Richard Smoley – Supernatural: Writings on an Unknown History

12 thoughts on “Richard Smoley – Supernatural: Writings on an Unknown History

  1. The three levels of reality in Platonic Physics
    Roger B Clough, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Retired)

    Here we combine the top-down metaphysics of Plato and Leibniz with the inside-out categories of C S Peirce to enable us to view the world in a new, more useful light, simultaneously from two perspectives, and in more detail than Leibniz's pre-established harmony.  The top down structuring from  Plato and Leibniz allows us to view the world as it is: governed cybernetically by thought from the top singularity (the One, comparable to a computer processing unit), rather than from the ungoverned perspective of current science.  This allows us not only to understand the world properly, but  to structure the world cybernetically. with all creation, perception and control coming in the form of thought from the top down, but inside out using C S Peirce's three categories. 

    1. Introduction. While C S Peirce is well known to the philosophy of science, the worlds of Plato and his follower Leibniz have been less explored for such purposes.  Plato was an Idealisti and Arthur Eddington spent much of his life adapting Plato to science, but his use of Mind  in a world thoroughly established in materialism ihas largely blocked exploration of the use of Mind cybernetically, as a singular, mental control point, so that the current world of science is only governed, if at all, in fiefdoms. But more significantly, materialism and a lack of a single cybernetic control from top down has hindered the develepment of an understanding to consciousness, thought and the role and nature of the self.  For example, Dennett in his explanation of consciences does not have a perceiver (or at best a fancifal and abstract invention of one). Moreover the perceiver, to obviate the homunculus with homunculus problem, must be on a higher ontological level, and which has to be a living singular entity, not an abstract reference. By application of Leibniz and Plato and common sense as well,, we see that the perceiver must be singular– the One, the cybernetic Perceiver and control point, the central processing unit, to use a computer analogy.
    The learning curve on Plato-Leibniz is a bit steep at first, foreign to most physical scientists because of their unfamiliar top down control, which is also done indirectly by thought rather than directly by physical interaction, but also because of  Leibniz's unfamiliar  spreadsheet  style ontology, using not atoms but complete concepts called monads, which can be nested like sets. That would seem to render Leibniz more understandable to mathematicians and computer science, but his thinking in terms of substances and monads can be off-putting.  Once these are understood (through his Monadology [ ]) and if one sticks to the elementary particles scale (the particles are both substance and monads) one can proceed fairly smoothly.

    2. The three levels

    FIRSTNESS FIRST PERSON (I) -Mind The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless –     with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers – the womb of the WHAT.   Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain,    not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin.

    SECONDNESS – SECOND PERSON (YOU RIGHT HERE) ental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many.  In this, the WHAT separates  from  Mind and becomes a  HERE.  Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here."
        According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees.   There are of three gradations of life in these,     according to Leibniz:

        a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical  ( Eg, a fundamental particle).

        b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect.

       c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities.  Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind.
    The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets,  mental capacities.  Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between  monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished  harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of  Mind on the individual mind,  IMHO a gross shortcoming.

    Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process.  In a sense, the   binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of  the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of  self or mind  proves, along with the need for a PEH.

    This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we  consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such  apperceptions.  

     Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence,  intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind.  If these are to be immediate and/or original,  it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than  indirectly through separate although bound parts         of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become         convinced of this.
            Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin.        Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period,  within the context of one's memory and universal memory,         for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its  complex bindings seem hopelessly         indirect and subject to confusion.

    THIRDNESS – THIRD PERSON (IT OVER THERE) Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted     from the monad–and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective,     a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN.,  In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its     public expression in some appropriate form.

    3. Conclusions
    This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition.  It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom.

    Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
    See my Leibniz site: https://[email protected]/RogerClough
    For personal messages use [email protected]

  2. Richard Smoley is one of the world's most distinguished authorities on the mystical and esoteric teachings. 

  3. Check my interview out with Diana Cooper on The Moore Show Diana Cooper on the new paradigm, angels, 2012-2032 and the transition to the golden age.

  4. As an avid reader of Smoley's and Kinney's Gnosis magizine, it's wonderful to hear this interview. His thoughtful and interesting comments on these subjects often fit my own. I would definitely watch more of the Moore show with interviews like this.

  5. okay. twelve minutes in.  is this show about the proof this guy has for his beliefs in the super natural or is it the "slamming the scientists and science show"?  if what people want to promote has any merit to it, these people would not feel the need to go slamming scientists or science.  if what you want to promote has any merit to it, it would stand on its own.  people who go slamming, ridiculing and mocking other people or science hold no credibility with me.  proof and evidence – THAT'S what gives one – and one's ideas – credibility. 

    so where's your proof?  oh – haven't got any.  hence the slamming, ridiculing and mockery of LEGITIMATE means and methods of learning about how the world works.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *