him first on the afternoon news and then at night repeating the same “There is nothing in the bag.”At that time, we were not actually engaging in a war in Iraq, at least not publicly.In the same day, a little later after playing with another phrase, inspired by a discussion in a Biology class regarding the “octet rule” and wrote down,Sharon, Sharon,share on, share own,Sharon octet rule,Ariel Sharon had formally resigned from one of his posts.The sonnet had bouts of “inspiration” as if part of a greater “Will.” For example, the line “IQraqow Pole Boot Argentina” also refers to “Krakow Poland” and the “Pole” (both polarity and Pope John Paul) but at the time, in 1981, there was yet to be a Pope Benedict (“Good Word”) nor afterwards a Pope from Argentina.A “pun sense” on the term “Boot” (Italia in Italian, and Italy in English) also turned out as ironical in the sense that the Pope Benedict resigned and by coincidence, a lighting strike hits the Vatican the same day, “to boot.”The “glimpses of not yet existent occurrences” seem to operate in the same “u-field” (Pauli) and “collective unconscious” (Jung).The line in the sonnet Andropov Stalin Khrushchev where the acausal order is out of chronological sequence ended up as a reflection in the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.One question “Armygeddon Skull Hill?” was fulfilled in that two prominent names, one “don” (which has various references) and “Hill” which likewise can be animate and/or inanimate can have a gruesome manifestation, not as the end of the world, but a sad subjective state (Hillary Clinton tumor in the ‘skull’).But we can say the same about the name Kennedy, which there are many wonderful people that “don” that name. But we have the gruesome irony of the sense of “ugly head” and the historical tragedy of a United States president.The idea of a “thinking planet” that has physical manifestations similar to the dream contents of an individual provides an opportunity to psychologize such a mind blowing scale, utilizing “language” that is somewhat familiar, symbolism.WattIndiaAnamUznoHollande LaPen MACROnYELTsin! BORis Yeltsin…Raisa MikHAIL GorbachevTheodore TerribleWhen we consider Professor Pauli’s “countries mandala” dream as being the same image as whole/parts, another “multiple/unity” the “complementary opposites” do appear to ask of us to think outside of cause and effect (determinism) and consider other “clocks,” an “acausal orderdness.”Dr. Carl Jung first offered three categories of synchronicity (On Synchronicity) and when he realizes he is required to add his fourth category, he says,“…there are certain regularities and therefore constant factors, from which we must conclude that our narrower conception of synchronicity is probably too narrow and really needs expanding. I incline in fact to the view that synchronicity in the narrow sense is only a particular instance of general acausal orderdness-that, namely, of the equivalence of psychic and physical processes where the observer is in the fortunate position of being able to recognize the tertium comparationalis” (Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle p. 100, par 965).This results in the exhaustive fourth category, he defines,“…I see no reason why synchronicity should always just be a coincidence of two psychic states or a psychic state and a non psychic event. There may also possibly be coincidences of this kind between non psychic events” (Atom and Archetype: Pauli/Jung Letters 1932-1958 p 60).The modus operandus, for the most part escapes the constraints of a strictly mechanical universe. It is as if the operation is going on blatant and overt over and under most eyes and noses, slightly over the heads and threshold of awareness.Gonseth on “unpublished methodology” (synchronicity as a “universal clock.”Professor Pauli at that time had been assisting Ferdinand Gonseth, Professor of Higher Mathematics, and just prior to Jung’s publication on synchronicity. Gonseth advice is to continue working with reliable and trustworthy clocks, but do no exclude a “universal clock.”“...have taken a further step, not only towards the objectivation of the measurement of time, but also towards the objectivation of time itself When will this procedure of extension have reached its term? Principally never. In practice one must observe moderation. In a situation of well defined knowledge, it is useless to increase indefinitely the possibilities of control and of synchronicity.“But what gives us the right, we might ask, to stop the process of extension at this point? If one does not admit the existence of an objective and universal time, is it not a fault of method to assume that the controls of synchronicity which have been erected would guarantee those which were not yet erected? Is it admissible to exclude as impossible the ease of an instrument still "unpublished" which could not be easily fitted into the group of clocks presently in use?“We have already answered this question indirectly. It is not necessary to construct all possible clocks; it suffices to establish the temporal law of the phenomena. As long as this temporal law does not vary with regard to the moment when the phenomenon begins (this Variation certainly could not be attributed to any momentary influence or to any more or less concealed evolution of the system which is the seat of this phenomenon), we have no reason whatever to abandon the hypothesis of a universal time, and every phenomenon whose law does not vary in the course of time confirms this hypothesis. What more can we ask of a natural law?“At this point we shall conclude the discussion about the objectivity of the measuring of time and about the means to be used in order to base it upon increasingly solid foundations. One might judge that our discussion has considerably exceeded the exposition of the technical aspect of the question. Was it neces­sary to go this far, to proceed so manifestly beyond what may be expected of elementary clocks, which alone have been described up to this point? (Time and Method p 216).The possibility that such a “universal clock” is similar to human consciousness may actually be the other way around. Similar to the “people have complexes,” in actuality it is the other way around, “Complexes have people.”That means that perhaps the “universe” operates “appetitively” and “instinctually” and that it can be so dumb (mechanical universe) that it appears to be smarter than human intellect, like computers.If so, we may have the same image according to our own kind and call it “thinking.”But does it have a “conscience”? Is it possible that the “thinking planet” is the alien?The Greek concept of “DEMIURGE,” The sculpturing of an invisible idea into physical reality appears to help us envision the stupendous thinking machine.‘IT’ embraces us, enveloping what we consider as ‘past,’ ‘present’ and ‘future.’The almighty power that like a fragile dream is compacted into warped morphed animated re-enactments of ‘it’self. We may get some “clue” some “equivalent” expression in the universe that we can point toward to state our case.The BLACK HOLE has almost all the data of the universe, according to the great thinkers regarding quantum metaphysics. From that observer, which may be the best representative of an idea of an idea, the “black hole” is “the real.”Everything else would simply be a “copy,” perhaps including “cheap imitations,” holographic projections into a third dimension animated re-enactment of itself, to the miniscule iota. A microcosm would contain all that the macrocosm is, a perfect reflection/reflexion.But we still ask, is this “beast” concerned about us? Will it “get rid of us”?We see atrocities, genocides and natural disasters throughout history. There have been over 2000 wars, with some 100 getting rid of hundreds of thousands, into millions, just like that.These “modern scientists” (early to mid 20th century) were faced with wars, including Nazi Germany. It is no wonder that Einstein may have altered his views about belonging to a specific religion.Theologian Hans Kung points out,“For Albert Einstein and for not a few whose interest is mainly in natural science, religious feeling is “a knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms.” (Does God Exist p 628).He adds,“Einstein, strongly influenced in his Weltanschauung by Schopenhauer, declared himself not only against any form of primitive ‘religion of fear’ but also against any ‘moral religion’ as found in the ‘the Jewish scriptures’ and then also in the New Testament. Against this he argued firmly for a ‘cosmic religious feeling’ to which ‘no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponds.’ He thinks that the beginnings of such a cosmic religious feeling are found in ‘many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets,’ much more strongly ‘in Buddhism, as have learnt from the wonderful writing of Schopenhauer.’ Appealing to such ‘heretics’ as Democritus, Francis of Assisi and especially Spinoza, Einstein thought that the religious geniuses of every age had been distinguished by this sort of religious felling, without dognas, church, or a priestly caste, ‘which knows…no God conceived in man’s image.’ He described himself as a ‘follower of Spinoza’ and answered the teegraphic inquiry of an American rabbi as to whether he believed in God: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.’ Einstein’s conviction of the strictly causal regularity of all happenings was justified on religious grounds, based- that is – on Spinoza’s work.” (ibid p 628).In the Editorial Preface to Jung’s Essay, the editors note,“Late in his life, Jung traced his idea of synchronicity to the influence of Albert Einstein, who held a professorship in Zurich in 1909-10 and again in 1912-1913. Jung wrote, ‘Professor Einstein was my guest on several occasions at dinner… These were very early days when Einstein was developing his first theory of relativity, [and] it was he who first started me off thinking about a possible relativity of time as well as space, and their psychic conditionality. More than thirty years later, this stimulus led to my relation with the physicist Professor W. Pauli and to my thesis of psychic synchronicity’” (Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle pp vi-vii).One of Jung’s favorite students, Dr. Ira Progoff, points out,“It is interesting in this regard to note that the recent opening of Einstein’s private papers has disclosed that dreams and images played a very important role in Einstein’s creative life. Those luncheon conversations may have been more fruitful that Jung realized, especially since we now know that Einstein possessed a keen sensitivity to the deep levels of the psyche. It may, at some later tie, be very fruitful to study the relationship between Jung and Einstein more closely, particularly in view of Einstein’s interest in Hindu/Buddhist thought and his later description of the archetypal qualities of the relativity concept.“While Jung may have had an important psychological effect on Einstein, the theory of Relativity became the base and starting point for his own thinking about Synchronicity. At several points he seems to have been consciously seeking to develop a concept that would be the equivalent of the relativity theory with the added dimension of the psyche” (Ira Progoff, Jung, Synchronicity and Human Destiny, p 152).This same physical/psychological monism shows up with astronomer Firsof, whom Koestler quotes,“… analogous to Einstein’s famously equality E=mc squared, whereby ‘mind stuff’ could be equated with other entities of the physical world.”“,,, the eminent astronomer, V. A. Firsoff suggested that ‘mind was a universal entity or interaction of the same order as electricity or gravitation, and that there must exist a modulus of transformation, analogous to Einstein’s famously equality E=mc squared, whereby ‘mind stuff’ could be equated with other entities of the physical world.” (Arthur Koestler, The Roots of Coincidence, p 63);Again we ask, is there a “conscience” that such a non local stupendous Ultra Man Psyche’ with a collective “I”?Dr. Marie-Louise Von Franz notes,“During the time that the order-sustaining energy which opposes entropy disappears more an more out of the universe, it must circulate in a psychic ‘elsewhere’ (ailleurs) in its potential form of information. This psychic ‘elsewhere’ of physical energy Costa de Beauregard calls infrapsychisme. He obviously means something similar to what Jung has called the psychoid aspect of the archetypes and the collective unconscious. Costa de Beauregard also assumes that this infrapsychisme contains a sort of supraconscience – something very akin to Jung’s ‘absolute knowledge.’ (Ruyer calls it an absolute survol, a birds-eye view of the universe as a whole.) This cosmic infrapsychisme is, according to Costa de Beauregard, an antiphysical world (anti-Carnot!) ruled by final instead of causal laws. It coexists with matter and crystallizes itself out into the individual physicisms of animals and men. The knowledge which it contains can move faster than light and thus “synchronizes” all single beings because their psychisms all come from the same “storehouse of telecommunications.” Thus the whole material universe is like a gigantic cybernetic machine which serves the growth of conscious in all individuals” (Psyche and Matter pp 50-51).We should note that many are shaken by the collaboration of Pauli and Jung, and discussions involving “consciousness” external and not exclusive to human beings, even suggesting that “They can’t really mean what they are saying.”Koestler himself was critical of the relationship. He says one thing in two of his books, Janus: A Summing Up and The Roots of Coincidence and says the opposite in an article “Order from Disorder” geared for another market. He says about Pauli,And in “Order from Disorder,” Koestler says,“Why should we shrink mentally from Jung-Pauli’s synchronicity concept as an ‘acausal connecting principle’ when physicists calmly accept the same Pauli’s acausal exclusion principle as a cornerstone of modern science? Why should we be shocked by Jung’s claim that acausal connections might be ‘of equal importance in the universe to physical causation,’ when the laws of probability which lend order to that universe are the prime example of such acausal connections?” (Arthur Koestler, Order From Disorder, Harpers Magazine, July 1974).For the interested reader Jung does offer and explanation in that essay right after the infamous diagram.