Sanja Veršić

Russian Cosmic Ideas and Energy Reading.

From materials presented at the IEC, May 2014

ABSTRACT

In this paper the attention is drawn to the energetic dimension of the human space of thought scientifically known as noosphere. The term is elaborated by the Russian natural scientist Vladimir Vernadsky, one of the prominent thinkers of the Russian Cosmism. This trend is known today as a socio-cultural phenomenon originated at the turn of the 19^th and 20^th century. Along the lines of global thinking of the Russian Cosmists – of Fedorov’s patrofication (immortality based on the resurrection of the fathers), Tsiolkovsky’s panpsychism, Florensky’s pneumatosphere, Chizhevsky’s heliosphere that influences the thought space, Umov’s anthroposphere – the considerations of the paper are related to the contemporary integral evolutionary theories and standpoints of Rupert Sheldrake, Richard Dawkins, Don E. Beck, Fritjof Capra and to Masaru Emoto’s experiements with human thought memorised by water. The research moves within Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrants model and shows that the very same modern integral theories on the evolution of consciousness are part of the noospheric planetary evolution of human thought – having much longer history and ground – recognised to a larger extent by Russian “cosmic thinkers“. “Cosmic“ and “integral thinkers“ are interested in the same issues, although from various perspectives. This comparative outline, based on pointing to the energetic intelligence, is conceived to shift attention to our socio-cultural artefacts within the humanities field and to embrace them in an integral approach to evolving consciousness.

Key words: energy, thought space, integral, noosphere, Russian Cosmists, beliefs, Beck, Dawkins, biological, field, Sheldrake, morphic resonance, Wilber, energetic perception, memes, Capra, mythical, quantum consciousness, magic, Emoto, linguistic, symbolic, energetic intelligence, archetypal, shift

Introduction

Modern integral theories approach our reality from many aspects and levels and include humankind experiences in both “exterior” and “interior” spaces. According to the figure of Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrants, individual-behavioural and collective-social aspects (exterior, right quadrants IT and ITS) reflect externally those aspects that are “invisible“: individual-intentional and collective-cultural aspects (interior, left quadrants I and WE).

Wilber’s representation of collective consciousness stages (WE quadrant: 1 archaic, 2 animistic-magical, 3 power gods, 4 mythic order, 5 scientific-rational, 6 pluralistic, 7 integral, 8 holistic) corresponds to the stages of social organization in their natural environment (ITS quadrant: 1 survival clans, 2 ethnic tribes, 3 feudal empires, 4 early nations, 5 corporate states, 6 value communities, 7 integral meshworks, 8 holistic commons). Similarly, Don Beck shows that the given strata, levels or waves (1 Survival Sense, 2 Kin Spirits, 3 Power Gods, 4 Truth Force, 5 Strive Drive, 6 Human Bond, 7 Flex Flow, 8 Whole View) reflect models of thinking (1 Instinctive, 2 Animistic, 3 Egocentric, 4 Authority, 5 Strategic, 6 Consensus, 7 Ecological, 8 Holistic) with their cultural manifestations and personal displays.

Since within every Quadrant there are further deeper levels and states, an integral approach may be comprehended not only as a ”theory”, but also as a map of multidimensional consciousness space. Such a map facilitates and gives clearer orientation in the space of human energy. In this article the term noosphere as the thought space is used to indicate not only intellectual reasoning ability, but also interior worldscapes (subtle dimensions of thoughts and feelings). Thoughts and feelings manifest themselves in concrete social relations, organizations and cultural artefacts (material and non-material attainments).

