Much earlier in my life, I spent a great deal of time investigating metaphysics, which I define as ideas based on universally held beliefs across cultures from the beginning of time, with a focus on how the spiritual infuses our life. Along that path I was fortunate enough to participate in A Course in Miracles class and work group, who met once a week for year.
Periodically, I come back to The Course and recently I have enjoyed it a great deal because of its connection to the writings/teachings of Esther and Jerry Hicks.
This article investigates the similarities between the scientific quantum realm in terms of its understanding of the role of the observer and the concepts of how our minds create our realities as per both The Course and the ideas of “living with intent.
On page 26 of the Workbook for Students (opened randomly for reading, as is my standard practice) I came across the following:
The idea for today is a beginning step in dispelling the belief that your thoughts have no effect. Everything you see is the result of your thoughts. There is no exception to this fact. Thoughts are not big or little; powerful or weak. They are merely true or false. Those that are true create their own likeness. Those that are false make theirs…
Salvation requires that you also recognize that every thought you have brings either peace or war; either love or fear. The neutral result is impossible because a neutral thought is impossible. There is such a temptation to dismiss fear thoughts as unimportant, trivial and not worth bothering about that it is essential you recognize them all as equally destructive but also equally unreal.
Why are fear-based thoughts unreal? From the point of view of these teachers we live as co-creators with the universal life force energy through the power of our minds. In essence, we live in a heaven of our own making. The Hicks tell us that because of the wonderful contrasts in our world we form strong “rockets of desire,” telling that universal force what it is we want to create. Unfortunately, when our energy and emotions focus on lack and limitation in our lives then we create that instead of what our hearts and minds desire. Those are the unreal equally destructive thoughts of the course in miracles.
What does this have to do with quantum living? Schrödinger’s cat is a parable that you may be familiar with – the cat in a box that has been given a pellet of poison but is neither alive nor dead until the observer opens the box to determine which is real. This has to do with the fact that in quantum physics a particle is either a particle or a wave, with the ability to behave as both simultaneously until it is measured. When light particles are sent through a measurement device that looks for particle behavior, they behaved exclusively as we would expect particles to behave and throw the requisite themes of light as we would expect. When we are not measuring for particles the striated beams of light produced correlate as we would expect for a wave.
But where does neuroscience weigh in on this topic? Dr. Karl Pribram, delves into how information is stored (or not stored) within our brains. His holonomic theory summarizes decades of scientific evidence to conclude that how we see the world is transformed by the retina in our eye much as a lens pulls out an entire image from a beam of light forming a holographic image. We have the ability to create the whole of that image in our minds. The interpretation is more in our minds then in objective reality.
This quantum living/subjective reality/scientific and metaphysics/etc. series of articles continues to be a format through which I work out for myself and other curious souls the relationships that appear to exist between science and metaphysics. I enjoy investigating realms or topics previously thought never to converge. The “Whether we see the cup as half empty or half-full “ debate continues to remain a personal choice and becomes one that influences every aspect of our life.
I leave it to you, my reader, to determine for yourself whether and to what extent these analogies portrayed an interesting cross-section of similarity. Perhaps we should take the idea that no thoughts are neutral seriously as we choose how to live our lives?