Updated date:

God and the Cosmos

Into the Mystic

In high school, friends and I were having one of our typical philosophical discussions inspired by our English teacher, an alcoholic Brit. The class was the best class I had in the four year’s at the prep school I attended, and I had several contenders. The teacher nicknamed Diamond Bill, from a diamond pinky ring he wore and his first name Bill, a liberal and wonderful teacher, taught us not what to learn but how to learn, and anything was up for grabs for discussion in his class as long as you could support your thoughts. He even delighted in his nickname and insisted we call him by it the rest of the year.

One afternoon in class, one of the books he had assigned to replace the standard 20 or so books we had to read that year took us into a discussion of what nothing consisted of, more of a philosophical question than a high school senior English question. It was my sophomore year; I had placed out of and finished off the other three years worth already, and as we did not finish the discussion in class, three friends and I continued that evening in the dorm.

After several hours we had taken it as far as we could and decided that atoms were the smallest particle of matter (at the time) and that as we understood, a vacuum such in deep space, would at most have “space dust”, or “star dust” as CS&N sang, as all that existed within that vacuum. That, since atoms were known to be constantly vibrating and moving jumping hither and thither, than that moment when one left its position until another replaced it, would have to consist of nothing. Assuming of course that all of that sophomore high school science knowledge at the time taught to us held true. This was 1965. We were all 15 and 16.

I bring this up, because since then I have at each successive discovery of the smallest particle of matter held that vibration theory through which to filter my thoughts of life. I so easily accepted the talk of crystals and vibrations, and auras and sounds, to explain the physical and metaphysical, the spiritual and material that ran through all of the music, books and thought of the counter culture at the time.

Since the earliest moment I can recall thinking about space, time and me (or “I”) being a mystic was my default position, a condition of my childhood and family life. I was excited when theoretical physics moved into Quantum Mechanics and then ecstatic when it moved into String Theory.

At the point of String Theory, I could find no more beautiful or comprehensive way to describe what Robert Schragg calls in his book, The God Chord, String Theory in the Landscape of the Heart, what I had since lumped under the term the Universe; or space, time and I.

I tried for years just using the term God to describe what I felt (still would like to feel to some degree) as what Wayne Dyer and others refer to as Source and religions refer to as God. Nevertheless, years ago, I fell back to my days in the hill country surrounding Austin Texas and that period referred to as the “60’s” in which I went to high school and to college in the “70’s.” I finally conceded that people generally are referring to some kind of super human Intelligent Creator, a judgmental or loving, wrathful or gratified entity, which was beyond my comprehension.

The Universe seemed then as well as now, the best idea I could come up with for that which I perceive as this idea of Source or this belief in God. The idea of the fundamental building block of “Creation” as a single vibrating “string” of energy to me is as eloquent as it gets.

So we have this infinite number of vibrating strings, which attract like vibrations of energy, or similar vibrations of energy which upon their combination create a different vibration, to attract like or similar strings to create a different, (to whatever degree) a new vibration and so on until ultimately all of the matter of the Universe is created. Which then according to the laws of conservation and thermodynamics, break down to simple strings of energy. Those then once more start combining, ultimately to manifest as matter. This is to me as succinct and descriptive of what all of the masters and teachers from all of humanity throughout time have, in their own way, described.

The Universe, Source, God is a full piece orchestra moving through one exquisite symphony to another; one great piece of classic rock to a soul expressing blues tune to a free floating jazz improve to…

As each single note can combine with others to produce chords which can sound melodic and harmonious or cacophonous and discordant so goes the creation of matter and the human race, the soul and the ego, thought and word.

So, each of us is our own unique chord, a blend of untold number of single vibrations, our own small piece of music vibrating at some frequency. That frequency attracts to whatever degree others as we find ourselves attracted to them. That ethereal thing called chemistry, described by some, usually when talking about romantic pairings or Hollywood actors, but is also there between friends, acquaintances, family, etc.., could be nothing more, or less, than a fundamental law of nature.

I am at best giving a broad brushstroke to the finer details of String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Physics, etc., etc… I am doing similar with the elaborate conversation by Robert Schragg in his book. However, I am looking at life with the heart of a poet, the soul of a mystic, the spectacles of my intellect and the curiosity of those nine cats my high school teacher accused me of nurturing.

So, I will just end with this for now, with these considerate words from Hamlet:

“And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

© 2011 Michael Fielder


Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on July 24, 2012:

Hi Gypsy,

The highest compliment one can receive from a reader of their work is that it proved thought. Thank you for stopping and reading and letting me know...

(Hope to see you around here ((at HubPages,, not necessarily at my efforts!!!) more often now that I am "back"....)


Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on July 24, 2012:


I am speechless. I thank you so for your kind words of praise for my writing.

What I can think to say is that I will be sending you an email soon, when my thoughts become more coherent... :-)

Thank you so much,


Elenin from So Cal on July 24, 2012:

Welcome back to The Pages Michael. I came here on an interesting path, you may find it of interest. Dghbrh made a comment on Tony DeLorgers excellent piece ‘The Corruption of Lies’ that I found compelling, so I went to her profile and randomly picked ‘Worldwithoutyou’. The powerful writing in this poem affected me and the intriguing dialog between you and her motivated a click to your profile and a chance to read your loving tribute, the sad and joyous ‘A Lesson in Compassion and Forgiveness’. I felt unworthy to comment on that page but take the opportunity to do so here. Wondering why such an accomplished writer has published so few works, I had to see this one – now I know why. Between all the inspired comments, recommended reading and threads of thought to follow there is little time left to create, but please do, by all means, please do.

Now on to part 1a, Into the Mystic, undeniably

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on July 23, 2012:

Thank you Jen!

I'm so glad that a) you enjoyed my story telling :-) and b) to meet another who finds the string theory explanation a "fascinating" tool in understanding thier Spiritual reality.

Yeah, I loved that discussion! Shortly after, I had health issues that kept me away from HubPages (for several months) and writing or reading others stories. I just returned to begin again my writing efforts and "suffer" (??) the growth from that! ( I just posted my latest, On Compassion and Forgiveness. Did you read it??

Just checking :-D rofling all the way home.... heehee

Thank you again so much,


Jennifer Stone from the Riverbank, England on July 23, 2012:

I really enjoyed this hub, and have been interested in the string theory for a long time now. The discussion that follows is awe-inspiring... wow! Whilst I do not feel I have the knowledge to enter into this discussion at an intelligent level, I'm reading with fascination! Many votes, Jen

Gypsy Willow from Lake Tahoe Nevada USA , Wales UK and Taupo New Zealand on July 13, 2012:

Thought provoking hub and wonderful comments. Made me realize how much more I have to study before reaching enlightenment. Thank you for provoking me.

jandee from Liverpool.U.K on May 28, 2012:

Hello Michael ! where are you ? Ages since we heard from you ! Hope all is well !


lisadpreston from Columbus, Ohio on January 12, 2012:

Your hub is very well put and it is a theory that I very much agree with. The journey is what is important, not the destination. Enjoy it!