 

Upper Left (UL)   I Interior-Individual I N T E N T I O N A L	Upper Right (UR)   IT Exterior-Individual B E H A V I O R A L
C U L T U R A L Interior-Collective WE Lower Left (LL)	S O C I A L Exterior-Collective ITS Lower Right (LR)

Figure of Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrants

Feelings and thoughts of love, benevolence, brotherhood, equality, common purpose  are important to Russian intellectuals – scientists, artists, philosophers at the turn of the 19^th and 20^th century and in the first decades of the 20^th century to the point that they give them feature of cosmicity. Russian intellectuals of that period tend to holistically embrace all important aspects of their society. They leave in inheritance notable writings on importance of social equality, proposing solutions (e.g. Nikolai Fedorov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Sergei Bulgakov, Semen Frank, Nikolai Berdiaev); on the bonds between spiritual and material (e.g. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Vladimir Vernadsky, Nikolai Umov, Alexander Chizevsky, Pavel Florensky, Vasily Kandinsky); on love based on religious feeling of community (e.g. Vladimir Soloviev, Semen Frank, Nikolai Berdiaev, Pavel Florensky).

Although a considerable part of the Russian Cosmists rely on religiousness and religious feelings, as well as on mysticism and esoterism, they represent avant-garde in terms of collective endeavours in carrying out human equality, love and other basic human values.[1]

Energy of Noosphere or Thought Space

French theologian Pierre Teilhard De Chardin[2] (1881-1955) writes about love as an emotion inseparable from the thought in their “evolving stages“ in 1946:

“The excess of its growing energies over the daily diminishing needs of human propagation becomes every day more manifest. And love is therefore tending in a purely hominized form, to fill a much larger function than the simple urge to reproduction. ( … ) Its awakening is certain. Expansion … of an ancient power. ( … ) Beyond a certain degree of sublimation spiritualized love, by the boundless possibilities of intuition and communication it contains, penetrates the unknown; it will in our sight take its place … with the group of new faculties and consciousnesses that is awaiting us. (De Chardin 1984: 22-23)

As intuited by De Chardin, love is one of the energies in the spectrum of various energy densities and it is felt (or non felt) in everyday communication. From the point of view of contemporary physicists:

“Energy is one of the most important concepts used in the description of natural phenomena. As in everyday life, we say that a body has energy when it has the capacity for doing work. This energy can take a great variety of forms. It can be energy of motion, energy of heat, gravitational energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, and so on. Whatever the form is, it can be used to do work. ( … ) It may change its form in the most complicated way, but none of it can get lost.” (Capra 1975: 200-201)

The idea that we live in, and share, the noosphere[3], or the thought space, in the same way we live in and share biosfere, our natural planetary environment, is elaborated by one of the prominent Russian Cosmist Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945) in the 1920s. As a natural scientist, he defines noosphere as the “sphere of manifested scientific thought and technics“ and recognizes it as a “new geological factor unprecedented in its power“. (Vernadsky 2004: 16) Nowadays, the term covers the entire sphere of human mental and emotional activities.

Vernadsky’s idea of development of biosphere that continues and grows as a new power of noosphere in its teleological aspect resembles De Chardin’s theological point of view – an idea of evolving human spirituality towards the final realization in the Omega Point. By means of the term Omega Point De Chardin explains the final cosmological unification in love and unified consciousness, which corresponds to the term ultimate reality (brahman and like).

 

The “Cosmic Tendency“

In the climate of expansion of scientific, philosophical, religious and artistic thought, “the urge for unity“ – meaning the evolution of humanity and Cosmos – is the leading idea among many thinkers at the turn of the 19^th and 20^th century and in the first decades of the 20^th century, in the period subsequently termed Russian Cosmism. (cf. Semenova, Gacheva 1993). Its founder is Nikolai Fedorov (1829-1903). Some of the important notions for understanding its tendencies are common purpose, spiritual community (sobornost’), cosmicity, simbolicity, magicity, “all-unity” world view, projectivity, living universe, panpsychism, transformation, evolution, cosmic evolutionism. The Cosmos is a medium of “social awareness raising“, a space of “social regulation“, of “higher sense of human existence“. (Vershich 2013c: 31). The “cosmic tendency” finds its expression in three main trends according to current classification: natural-scientific, religious-philosophical, and poetical-artistic.[4] Within these trends there are elaborated conceptions of sophiocosmism, theocosmism, biocosmism, astrocosmism, anthropocosmism (theo-anthropocosmism and esoteric anthropocosmism).

Among the Cosmists that interest us in this paper we mention first Nikolai Fedorov, so called “the father of Russian Cosmism“, who promotes the teaching about patrofication (the resurrection of the fathers). His teaching, which is very popular today, implies the idea of immortality of body – “victory over space and time“.

Fedorov’s idea of the immortality of body reminds us of the story of Elijah we inherited, and concerns deep spiritual personal development, rather than the development of technology for this purpose, as interpreted by Posthumanists who directly rely on Fedorov’s teaching. Transhumanism shows an interest for artificial “life extension” in order to achieve transformation of “the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities”.[5] Among various interpretations, one might be that it is about recognising our “fathers” – ancestors – in ourselves and as ourselves. Fedorov’s idea in its interpretation may also include transcending human awareness in this “cosmic recognition“.[6] A new paradigm shift implies that it is a matter of spiritual remembering that humankind – at the point of reaching “ultimate” awareness – will have nothing to fear about mortality. So it might not be a matter of wanting to reach immortality thanks to “machines“[7], the very same product of our own creative thought manifestations. The issue of the Fedorovian immortality of body should concern today’s genetic researches of DNA with the aim to explain the relationship between human spiritual and biological functioning, rather than to be interested in genetic manipulation (biocybernetics). The first might justify Fedorovian idea of “mastering nature as a blind destructive force”. Otherwise the understanding of this Fedorov’s thought might be missed because taken literally and as such, in my share of thoughts with quoted authors, naive.

Another important cosmic thinker and Fedorov’s disciple Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935), the founder of cosmonautics, promotes panpsychism, teaching about sensitivity of every living form, including atoms as “living cosmic particles”.[8] He is a visionary of the 20^th century proposing designs for rockets and spaceships, and at the same time a subtle writer of SF stories, as well as a promoter of living on prana, living on sunlight. His teaching explains the future humans as autothrophic beings. In his considering life of the atoms as minute particles (Fedorov’s influence), we recognise the atomistic view of the Ancient Greece as well as beginnings of quantum physics. Critically viewing Tsiolkovsky’s giving priority to the intellect over the emotions, which consists in overemphasizing reason (cf. Vershich 2010, p. 1: 53-54) and is reflected in his radical idea on how to ideally organize happy society, we distinguish, nevertheless, an importance of his scientific achievements.

Tsiolkovsky and Vernadsky share the idea that in the future the nutrition of the humankind will be an autothrophic[9] one. The humankind will use an external energy source for living, the sunlight. Today, in not so “distant future“, some people already practice sungazing (solar yoga) and live without eating,[10] showing a high consciousness level.

Vernadsky considers that evolutionary changes in biosphere are possible owing to the human thought as the “fundamental geological strength“. According to Vernadsky, the biosphere reacts on human spiritual activity, defined by the natural scientist – “the energy of human culture, the cultural biogeochemical energy“. (Vernadsky 2004: 387)

Alexander Chizhevsky (1897-1964) introduces in the science the term heliosphere. The founder of cosmic biology and heliobiology leaves behind findings on sun activity and its influence on social changes, such as revolutions and migrations. In terms of the field, humanity is not only interconnected on the planetary level, but is also connected on the cosmic level and influenced by “cosmic events“. His insights are relevant for the later scientific findings. On this trace, we meet Sheldrake’s theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance.

The theoretician of physics and the first Russian physicist-philosopher Nikolai Umov (1846-1915) considers that only scientific view allows mastering of energy, time and space. He introduces in physics the concepts of velocity and direction of energy motion, and leaves behind findings on energy localization and motion, characteristics of polarization of light, Earth’s magnetism etc. Regarding ethics, he believes that human evolution is possible in the first place by achieving social equality. By the term anthroposphere the scientist supposes the emergence of moral feeling, which he considers the consequence of the regulation of living matter. Similarly, in the idea of antropocosmism of Nikolai Cholodny (1882-1953), there is a deep connection between humankind and his cosmic environment. The microbiologist considers humankind as an organic part of the Cosmos itself.