“This schema satisfies on the one hand die postulates of mod­ern physics, and on the other hand those of psychology. The psychological point of view needs clarifying. A causalistic ex­planation of synchronicity seems out of the question for the reasons given above. It consists essentially of "chance" equiva­lences. Their tertium comparationis rests on the psychoid factors I call archetypes. These are indefinite, that is to say they can be known and determined only approximately. Although associated with causal processes, or "carried" by them, they coniimially go beyond their frame of reference, an infringe­ment to which I would give the name "transgressivity," because the archetypes are not found exclusively in the psychic sphere, but can occur just as much in circumstances that are not psychic (equivalence of an outward physical process with a psychic one). Archetypal equivalences arc contingent to causal determination, that is to say there exist between them and the causal processes no relations that conform to law. They seem, therefore, to represent a special instance of randomness or chance, or of that "random state" which "runs through time in a way that fully conforms to law," as Andreas Speiser says” (Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle par 964).And there are many expert writers that come to the Jung/Pauli schematica defense to help explain “how it works.”Among them are approaches from both fields, psychology and from physics.F. David Peat, who had collaborated with such formidable personages such as David Bohm offers,“… this way that the dualities present in the diagram of Jung and Pauli can be understood. Causality and synchronicity are not contradictory but are dual perceptions of the same underlying reality“In this way it becomes possible to retain a subjective experi­ence of nature and a sense of the meaning and interconnectedness of things without needing to reject the scientific approach. Science, after all, is an attempt to understand nature by asking questions and trying to face the facts of things, 110 matter where they may lead. It is an objective approach in which nothing is taken for granted and reason and experiment go hand in hand. By setting this approach within the context of a direct perception of the wholeness of things and the unity of nature it will be possible to combine subjective experience with the rigor of mathematical description and experimental method. In this way it may be possible to combine the subjec­tive and the objective and build a bridge between mind and matter. (Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind p 57).Dr. Marie-Louise Von Franz (Jung’ closest intellectual collaborator), says,“Another danger of misinterpreting the synchronicity principle in regressing to a magical-causal approach, which is characteristic of all primitive cultures and from which we have been freed by our precise scientific thinking only through the greatest effort. It would be such a regression, for example, to regard an archetype as the cause of synchronistic events.“Koestler accuses Jung of doing this, although Jung explicitly rejects this approach. In concluding his work on synchronicity, Jung in collaboration with Pauli proposed the following quaternity of hypothesis as a more completely satisfactory explanation of nature than previously existing one.“Through such a model, microphysics, depth psychology, and parapsychology can be brought closer together, meeting in the view of the archetypes as psychophysical nature constants and creative world-structuring factors. The relative multitude of these archetypes seems at the most profound level to be resolved into a unity in the unus mundus.” (Psyche and Matter pp 217-218).She adds later,“…observer is capable of recognizing the tertium comparationis." Since Jung wrote this in 1952, it seems to me that the advance of natural science has done much to make this idea of a general acausal orderdness a feasible principle of explanation. Needham even goes so far as to say that "perhaps we might character­ize the only two components required for the understanding of the universe in terms of modern science as Organization on the one hand and Energy on the other."“In collaboration with Pauli, Jung proposed a schematic rep­resentation of explanatory principles, as shown in the diagram.“The principle of contingency or equivalence would be in no way replacing causality but would be seen as complementary to causal determination.