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 26, 2011:

Hi! Michael

I agree with newday. Just go on path which you want to travel and enjoy it- just try to see without judgement. Indeed eyes (every thing opens up to reality- a lot of new things, new ideas- some times may be all). Science religion, spiritualism or metaphysics all have practically the same path.

newday98033 on October 26, 2011:

Hey Michael,

One is always observing from existence. Meaning, unless you know everything already, or know nothing, you have some preconception of what you are looking at.

None of that means one has to pre judge anything. One can understand a good deal of this place and look at more without deciding relative value. Everything is true. There is just always more. That is what Buddha and Swami Vivekananda and so many others mean by their various instructions. The process of understanding is simply seeing more, without judgment.

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 26, 2011:

Namaste Michael

I am sorry, I could not write to you. There is a lot to write about your comment. Just now because of festival of Deepawali -(all around me there are sounds of crackers -in India one can escape that during these 5-6 days) I did not get time. May be I will try to write later some thing more.

But just in short - what you write as activity of world of scientist is almost changing their world upside down. What I had described to you was building up a theory. Putting in words or rational arguments observations, inventions work already done etc., so that one is convinced that there are no errors. In final description scientists do not have much escape. Even minor error can cause havoc- for example even about calculations of cosmic particles, which have energy levels much higher than any thing we can produce on earth but are so tiny that millions pass through us every day but we do not even notice- even if one misses such calculations about such tiny matters, a space shuttle can miss its path. So scientist do not have much escape in final workout- it must be with in manageable error limits and put in highly colorless style of words and rational arguments, graphs etc. in a theory form. It is also needed because experience has shown that intuition, vision, geometrical pictures can deceive us easily. 100% clear visions, pictures may lead to endless journey (like on mobius strip). One needs this colorless style as final product so that you do not end up like that.

But this colorless theory build up is end-product not starting action or doing work, as you seem to be implying in your comment. I can understand that you felt that this is all you see in science in school (because in school one sees only end products and that too old). But your understanding should have changed in university, I wonder why it did not. Making sure that what you want to convey is not just a mind game or deceiving game in professional world, is done before even you start writing a short note - building up a theory is much bigger work. That you do only after all the adventures one has done via all kinds experiments -- any thing you can think of -a lot of those you describe in your comment too - that is the actual work. Only after you are sure that this work leads you to some conclusions which are worth putting in final product form so that others can use it or enjoy it and they will not be misled (because of errors)- one starts building theory or language. And sure that work of building up theory is boring and colorless (because by that time one sees a picture- crystal clear about what ever one wants to convey, no words are needed one feels) but one has to do it for reasons I described above.

From your comments I thought you wanted to build a theory - in that lies the assumption that you are already convinced by your experiences etc. that you have some thing to convey to others. Hence I wrote about what theory for scientists generally means.

I do not know whether I remarked this earlier - in one of lectures I was listening a mathematician remarked "People are now saying computers will prove theorems. May be they can do, I am not so sure about good ones, But what about conjectures, we all Mathematicians make and they float around" It is things which are not proved but your heart says it must be true on which one spends time. More than often those ideas prove to be wrong too but just 10% correct ones are enough to give you drive and whole world of science is in excitements about those ideas.

If I myself see my activities, then I can remember problems on which I may have worked for more than 30 years and are still not solved. It is possible they may not get solved in my life time. But still enjoyment of thinking about them is not reduced. That is where I spend much more time than on those things which I have already published or built up some theory.

There is also another important problem - one might feel that this language build up one is doing is the greatest work and throws new light but it could be just playing with the language and not really a new work which adds to knowledge (99% of research today is of that type, many get lost in doing that for whole of their professional life and worst is that they have a feeling that they are doing a great work). One has to be careful about it. I have been indicating to take care of such phenomena in my comments. Hope you noticed.

Still these are restrictions in professional world of science etc. If you enjoy what you are doing, just do it, why worry about what do norms say etc. Most scientists also work in that manner only.

I hope this gives some glimpse to you what I want to convey.

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on October 22, 2011:

soumyasrajan and newday,

Maybe it is because I have been impacted by the overall totality of my PTSD and its causes and by my ADD and natural curiosity; rarely ever accepting simplistic answers to what I considered deep questions.... but the comment "the style in which science is being done now a days. Any theory defined with clearly described pre-concepts and axioms which are not contradictory to each other (and which are generally based on some observations with motive to solve or understand some problems and rational deductions via these axioms - " which I was given as an intro to the scientific process in high school, always bothered me on an intuitive label which I later voiced to a teacher (in high school - which caused me a lot of hassle in order to eventually pass that class...) ( I was an honor roll student, labeled for the most part a dissident in the JROTC, Southern Baptist Prep school from which I graduated with social, academic, and military honors. I say this not to brag, but to indicate that I was - though somewhat of a "mild" radical, not merely a smart ass or discordant student...)

To me, I could see a major problem with that approach in that if you pre-define all of the parameters, tools, concepts, processes, etc., in the asking of the question, and the process of investigation, and the "truth" or validity of an accepted answer to the question or that which you are trying to discover, then by definition you have as a result only an answer or "discovery" that was all ready there.... you have merely proven a pre-determined and pre-existing condition or notion which is completely limited to a pe-conceived and pre-determined thought created in your mind... your own opinion or view, which you are all ready invested in... Similar to the way bigot and racists process their dear and hatred, dislike, of other types of people or others views... You have just satisfied your ego, by showing others your thought and intuitions are "original and creative." (Just one of many facets of the reality of what you were doing, I admit...)

If what you want to "prove" is something all ready real in your particular construct and view of "reality" than what is it you have actually done? (I am intentionally not discussing the obvious - that this process has resulted in the onward march of the technology that "put us on the moon, computers, medicine... like I said, the obvious) But, as Horatio said about all those things under Heaven... it has done nothing to further the investigation or discovery or understanding of things like the paranormal, the explanation, definition and the education of folks in what we call the "power (and when offered within the context of its "rules" to work ) of prayer", almost all of those things that political institutions of religions dogmatically label; angels, the afterlife, communication with others, both living and dead, revelatory experiences, telepathy, all bits and pieces of a reality much larger than just these few things, which I have personally experienced; both through years of study and practice as well as flashes of experience occurring from no request, thought, or desire of mine at the moment of their occurrence. But all having real world consequences and actions. And effectiveness.

Then, to me, and of course having value within their own context, you have discounted, ignored, negated all the rest of a reality that lies there waiting for our (humanities) benefit. If I hadn't experienced them repeatedly, and had they not had such a drastically positive effect on my growth (and others with whom I was asked to share my "abilities" with and who have benefited concretely) (and yes, some of which hurt like hell for awhile... and some, as well as I, avoided death and conflict)I might not be so convinced or passionate in my findings. Many of these things have been discussed with family members who spent their 60 plus years with PhD's and their work in the Church and weren't ruled by the dogma of that Church or the interpretation of their Holy Books. (By

Church, I am lumping some folks who were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish all together) As well as just a few in the Psychology field.

Yeah, I am a generalist... the worst insult you can throw at me is a "specialist"! lol Not that I discount or don't respect those types as well... They are responsible for teaching me all those disciplines!

I didn't really want to discuss all this, but us here are having such a great learning experience ( at least I am, and for which I am ever so grateful and beholding to you my friends)but I wanted to give you some insight in the how of my arguments here and that though this is so much a part of my world view, it is not the sole motivator of my personality! So, please, let's continue as we have and not think that I know what I am doing, or understand fully that which I just said or am in the process of doing... I just kind of get up in the morning and search each day for the path through the undergrowth which I think will lead me along on that day... Sometimes, yes, I do find myself tracking back to find the correct path when something or someone makes me look up and see I have been walking down one misguiding me to strange territory!

Much love and fond respect to all of you!


soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 21, 2011:

Thanks newday! Hi! Mr. Happy good to see u.

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 21, 2011:

Hi! michael

So metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and scientific studies all these will be your domain in the book, I assume. Very interesting michael. There surely is a need for re-looking at the ideas about "being". Your idea is great.

I think in today's style of science there is not much scope to look at it -even about energy, I think they rarely try to look at what exactly it is - this style of science has no tools to study such aspects time-being and they know this well. They generally restrict to describing related attributes.

In the ancient times Greeks as well as Indians considered science as part of metaphysics.

Actually till very recently in all countries all these subjects were studied together. Compartmentalization of subjects is only recent phenomena. I also prefer this old style.

I think you are also going to do that. Wish you all the good luck with your adventure.

I am just now reading an interesting book on old Indian ideas about knowledge. These subjects are new to me. I learnt a lot from that one. I am sure I will learn a lot from your book and discussing with you. Very much looking forward to it.

I will surely want to read as soon as you write down your ideas and think about them.

I knew Slarty O'brian, I think we must have some comment exchange together. But I had not followed his articles that much. Thanks for writing that, after reading your comment I tried to see list of his articles, quite interesting. I will have to spend time on it.

newday98033 on October 21, 2011:

"Any theory defined with clearly described pre-concepts and axioms which are not contradictory to each other (and which are generally based on some observations with motive to solve or understand some problems and rational deductions via these axioms"

That is about as clearly put as one could hope to see, my opinion.

Mr. Happy from Toronto, Canada on October 21, 2011:

"I also feel so comfortable in that I have you to grill me and force me to clarify poorly thought out arguements1" - I think we should all be comfortable enough to be able to appreciate other points of view/perspectives and to discuss them.

Let me know when the book comes-out Mr. Mike! Cheers.

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on October 21, 2011:

I read Slarty O'brian and his hubs regularly and came across one that made me think of energy and matter. Haven't been able to relocate it. I even asked Slarty, and he is trying to find it for me...

If you haven't begun reading/following him, try him. An intriguing character. He has done a lot of work in the development of the Scientific Pantheism movement in the 90's, has written (I think) four books, of which I have 2. They are, as I said of him, intriguing. Let me know what you think

But I refer all the way back to Einstein's (and very simplistically I write of it here) Theory of General Relativity, Or special..??? E='s MC2....

And of course, my own thought processes while using the filter of some of my Metaphysical Psychology studies and life experiences in metaphysics. Again, to me, Robert Shragg, PhD, kind of "sealed the deal" in my querying of looking for a "fundamental" building block of Reality...

About consistency of science... My Bad!... Thanks for not letting me off the hook there. I was really saying that it was consistent with the argument that I was using about the E='s MC2 of Einstein, and the basis that that formula gave science in its continued evolution of theoretical physics (or I should properly say, my understanding as it is now of that evolution.)

I still am of the opinion that the argument of there only being either energy or matter, that energy converts to matter which then converts back to energy and then...

is, though being reexamined on several fronts, holds a basic import somewhere within it. And that it is an excellent, the best one yet (in my humble opinion)to use in the discussion of Metaphysical reality.

But, I should at this point recuse myself from most of this discussion, for that is the basis of understanding which I am using in the writing of my book! Which is not intended to be a the final authority on anything, but a way to explain and interpret the spiritual reality which my son created in my life... :-) Therefore, I couldn't claim impartiality at this point, though I will re-enter the fray when that is finished! I jest, for I am in a hurry to make an appointment in just a little while! Don't take all this as a final word on my part!

Thanks for your allowance of my sometimes flippant world view! I am in a time of overweight seriousness and I find I fight it unknowingly on my adolescent sense of righteousness and rebellion! :-)

I also feel so comfortable in that I have you to grill me and force me to clarify poorly thought out arguements1

Thank you my friend,


soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 18, 2011:

Hi micaelf

Thanks a lot for your mail.

I do not understand what exactly you mean by there is only energy and Matter. I thought science people do not go much into these kind of question because they decided that they do not have enough tools to study them. They more start with what do they want to study and develop theories about them.

About consistency with science - what exactly you mean. Perhaps you mean it is in the style in which science is being done now a days. Any theory defined with clearly described pre-concepts and axioms which are not contradictory to each other (and which are generally based on some observations with motive to solve or understand some problems and rational deductions via these axioms - I will say that is what scientists today generally do. I think you also have the same in mind. Then it should be fine with science (though does it really matter?)

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on October 16, 2011:


I have studied Eckert Tolle and ECKENKAR... intriguing. And, a thought which a recent story by another hubber reminded me of; science has determined that there is only energy and matter. Accordingly it follows that a theory such as this seems consistent with science doesn't it?



Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on October 09, 2011:

Soumyasrajan, newday, Mr. H,

You guys have really gone some distance while I was gone! I was out with a minor health issue... I fired up my laptop and discovered 174 emails which was too daunting so came here only to discover WOW!

I wanted to let you know that I am still "of this world" and with all the work you guys have been doing it's going to take a minute or two to put it all together in a cogent reply to further our discussion! Whooh, great stuff! By tomorrow...

James, I can't remember if I have or not, it sounds real familiar... but coming from you, I am going to go find a copy and read it if I haven't. Or, re-familiarize myself with it if I have! Thanks, I am always looking for a good read recommendation from people I respect.

Thanks also for your appreciative comment. (To see where these others are taking it I think that the real stuff is in the comments, ey? :-))

Also, James, I have an email I'm putting together for you and will get it to you in the next few days (I hope)

To Work! To Play!


James A Watkins from Chicago on October 08, 2011:

I enjoyed reading your deep and profound article. Welcome to the HubPages Community.

One of my favorite books—though it is somewhat old now—is "The Seven Mysteries of Life" by Guy Murchie. I was curious if you had read it. Thank you.

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 07, 2011:

Hi! Michael

Where are u? (just for fun - please do not take it seriously). some information in opposite direction than rational analyzing etc., but perhaps you may find useful in your analysis.

I just learnt about Eckert Tolle in a comment. I tried to find in Wikipedia who he was. I find his experience very interesting. I think you may also. So just copying some of the sentences from Wikipedia.