Both mystical and scientific is another cosmic thinker, the religious philosopher and mathematician Pavel Florensky (1882-1937). In analogy with noosphere, Florensky proposes the term pneumatosphere[11]. The sphere of spirit with its energy corresponds to what we term today the field. In his definition, it is “a special part of the matter, entangled in circular motion of culture or, more precisely, circular motion of spirit” (quotation from Florensky’s letter to Vernadsky; Semenova, Gacheva 1993: 163) Although Florensky represents the religious-philosophical trend, author’s writings testify his ability to connect various perceptions of our reality, based on theoretical artistic and linguistic knowledge as well as mathematical and technical findings. Florensky is one of the rare Cosmists who integrates opposites, such as: concrete and metaphysical, folkloric and scientific, magic and physical, ancient and modern, functional and ontological, notional and sensorial. He is the author who leaves in heredity his findings of various kinds of perceptions of space, and is one of the most intuitive to the scientific-spiritual approach to human consciousness.

On Cultural Beliefs

Considering Wilbers’ Lower Left or WE Quadrant, we have an overall view on our collective cultural beliefs – inherited ones, as well as newer ones. Collective beliefs include beliefs of all previous stages in a descending line up to the archetypal forms. In that sense, some today’s cultural beliefs at collective level might not differ from some cultural beliefs of the first decades of the 20^th century, as explains Dawkins. On the other hand, there are scientists (such as Sheldrake), whose integral approach to explain certain phenomena from both scientific and spiritual points of view today is not accepted by the scientific mainstream. So, what would be the difference in considering “pseudoscientific” points of view of the “integral thinkers” and the “cosmic thinkers“? Is there a difference between integral – spiritual (“pseudoscientific”) and scientific – starting points of scientific researches and collectively inherited folklore beliefs?

Referring to Arthur Clark’s view that any advanced technology is “indistinguishable from magic”, Dawkins problematizes human inclination to explain unknown from magical or mythical point of view. From his critical standpoint, there is no reason not to imagine more advanced, intelligent civilizations as gods, who might seem to us supernatural in the same way our technical achievements would seem to people in the Middle Ages if they saw ours “ … laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomb or a jumbo jet”. (Dawkins 2006: 72)

The scientist also draws attention to a notable number of examples in the Scriptures where are described “magical powers” or so called “miracles”:

“The Gospel of Thomas, for example, has numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus abusing his magical powers in the manner of a mischievous fairy, impishly transforming his playmates into goats, or turning mud into sparrows, or giving his father a hand with the carpentry by miraculously lengthening a piece of wood. It will be said that nobody believes crude miracle stories such as those in the Gospel of Thomas anyway. But there is no more and no less reason to believe the four canonical gospels. All have the status of legends …, as factually dubious as the stories of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.” (id. 96)

The evolutionary biologist assumes that religiosity is negatively correlated “with interest in science and (strongly) with political liberalism.” (id. 102) He poses the question about who in the first place made God. Could not we ask the same about beliefs in fairies, nymphs, elves and others collectively “inherited creatures”, or archetypal forms that “reside” our thought space of culture?

When it comes to considering spirituality, there are no answers about what is right or what is wrong in this spiritual dimension of human living. Our interpreting of spiritual experiences differs when we give attention to very subtle spaces of our being, overcrossing dimension of our everyday social intercommunication.

It’s about spiritual remembering, about how much we remembered our true selves: everyone remembers to a degree he/she is able to remember in certain moment of time. That is why Wilber emphasizes that everyone is right, because everyone has his/her truth. And that is why in his AQAL approach all dimensions of human experience can be holistically embraced.