“In physics causality has become only a relatively valid princi­ple and we now only look for "statistical laws with primary probabilities" as Pauli puts it. One could also call these pri­mary probabilities, lists of expectation values. In a similar way we could call the archetype a list of expectation values or "pri­mary probability" for certain psychological (including mental) reactions. Just as expectation values in quantum theory cannot be measured to any desired arbitrary accuracy if, at the same time, we wish to measure their complementary parameters, so a unique manifestation in a list of psychological expectation val­ues also eludes accurate observation if one insists on a sequence of temporal repetition. Niels Bohr's idea that the conscious and the unconscious psyche are a complementary pair of entities refers to this problem. The archetype above all represents psychic probability, but curious enough sometimes it not only underlies psychic but also psychophysical equivalences. Therefore Jung attributes a psychoid quality to the archetype or a certain “transgressiveness” because it reaches out into areas of experience which we normally call material” (Psyche and Matter pp 304-305).Arthur I. Miller says,“Pauli laid all this out as a mandala in the shape of a cross. From this he deduced that the laws of physics are a projection into the psyche (the conscious/unconscious) of and archetypal association of ideas arising from the collective unconscious: in other words, a clash of the four opposing concepts that he depicts at opposite ends of the two crosses.“The mandala lays out the fundamental complementarity at the heart of both psychology and quantum physics. Bohr had spoken of ‘the general difficulty in the formation of human ideas, inherent in the distinction between subject and object.’ In quantum physics, the person making the measurement and measuring apparatus affect whatever is being measured. Similarly in psychology, the psychologist can never really know the unconscious through psychoanalysis. He must always interpret the results of his questions and inevitably he himself will affect his conclusion. Data can never be understood except through the lens of a theory” (Arthur I. Miller, Deciphering The Cosmic Number: The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung, p. 185;)Alan Combs and Mark Holland say,“Arthur Koestler observed that it is not surprising that the person who discovered the exclusion principle, which "acts like a force although it is not a force," would be one of the first to realize the limitations of conventional science. Indeed, Pauli and Jung proposed that the traditional triad of classical physics, space, time, and caus­ality, be supplemented by a fourth element, synchronicity, producing a tetrad. This fourth element operates in an acausal fashion, repre­senting the polar opposite of causality. Pauli and Jung drew this polarity at right angles to space and time (see Figure 1 011 page 76). Pauli actually believed this acausal process to be ‘metaphysical,’ operating at a more fundamental level than the laws of physical causality.“...Pauli was no stranger to synchronistic coincidences. He was well-known for the Pauli effect, by which delicate scientific instrumentation seemed inevitably to break down in hispresence. The term is a humorous takeoff on the Pauli exclusion principle. Pauli’s personal life as well was characterized by rich networks of coincidences, particularly during periods of crisis” (Alan Combs and Mark Holland, Synchronicity: through the eyes of science, myth, and the trickster, p 76;)If we could combine all these visions into one page, like the sonnet, but more like a neutral graphic language, we could.Dr. Beitman, psychologist, suggested that the sub category of coincidences, “synchronicity” can be broken down into the occurrences betweenMIND-OBJECTMIND-MINDOBJECT-OBJECT.As in the astronomer FIRSOF conception of “mind analogous to matter and energy” we can visualize a “dance” transforming between “mind/body/energy.” We cannot ignore the descriptions provided in areas of knowledge and discipline including esoteric and taboo.Dr. Beitman’s mind-object and mind-mind both have the common term “mind” which we also find in Jung’s first three categories.The first three categories are found in the 29 paragraph Appendix, On Synchronicity.CATEGORY ONE Some Synchronicity is Category One“The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer with a simultaneous, objective, external event that corresponds to the psychic state or content (e.g. scarab), where considering the psychic relativity of space and time, such a connection is not even conceivable.”CATEGORY TWO Some Synchronicity is Category Two“The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding (more or less simultaneous) external event taking place outside the observer’s field of perception, i.e., at a distance, and only verifiable afterward (e.g. Stockholm fire).”CATEGORY THREE Some Synchronicity is Category Three“The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding not yet existent future event that is distant in time and can likewise only be verified afterward.”I revised the third category after extensive research on the topic.