"One night in 1977, at the age of 29, after having suffered from long periods of suicidal depression, Tolle says he experienced an "inner transformation." That night he awakened from his sleep, suffering from feelings of depression that were "almost unbearable," but then experienced a life-changing epiphany. Recounting the experience, Tolle says,

I couldn’t live with myself any longer. And in this a question arose without an answer: who is the ‘I’ that cannot live with the self? What is the self? I felt drawn into a void. I didn’t know at the time that what really happened was the mind-made self, with its heaviness, its problems, that lives between the unsatisfying past and the fearful future, collapsed. It dissolved. The next morning I woke up and everything was so peaceful. The peace was there because there was no self. Just a sense of presence or “beingness,” just observing and watching.

Tolle recalls going out for a walk in London the next morning, and finding that “everything was miraculous, deeply peaceful. Even the traffic."[9] The feeling continued, and he began to feel a strong underlying sense of peace in any situation.[5] For a period of about two years after this, he spent much of his time sitting, “in a state of deep bliss," on park benches in Russell Square, Central London, "watching the world go by.”"

newday98033 on October 03, 2011:

Thank you! I have my own idea but

am interested in what you folks think about it.

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 02, 2011:

Hi! newday

I think Michael has expertise in psychology, philosophy so perhaps he can throw better light on how do they define thought or what do they consider it to be.

To me it looks to be difficult exercise. One will have to use thoughts to define thought and/or describe those words which you use to define it. It depends on how far you want to go with this exercise using thoughts themselves.

I am just guessing that one has to consider it as a pre-concept in any theory, just some sort of general agreement that every body who does the exercise of building up this theory or tries to understand the theory understands what he/she or others mean by this term.

Some thing very similar to points or lines in geometry or physics. No body can really draw so far a point or line in a space but there is this general agreement and assumes that Ok we understand, one takes it as undefined pre-concept. Whole geometry and a lot of physics is just based on these pre-concepts with no real definitions specialy for points (lines still one can define it as "set" of certain points).

Initially people tried to define it as some thing without length breadth etc. But very soon they realize such exercises may be meaningless.

newday98033 on October 02, 2011:

You guys are better than a movie! Anyone have a real world definition of "thought"?

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 02, 2011:

Hi! Mr. Happy

Thanks a lot for going through my comment. I do not see much contradiction in what you say and what I have written. First of all essentially I think you also accept that even if dimensions and other aspects associated uniquely determine chair, it may not give complete knowledge of chair.

That is all I am saying. I am also saying that we need some method more than what are known ones to find out exact reality of chair and I am hoping that may be Michael arrives at some such method.

What you are suggesting further is

that one method to get complete knowledge is that we have to be chair itself. Yes perhaps that may give full knowledge. May be! one can try! But I am not sure it may give. For example each one of us is oneself. But I am not so sure that implies we know exact reality about ourselves. Do we? Looking at that do you feel, even as a chair we may know exact reality of chair?

Some other possibilities -- there are people who think that there are methods to know exact reality of almost all objects. Some people even think that we can by knowing that reality, actually feel like we are even a chair or any thing practically.

Even long back Socrates had said some thing like this

"All things have the same form and to know that form you have to meditate for 3 hours"

(now Socrates perhaps could do that in 3 hours most may need more time)

Here are some other sentences by him with similar sentiments (he probably could indeed see reality)

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."

"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing."

"To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge."

Even Laozi had expressed more or less the same sentiment

"Those who know they do not speak, those who speak they do not know"

You have gone through my article on truth. I think ancient Indian philosophies also say the same point essentially.

All of them -- are they not saying that regular methods with which we argue or perceive etc. do not yield that much. On the other hand the confidence of most of these people suggests that they could indeed see reality in each object.

It does not always so ancient. If you go through some of the articles of newday, one can get the feeling may be he can see a lot more that what we generally see through regular methods. He felt also this phenomena very suddenly, of all the things, while trying to understand very worldly concepts of relativity.

Hope you are enjoying exploration and long comments by me. I am enjoying discussion with you and others.

Mr. Happy on October 02, 2011:

"result is that focus shifts to studying these associated objects rather than actual reality of objects" - I would say that we can never know the reality of an object. To do that I think one would have to be the object itself. We know a chair because we define the chair through our three-dimensional senses; not because we know what it means to be a chair. In this sense, we hardly know anything one hundred percent ...

Just an opinion - cheers!

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on October 01, 2011:

Hi! Michael

Thanks a lot for the comment so kind to me and full of enthusiasm.

Yes I also liked very much David Bohm's ideas. You have worked in philosophy related areas so you will surely know a lot more about such aspects. Now I am quite interested in what exactly you want to do. So far what I understand from that it looks like you have some idea about law of attraction (what exactly you mean by that?) and using that other ideas you are trying to build theory (or model) about nature of reality and some sort of understanding of universe (rational world which we perceive via senses, psychological as well as spiritual as world)? Am I right?

I do not really have much expertise in either Indian or Western philosophy, I know very little. Just trying to write briefly what intrigues me.

Way I see western style including current style of professional science, philosophy, psychology etc. the models built to study different aspects depend quite bit on concrete ideas and creating concrete boundaries how far you want to go with the model. In a way because of this stress on concrete style, it is quite bit dependent on parameterization. So one associates different numbers or objects (length, breadth, weight etc.) with an object and tries to identify enough of them so that object is uniquely represented by it. Result is that focus shifts to studying these associated objects rather than actual reality of objects. This results in gaps and need to jump from one object to another without worrying about gaps crossed, what were they (interestingly if you look history cultural, political or religious in West, you do see more or less the same phenomena of large gaps and blanks occurring). Good scientists at least know very clearly that they do have such gaps in their studies and they do avoid them. One learns not to ask questions about them until there are tools (sort of parameters) developed to study them. Lot of others perhaps even do not realize (Heissenberg uncertainty principle, max planck's constants, idea that any thing can happen- defying all laws in a very short time in quantum physics, contradiction in quantum physics and relativity and still one needs both of them for small and large bodies, relationship between observer and object to be observed -in a way one could even include gap between ego and external world, NP- complete type problems in computer science etc. are some examples). Even in Psychology is it really clear where kingdom of your ego (or your self) ends and external world starts?

Another example is that we do not mind making mistakes to clear our perception "Is it Newday, looks like him. Oh no it is Michael" this sort of process of making mistakes

and correcting them goes on at almost any instant in or mind. But theories, models or technologies we try to build we can not have much scopes for using such mistakes. No wonder computer imitating human behavior are far off (how can they be any near - we have almost no tool which can allow mistakes, that will be disaster to use and will make things very unpredictable, though reality may be like that but time being it seems we can not do much with our tools about that)

Not that people did not try to fill out gaps, a lot of discoveries and inventions have been made in attempts to do that, though emphasis has been just to exploit and own what ever you can find . But it looks to be sort of never ending process, new gaps get created in the process of filling out.

While reality is perhaps different after all it has to light up every thing so there may be no gaps finally.

I like Bohm's work in this light, specially his idea that thoughts can not be separated and his attempts to study whole thing together. Then you are trying a complete study, not assuming right in the beginning some gaps will be left out.

In this connection I like people like newday very much. I feel I learn from them. They have much more clear vision of some sort of complete study and do build up good models.

If your theory tries to do that or at least throws some light on some of such gaps, it will be indeed a great achievement. one problem I do see is that thoughts (or words or language do not convey as much as perhaps needed, while theories depend mainly on that, is there some other way to organize which can be conveyed to each other). I wish you all the good luck.

Namaste Michael. It is indeed great pleasure to have these exchanges with you.

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on September 28, 2011:


What a great (2 great) comment(s)! Thank you for introducing me to David Bohm.

But first, I really appreciate your sharing your observations of Christianity in India. I wholeheartedly agree with you on how difficult it is to find unbiased authors on subjects such as this. I also, having had the fortune of my travels and living overseas, have learned more about, (well many things) various religions, cultures, peoples, politics... from my contact with individuals who were native to the land I was in at the time. There is a mountain of information from my high school and college career, movies, books, newsprint, TV...(and that list goes on and on) that was influenced and became more accurate, truthful... reflected more the reality of all of those things I would learn in a classroom and a textbook. I remember an awful lot that was just plain fiction based on cultural stereotyping or propaganda to support "our way of life."

More substantially, like you remarked about most of what you knew about the influence of Indian culture on Christianity came from talking to "Indian Christians" (I use all these labels very lightly! Labels do tend to stereotype, and stereotypes are rarely, if ever accurate and promote racism and misunderstanding.) I would thoroughly love to see a treatment of that in a hub by you!

On the David Bohm comment. I was fascinated. As I was reading his ideas on Thought I couldn't help thinking of all my studies on ego. Especially the way A Course In Miracles treats ego and ego vs. spirit. And then as I continued to read on about his idea of "systematic fault" whole new connections sprang forth having to do with that huge part of the brain about which so many have little idea, or when you ponder things like telepathy and all kinds of "psychic" phenomena out loud so many consider you ill, or under, educated and atheistic and so much more.

But I have a whole new expedition to set out on now having to do with the nature of reality, God, prayer, the current discussion on "the law of attraction" and "the Secret" and and and... My curiosity and ADD combined with all of the education and life experiences, and my intense desire to commune with the Mystic has all come to bear at once. Thanks a million times for your thoughts!

As you said to me once, Namaste, a thousand times to you... My theory is soon to expand and grow so much with this seed!

Goodnight (from here) my friend. May you stay well and live joyfully,


soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on September 26, 2011:

This second comment is about ideas of David Bohm - a quantum physicist. You must have heard about him. Some of his physics was used in Manhattan project.

I found following sentences in Wikipedia article on him, about his ideas on thoughts.

What is amazing is that he came to these ideas perhaps more out of his studies of physical world and perhaps out of suffering and pain he had received, because he was perceived quite unreasonably, during McCarthy era in USA, a dangerous communist etc. I consider such people more like Rishis of ancient Indian era.

Here are some of his sentences --

"the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".

Here is another collection - more about system of thoughts -consisting of your thoughts, my thoughts all thoughts in a society or culture evolved over a time. He argues, interestingly, that they can not be really separated.

"Now, I say that this system (of thoughts) has a fault in it - a "systematic fault". It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is a fault that is all throughout the system. Can you picture that? It is everywhere and nowhere. You may say "I see a problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem". But "my" thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I'm trying to look at, or a similar fault. Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates."

Quite enjoying to see these ideas very similar to ancient Indian ideas evolved in very different culture in a very different environment and different style.

I thought while building up a theory you will like to take care of such aspects since any theory involves quite a bit thought process. I hope you find it interesting.

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on September 26, 2011:

Hi Michael

I will write two separate comments about two different topics. I hope you do not mind filling out so much space in this place. This one about source you asked to know a little more about Christianity in India. I do not know really good source.

It is usually difficult to find proper literature, since people who write are a little biased on one side or other. My impressions are more from talking with people, christian priests etc. But for example Wikipedia article gives some idea.


"Historically, Hindus and Christians have lived in relative peace since the arrival of Christianity in India from the early part of the first millennium. In areas where Christianity existed in pre-European times like Kerala, land to build churches was often donated by Hindu kings and Hindu landlords. The arrival of European colonialists brought about large scale missionary activity in South India and North-East India."

So it should be true that accept for the problem of "conversion" (which was not much there before Europeans came ) there were not much extremities.

But i do not like these sources also. Like even in this article, a lot of law and order type incidents they have listed as problems between different communities.

I have often wished that some central authorities in Christian churches declare that word "Conversion" will not longer be used and changed to "adoption". A lot of christian ideas may get simplified and popular. People in countries like India have happily adopted to many such ideas. But many are repelled by idea of "conversion" or saying "Only my God or God of this or that religion is right". I hope some times such wishes as mine may come true. I think Christianity has such possibilities quite a bit, to adopt to such ideas, it has changed a lot after renaissance period.

Coming back to my impression about Christianity in India

here is a paragraph from an article I wrote on hub pages on "why I am vegetarian". I think this is the style closure to reality of average Indian.

"Near my home almost in down town Mumbai, on a busy road, I see practically any time of the day people in a group of 8-10 worshiping in front of a statue of Christ, kept in a small cupboard of size perhaps 10"X10", just at the edge of footpath. Others walking on the footpath or some even driving the car or motor cycle on road, most of whom may not be Christians, generally fold hands or bow with respect. "

newday98033 on September 25, 2011:

Thanks for the explanation!

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on September 25, 2011:


I was (and usually always do this) using integrity more in the sense of being consistant. As in Wikipedia's opening paragraph on the concept,

"Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs"

If you are being faithful to the idea of seeing more, than as long as you continue and consistantly see more than you are acting and living a life with integrity...

Although, using Catch 22 as one of the primary learning tools of my high school career, your point is perfectly valid too!

newday98033 on September 25, 2011:

Michael, integrity is defined as being whole. In this place being whole means one must accept being less than whole. One is integrated into a game field that involves human morals and customs. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But if one wishes to see more one is constantly changing one's integrity to reach outside that system. Kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?

One could say integrity, then, is being faithful to the idea of seeing more. But once one is on that path, challenging oneself with judgements is contrary to the purpose. I WILL BE MORE CONSCIOUS TODAY! It sorta defeats focus.

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on September 25, 2011:

Thanks newday... how would you propose your thoughts on that word??? Are you going to write a hub and we can work throught that once you posted??? That would make a great forum for our discussion as well as pull thoughts from others? I would find that whole conversation enlightening I'm sure.


I would be intrigued to read more about what you have to say regarding the Christian community in India and its 2,000 year history. Is that "branch" less militant and conservative? Influenced by the Hindu/Indian culture as you have spoken?

Just 2 of dozens of questions that are popping into my head! It's so easy for me to see the maturity of worldviewIndian Culture (and individually as well) as opposed to the American worldview in many ways. Though I worry at the alarmingly fast growth this last 100 years and see the polution, toxins spewing into the environment... as India races to catch up to America in its pursuit of consumerism and economic "growth."