“The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding (a)fter: not yet existent future event and/or (b)efore: prior event(s), that are distant in time and can likewise only be verified afterward.” (Rey Blanco).Dr. Beitman acknowledged that the Object-Object is the fourth category. He told me,“as for category 4, yes! I call that Object-Object coincidence when the other are Mind-Object and Mind-Mind.”The fourth category is found in Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle par 965, and in Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters 1932-1958 p 60.CATEGORY FOUR Some Synchronicity is Category Four“I see no reason why synchronicity should always be a coincidence between two psychic states or a psychic state and non psychic event. There may also possibly be coincidences of this kind between non-psychic events.”We now have three of four components that allow anyone who has a fundamental idea or experiences with “meaningful coincidences” a way to observe, document and play around with possible interpretations.COMPONENTSCenter Cross-Hairs - Specifies a time space referenceFour corners- Variables, categories of synchronicityFour little colored circles - Represent MIND-OBJECT (forms/formless)Big Circle - Designates “Observer(s),” if any, with four functions of the psyche’.The COMPONENTS represent the basic concept of synchronicity, combined into one page.The AXIOMS are the UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE PROPOSITIONAL STATEMENT:ACAUSAL CORESPONDING EVENTS IN SPACE TIME.The statement is the abbreviated definiens.The definiendum, the technical term “synchronicity,”The definition (definiens) involves “narrow” thru “broad” time and distance. A “situation of correspondence” may be the physics term “equivalence” and/or the psychological term “meaning.”The sub categories of coincidence (synchronicity), MIND/MIND and or MIND/OBJECT and/or OBJECT/OBJECT and the FOUR CATEGORIES OF SYNCHRONICITY, are PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE PROPOSITIONAL STATEMENTS.Physical instances become “Existential Members” of the set of co-events when qualified by these axioms.EXAMPLES:Someone is thinking about “it,” whatever “it” is, and just about the same time “it,” enters the scene (the field of perception).The above graphic placement follow the RULES OF THE GAME:REPRESENT THE FACTS ON THE LEFT SIDE.The Golden Chip = Mind (psyche’) the Blue = Object (Matter)This constellated cluster looks like the arrangement in the upper right corner (CAT 1).There are FOUR CATs in SynchroniCity.We can also have a MIND/MIND, where two people can think of the same thing at the same time in the same field of observation.The above also looks like the arrangement in the upper right corner (CAT 1). This CAT is short and thin because the events happen “at the same time” and the distance is in the same physical field of observation.There are a number of classes, typologies, morphologies, as are the other CATS.The next CAT, in the upper left corner is also short, but fatter. This Cat gets involved with such things like telepathy, remote viewing, “simulpathity” (Dr. Breitman) which involves sensing pain of a loved one from a distance. This latter includes those “death style coincidences” where something is witnessed at the same time and the other event is happening at the same time, but in a distance, which can only be verified afterwards.The third CAT, in the lower left corner in this model, involves such classes such as pre cognition, clairvoyance, prophecy, fore shadowing, etc. This is when somebody is thinking about ‘it’ and ‘it’ happens in a not yet existent future.and/or “BEFORE”This last cat really don’t care and does not require any locals to be conscious of what is happening. Player(s) will not use a “Golden Chip” to represent a local Mind (psyche’). It is possible that the same numbers, names, information, etc that happen in a series can be witnessed, but it is a passive psyche’ so again, no gold chip is required, and the patterning can appear as if it looks like the other cats.On the right side, player(s) put down “aposteriori cards” to comment about their “interpretations,” “explanations,” “amplifications” and so on about what had happened.Above we see four terms that happened (copies of the same in different forms).There is no golden chip, so that automatically involves CAT 4.The card that is turned over looks like a dumb bell and represents a probability curve with comments like “Look somewhere else, how many times it did not happen, it is all random chance.” It might sound good, but it is not really an “explanation” because it is a point at the multiplicity and not the specific. It is also an “a priori” conclusion because it is preformed prior to the experience, an “ad hoc” card. There may be some statistical value, if any.In any case, the idea is that the forms/formless are different aspects of the same, like spectrums of light dancing and transforming as “EXPRESSIONS” that have some equivalences and/or meaning. IF so, there exists non local collective consciousness that exceeds most comprehension. It would seem as if invisible because the patterning across time is too broad when we are used to looking at what is in front of us (Plato’s Cave).