Though ideas like microfinancing that the Indian Banker, whose name I can't remember right now, seem to be flourishing also.

Good to hear from you (as always)


soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on September 24, 2011:

Thanks a lot Michael. Yes it does help generally Indian style of freedom (like the idea tat all paths lead to the same truth, you just choose one or two what ever you prefer, does make a person relaxed a bit. He is ready to adopt to new ideas). I think idea is a tradition in India among people of all religions. I have met in India (also some times in USA Christian priests, who had not only read a lot about these ancient philosophies but also understood them well and enjoyed).

Did you know by the way that Christianity in India most likely is continuing since 1st century AD when St. Thomas came to India. I think India must be among few countries where it has continued uninterrupted for that long time. Their style is also quite different ( a lot of Christians in south India belong to an Orthodox Syrian Church- I wonder does it now exist any where else).

Coming back to USA manner in which USA has evolved during last few decades with society getting all types of colors from immigrants and a lot of other similar colors, I often feel it is just now in similar state as about 2000 years back things had evolved in India.

newday98033 on September 24, 2011:

Wow michael, that is a great analogy!

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on September 24, 2011:


just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your Hub "Truth, What it..." reminded me so much of my experience with Campell and why I have always enjoyed meeting people of the Hindu belief system. When in the Middle East I was privilaged to have several Indian friends and have several on my staff. So relaxed, so not justifying "their" perceptions like we in the West have been taught... so a waste of time! lol I chuckle... :-)

newday, would love to converse on that topic with you and all... integrity. I agree with you. It's a word like snow in the Inuit community, 17 different words to describe the different facets and states of snow! I am intriged!


newday98033 on September 24, 2011:

Ah, integrity. That is one of the more interesting words in this place.

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on September 24, 2011:

Hi! Michael

I like the sentences

"I look forward to sharing life with you here at HubPages. Maybe one day we will stumble into each other in "real life"

Yes indeed, I am also very much looking forward to.

About newday, I think you will enjoy very much his articles. He has an exceptional insight, very different from your style but very colorful, still going towards the similar "perceptions". I liked, the way he describes opening up of a new world starting from a dark room, very much.

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on September 24, 2011:

I accidently signed in under my old profile. Forgive the confusion I just created! I hadn't used it for years and had outgrown it, and have bee using rmichael for the last few years in other places. When I tried to sign up here with that it was in use so I just added the "f"

Peace all,


Business Success on September 24, 2011:


"and what one is willing to be conscious of." Wow, so eloquently said, and so vitally important to walking in integrity!

Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I have added you to follow and look forward to those insights you have to share!




Business Success on September 24, 2011:

Mr. H,

As always I so enjoy the little bits you share about yourself! I love the Emporer story above!

Would all of us be Emporer of our own universes, but without the Ego interfering and making it about Power and Ego-Self!


Business Success on September 24, 2011:


Please, do not worry about misspelling my name or calling me by whatever you wish. I have never really been attached to a name, it has never been something by which I identified myself! I have almost as many names as I do friends, as it seems that when they get to know me they attach to me nicknames they enjoy... I get enjoyment out of that process as well. I can feel the mutual respect so never fear over that my friend.

I am going to buy, borrow or find the book you mentioned. What you have told me about it fits right into the mysticism with which I view my universe, and from what you have said I will find it and the tools it offers so useful in explaining and exploring the facets of my existance. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I look forward to sharing life with you here at HubPages. Maybe one day we will stumble into each other in "real life"


newday98033 on September 23, 2011:

Emperor is nice! When will you grow up?

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on September 22, 2011:

Oh! I am sorry I wrote your name wrong Michael. Hope you do not mind.

Mr. Happy from Toronto, Canada on September 21, 2011:

"If you want to visit God and see the system a reasonable idea to begin with, will be to find your place in the universe." - I was just thinking about that ... when I was really young (about five years old or so, maybe less), my parents had the habit of recording my sister and I. At one point on a tape, they asked us what we wanted to be when we grow up. I came-up with: "Emperor".

I'm still looking ... lol


newday98033 on September 21, 2011:

Love the discussions!

An idea about how this place works on an individual basis, is that one is creating a game field. This field consists of what one is presently conscious of and what one is willing to be conscious of. We call this "reality".

Obviously, there is always more reality. One can see more reality in a relatively smaller field or a relatively larger field. So you can see quarks and such objects. Or, planets, solar systems, galaxies. What you see will be "real" because you, and everyone here, is God. We live in a field of God, which is creation.

Since all is relative and the smallest vision is really no different from the largest, the key is to understand what you are seeing in context with what you already understand. However absurdly simple this is, it works. If you want to visit God and see the system a reasonable idea to begin with, will be to find your place in the universe. That seems to open doors. But everyone has his or her own path.

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on September 21, 2011:

Hi! Michel

I have still not read completely that book about Chord theory. I thought I will take some more time to come back to your site. But in between I found some thing interesting. I have not read this book


but the description says what it may have a little.

"Springing from quantum physics, and featured in science fiction, the "Parallel Worlds Theory" is an earth-shattering revision of our understanding of reality. It says, simply, that everything that can happen does. Universes branch and branch in time, one for every alternate possibility. Far more than an intellectual exercise, the parallel universe principle can be applied in personal reality and everyday life. You can "create" your reality by becoming the parallel-world version of yourself for whom the experience you want is already real. This is your roadmap, your guidebook, to Parallel Universes of Self."

The idea that "every thing which can happen does happen" sounds a very interesting for such an analysis. Since you are much more into it (I also want to, but some times I feel lost in meeting daily routine ends of life with much less means- not that I am unhappy about it but still!), I thought you may like. May be u already know?

Mr. Happy from Toronto, Canada on September 18, 2011:

Thank you for the clarification Mr. Soumyasrajan.

If I may add, in my opinion the following statement has some truth in it, to say the least: "Ultimately it is not perhaps words and explanations we seek, they are just tools."

I greatly appreciate the conversation. All the very best!

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on September 18, 2011:

Hi! Michael


Thanks a lot for your reply. I enjoyed very much. Specially this part "I think the model I describe is just for some kind of structure just for use while I am writing on this path. It is all stories and mythology for we will never really know while on this plane or in this dimension, on this planet at this time... ey??"

That says a lot. Ultimately it is not perhaps words and explanations we seek, they are just tools. I quite agree.

I am reading the book you suggested on string theory for these aspects. Then I will come back to your article again.

I read about Joseph Campbell. You had a great teacher. I liked his sentences

"If you follow your bliss, you put yourself on a kind of track that has been there all the while, waiting for you, and the life that you ought to be living is the one you are living. Wherever you are—if you are following your bliss, you are enjoying that refreshment, that life within you, all the time"

I will come back after reading your article again.

(for Mr. Happy - I am also Mr. almost the same age as Micael. Not that it matters much. Enjoyed exchanges with you too.)

Mr. Happy from Toronto, Canada on September 17, 2011:

I wonder how much consciousness any of us have available to us when we are "choosing" - I do think that I make choices consciously. Some are true and some are necessary. (Now, the question of what is consciousness, just formulated in my mind ...)

With that in mind though, I go where-ever the flow goes. Like a surfer trying to just stay-up standing on his board, not really concerned with which direction the wave is going ... that's the best way I could explain it.

"Never knowing what the future holds" - this for me is a perfect example of how each person's perspective on Life is always different to a certain extent. I am by nature an extremely curious being and I made a wish at one point in my life: "to be able to foresee the future" - I suppose I am the opposite of you, in that sense?

Your conversations are always fun! Thank you Mr. Mike. And thank you Mr./Mrs. Soumaysrajan as well. Cheers!

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on September 17, 2011:



I really appreciate the time and thought you put into your comments. You have taken from the cup that which I did in writing my story.

One of the thoughts that came from your comments about choosing my path... I wonder how much consciousness any of us have available to us when we are "choosing"... it is with much humility that I take your comments. It does make me aware that my path has the earmarks of a traveler with strength having taken it, though to whom to attribute that strength is hidden in the Mystic...

Never knowing what the future holds.... if ever I am in Mumbai I will come and meet you. If ever you are passing through Pittsburgh, perhaps I could drive up and meet there for a lunch and visit...

I think the model I describe is just for some kind of structure just for use while I am writing on this path. It is all stories and mythology for we will never really know while on this plane or in this dimension, on this planet at this time... ey??

(My first teacher of note, Joseph Campbell, I hope would think well of me...)

Thank you again for commenting, and introducing yourself, I look forward to getting to know you through your hubs here as time passes...


soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on September 17, 2011:

Hi! Michael

Enjoyed very much your Intro and conversations with Mr. Happy and Spirit Whisperer. Though a few things puzzle me about model you are trying to create or describe.

First of all before all this -- you say Namaste. Thanks a lot and Namaste to you also for the admirable path you have taken in your life --literally word Namaste in Sanskrit is combined form of Namah (I bow with respect) Te (to you). I assume from that you must have been to India. I live in Mumbai, if some time you are near by, very much will like to see you.

Coming back to your model, you must be aware that still even physicists are not so sure about model of string theory, how good is it even for Physical world. Einstein's ideas about, what is a good theory are very interesting. Some of his points were a good new theory should solve some questions, puzzles which one could not solve with earlier existing theory and it should create some new ideas which experimentalists can try to verify and it should create some new questions for further studies.

String theory has resulted in a lot of language built up over the years with a lot of hard work by some of the best minds devoted to physics. But so far physicists tell me, that general opinion is that it has not helped much in solving any of the existing mysteries (that does not mean of course it may not later also). General Quantum Physics still is the basis for Physicists.

I do not know really that much details about string theory (and the ideas in the book you mention) but I wonder when for people of physical world still it is just a development of an interesting language, how far it will be justified for a world which includes even spiritual world and a lot more, to have a model based on those ideas. That is a world about which we still understand much less in general terms.

One of the problems which one faces in the current style of study of physics and other sciences is that while it does the purpose for which it is being developed (creating some understanding of observations about physical universe and using it to predict some events in near future) the process it adopts of going to minute details and later still microscopic details etc. (first building blocks were elements for example, then atoms, then electrons-protons, now sub-subatomic particles, or ripples caused by them and it may go further down..). The process may be never ending and may require infinitely many steps.

Spiritualists and philosophers understood this difficulty (at least in India, possibly also in China or Japan or Greece too) long long back. That was one reason they tried to build a model of whole universe together in one go (by the way I wrote an article some months back on one of these models built by Advaita school in India about 2000 years back


Please do go through it when ever you have time, I think you must have any way known most of those things, you have spent much more time than me wondering about these ideas and your comments on my understanding will be very interesting and learning experience for me).

I am of course still a beginner -can not say with authority what is right- you may have much more clearer ideas. But I admire these ancient ideas. One of them being that you study whole universe including every thing spiritual or physical, rational, of past or future any thing you can think of or have feeling for- all together as the only unique truth. Then a lot of problems one has with things like splitting of soul, reality or illusion etc. can be avoided. Many of these problems like even process of our understanding of universe is created because we think of understanding as going in only one direction, in future as we make efforts. While things are indeed in both direction, past or future and infact in any direction and none can be neglected.

It seems to me to be very similar to ideas in Physics Feynman had started to solve and understand similar problems occurring in quantum physics. He thought of splitting of an atom into subatomic particle also as going in past to be joining of those particles into the atom and started studying all possibilities together.

gabriel on August 23, 2011:

now, now, now

truly makes sense why such a smile came upon your face when i updated you on my whereabouts and of my absence of writing....you are writing about vibration, the original seed as i was allowing myself time with the droning of the Yidaki/didgeridoo....your passage reminds me of some of the readings that cultivated my passion to understand the Great Mystery/God/Universe and to begin experiencing the didg.

Mr. Happy from Toronto, Canada on August 21, 2011:

Yes Mr. Mike, I just finished reading part two ... lots to say and I didn't say much. I am still thinking about what you wrote.

I will write down the title ... so many titles lately (lol). Cheers!

Mr. Happy will send something today Mr. Spirit Whisperer. Sorry for the delay. (Today for me still has about six hours, or just under lol.)

Xavier Nathan from Isle of Man on August 21, 2011:

Michael, I was wondering if I could use your first e-mail to me as your profile on the new website and you could change whatever you want as time goes on.

I would also like Mr Happy to send me something so we can get things moving.

Have you seen the tab for ACIM that I put there? In that way any of you can join the discussion. What do you think? I have also put a comment box for other people to contribute.

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on August 21, 2011:

Hey there Mr. H

The God Chord is a very well written book strictly for a layperson. Robert Schragg's PhD is in Communications and he writes really well. I think you will enjoy it, he writes from the heart not from the intellect in this...Hope your weekend goes well..

have you read part 2???


Mr. Happy from Toronto, Canada on August 21, 2011:

Thank you for the link on the experienceproject. I made a profile. I have so many profiles though ... on so many websites - rather difficult to keep-up with.

I was talking about the God Chord. As I said before though, with hardly any knowledge about science, it is just how I felt about the message you conveyed and not so much a complete understanding of the details. I feel things so, vibrations sounds logical - am I feeling vibrations? I am not sure. lol I am not sure how I operate sometimes ...

All the best.

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on August 21, 2011:


I think that would be a great place to start. It seems that is the general direction I seem to be going in the second part of this series, in Part 2, posted last night.

Xavier Nathan from Isle of Man on August 21, 2011:

Thank you Mike. Yes, that clarifies your position and I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I still have to clarify in my own mind the difference between knowledge and perception. I think that would be a good place to start in the ACIM section of our new website. What do you think?

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on August 20, 2011:


In reading that, I noticed I had made an erroneous statement in the second sentence of the paragraph you quoted:

"If that which is created by our perception is to what you refer as illusiion than it is created by Mind not ego."

I agree with you and ACIM that the order is God, Mind, Ego, Perception, and Illusion in that particular process. And that it is Ego that is the originator of the illusion.

And that String Theory is just another perception. I question two things...

1.” What people call knowledge in this world is perception.”

However, not that there isn’t knowledge? Here, I went and grabbed my ragged old copy of ACIM to be sure of what I was thinking. It’s interesting, I underlined the passage I’m referencing (in this copy, it’s my second…) back in 2006 (I don’t know why I find that interesting enough to point out… an example of synchronicity?)

In the Preface, page x, 1st paragraph, it states “…knowledge is truth, under one law, the law of love or God.” And goes on to explain a bit more about the difference between knowledge and perception.

2. "So ego makes up truth and God but nothing it makes up even comes close."

If you mean that ego makes up its illusions of what truth and God are and we agree, or accept, that particular illusion as a truth, and as our reality, or a part of our reality then I follow you and am in agreement.

Are we closer with that? It is important for me to understand all this, we share that need for patience while striving for clarity… :)

Thanks, Xavier

Xavier Nathan from Isle of Man on August 20, 2011:

Hello again Mike. Thank you for taking the time answer and I appreciate how comprehensively you have done that. Please be patient with me as I clarify in my own mind the points you have brought up and I would like to go through them one at a time.

Michael says:

"It talks of knowledge and perception and that they are two opposing thought systems. If that which is created by our perception is to what you refer as illusiion than it is created by Mind not ego. I don't think the terms are interchangable, but sometimes I get the inkling you may be doing that. Or maybe I'm confused as to how you are using illusion and perception."

Following is my understanding:

Mind is in a kind of self induced sleep as a result of its separation from God which it cannot face due to fear and guilt. From this sleeping mind was born the ego which has created a life separate from God and which we believe to be reality.

Mind belongs to God but is incapable of experiencing this as long as it sleeps and allows ego to steer the ship. But there is a voice that whispers to us because mind is God's creation and as such belongs to Him. So truth cannot be destroyed but we are simply distracted and it is ego that keeps us distracted. We engage in perceiving which is essentially writing our own meaning on what God has created so we cannot see reality through this layer of meaning we have covered reality with. So all we can do as sleeping minds in this world is perceive by means of ego so knowing anything is beyond the ego's capability. What people call knowledge in this world is perception.

For me string theory is just another perception. It is made up by ego and we can perceive it. It is a beautiful idea like so many other ideas that the ego makes and keeps us distracted but nothing made up and perceived by us has anything to do with truth and God which we are unable to know. So ego makes up truth and God but nothing it makes up even comes close. The illusion I refer to is the sum of all our perceptions and in which we believe to be real.

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on August 20, 2011:

Oui, Monsieur Happy (a big shout out to Catwhiskers at Experience Project.com http://www.experienceproject.com/about/catwhiskers

who reminded me of the joy of other languages not too long ago. A beautiul lady if ever there was one!)

Lest I confuse, I speak little bits of a variety of languages. Nay, I read and write little bits... my accent is heavily weighed down with southern/Texas/American english...! So I speak then as little as possable...

But, Sante, are you speaking of ACIM or The God Chord? Just wondering, they both spoke volumes to me...


Mr. Happy on August 19, 2011:

J'aime votre response Monsieur Mike. Oui, je pense que c'est ca!

I need to read that book now ... I have so many to read though ... lol


Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on August 19, 2011:


I am really happy to see you guys! I failed to mention that to SW earlier. I do enjoy our conversations. There is one of the triad still to come to complete the three most distinct points on this pendulumem for me!

Mr. H, your metaphor of a judo match is great! Many years ago my son and I took lessons together and there is one really great memory I have of that experience, where we both "got" the essence of the instructor's point together at the same moment in our individual matches. What a moment! And it really is, for me an astute insight into this thing, Ego. Thanks for your encouragement and your insight.


As ACIM begins,

Nothing real can be threatened.

Nothing unreal exists.

Herein lies the peace of God.

It talks of knowledge and perception and that they are two opposing thought systems. If that which is created by our perception is to what you refer as illusiion than it is created by Mind not ego. I don't think the terms are interchangable, but sometimes I get the inkling you may be doing that. Or maybe I'm confused as to how you are using illusion and perception.

I am confused at your starting point maybe. I need to read more of your thoughts. But you seem to be saying the ego creates all of "this" which we see, or perceive, and ego creates naught but illusion through those perceptions. And, I think you are saying, that each of us has created or agreed to our individual illusions (created by individuals' perceptions) that in some way creates Reality. Therefore, Reality is all illusion. And that there are as many realities as perceptions, and there is an underlying agreement as to what constitutes the illusion as both seperate illusions and as a whole singular illusion.

And yet ego is created by Mind, according to ACIM. And it is from Mind that knowledge and perception, two opposing and distinct thought systems, arise. ACIM seems to be saying that perception when used appropriately is for communication of knowledge and once that communication is successful perception can be laid aside.

I guess you can than say that Mind is free to then let ego create a new illusion through its use of pererception in order to communicate another dose of knowledge...

c'est ça?

Mr. Happy from Toronto, Canada on August 19, 2011:

I was hungry before but this piece of writing made me hungrier. It is difficult to comment when I know nothing about science. I tried reading this from a metaphysical perspective, to try to grasp your thoughts.

I think they are logical for the most part (there were parts I think I flew by, without fully knowing what you meant). So, looking at it (this article) as a whole (I like doing that better than focusing on individual sentences, for example), I think it works. It made me think of the Secret and although I know many people think that book was over-rated, it did me well.

"So, each of us is our own unique chord, a blend of untold number of single vibrations, our own small piece of music vibrating at some frequency." - I liked this sentence because I tend to feel things. I explain this through my attachment to the Water element.

Mr. Spirit Whisperer's question is a valid one too, in my opinion and it is always roaming around him (from my perspective). I personally like my ego - being aware of it is like a judo match ... lol

Thank you for writing this Mr. Mike. All the best.

Xavier Nathan from Isle of Man on August 19, 2011:

So how do you reconcile your string theory or any theory for that matter with the idea that you have perceived it with the ego and as such is meaningless outside of the illusion created by ego?

Michael Fielder (author) from North Central West Virginia, where the green grass grows... on August 19, 2011:

Thanks SW,

The link is a great idea. It passed through my mind but to briefly to stick. I have finished Yes, It's All About Me. It is on my Number One Shelf... What an intriguing and thought provoking book. Thank you for introducing it to me and for the gift. Christmas in "July" my favorite time of the year!

Xavier Nathan from Isle of Man on August 19, 2011:

The archangel has arrived on white steed ready to do battle! What a wonderful hub and you have organised it in a way that is also visually appealing. I have started the book and am thoroughly enjoying it as I am all the other books I also reading at the same time.

BTW have you finished Slarty's book? Please let us know what you think when you have.

I hope you don't mind me suggesting that you provide a link in your hub to the book the God Chord.

This is a great start and I look forward to following your series.

Related Articles