When it comes to the morality[12] of our belief system, the question that arises is can morality be regulated in some way like biology system? Even though we have in mind two different systems – IT Quadrant and WE Quadrant – shouldn’t they be explained on the same principle? In this regard, Dawkins considers analogy between genes and memes:

“… the Darwinian idea that evolution is driven by natural selection seems ill-suited to explain such goodness as we possess, or our feelings of morality, decency, empathy and pity. Natural selection can easily explain hunger, fear and sexual lust, all of which straightforwardly contribute to our survival or the preservation of our genes. But what about the wrenching compassion we feel when we see an orphaned child weeping, an old widow in despair from loneliness, or an animal whimpering in pain? ( … ) Isn’t goodness incompatible with the theory of the ‘selfish gene’? No.” (Dawkins 2006:  215)

In Dawkins’s syntagm “selfish gene” – “selfish” means that genes are able to survive at their level in the hierarchy. They “ensure their own selfish survival by influencing organisms to behave altruistically.” (id. 216)

A comparison between noospheric (moral) and biospheric (biological) we find in Vernadsky’s explanations of living matter that evolves in its stages of geosphere and biosphere in continuous progress towards a noosphere. According to Vernadsky, an individual, who influences nature, “can and must make changes, with his work and his thought, in his living environment”. (Vernadsky 2004: 280)

Not only Vernadsky and other scientists point to a need for revaluation of ethics and basic human values, but also philosophers and artists who are deeply religious. If Tsiolkovsky emphasizes “cosmic ethics”, the religious philosophers, such as Fedorov, Soloviev, Berdiaev, Florensky, Frank, emphasize “Christian ethics”.

 

Energy of Socio-Cultural Beliefs

Referring to social beliefs, we include Lower Right or ITS Quadrant – social systems, structures and organizations.

If genes, biological units of information have their analogy in memes – “units of cultural inheritance“, then latter are supposed to spread in some medium. Today is largely accepted the notion “field“, or “morphic field“, introduced in theory by R. Sheldrake. If we understand memes as “energetic formations” or “in-formations“, then we have to take in consideration that the human culture is the space of human thought energy. This kind of energetic interchange is present in language as well as in cultural artefacts. It is activated both by linguistic and material activity (cf. Florensky 2000: 230-249). The interchange of energy can be external (verbal communication, communication by artefacts) or internal (communication as natural share of thoughts, telepathy).

Is the spiritual evolution unconscious process and to what extent? To what extent can it become more conscious? In another words, the question that arises is this: If we discern “good” from “evil” in our acts, or saying, thinking, expressing thoughts, feelings, ideas and, obviously, we do, then why don’t we do more good? The very same question problematizes Dawkins when considers “the roots of morality“. According to the scientist, “without religion one can be good”. What he ponders is: “Do we really need policing – whether by God or by each other – in order to stop us from behaving in a selfish and criminal manner?” (2006: 211, 209) We recognize, however, changes in the thought space, or if we prefer, in what the evolutionist calls “moral Zeitgeist” (spirit of the times). The changes became more intensive in the 20^th century and are explainable within Don Beck’s analyses of “stages of social development” and Wilber’s integral approach to development of consciousness.

Although illustrated as a scale, the progress of consciousness may be imagined as simultaneous presence of various levels of thinking. This simultaneity is precisely manifested in Postmodern literature and Postmodern art, which show that we are at the point to transcend and integrate our spiritual experiences.

If we consider a presence of integral wave of consciousness in the space of culture, then it doesn’t necessarily indicate that all previous waves were completely understood or already embraced and transcended to the next, “higher levels”. As an example, we can reflect upon the social attitude towards women and their position in western modern society that reflects beliefs on how to treat women. Only in the 20th century it has been given them the right to vote and has been officially recognized social equality. Or, quoting Dawkins:

“… female suffrage is now universal in the world’s democracies, but this reform is in fact astonishingly recent. Here are some dates at which women were granted the vote: New Zealand 1893, Australia 1902, Finland 1906, Norway 1913, United States 1920, Britain 1928, France 1945, Belgium 1946, Switzerland 1971, Kuwait 2006. This spread of dates through the twentieth century is a gauge of the shifting Zeitgeist.” (Dawkins 2006: 265)[13]

From that point of view we can follow a flow of women’s emancipation, reflected in feminist literary criticism, women studies and gender studies, or in post-colonial literature that manifests problems of cultural and national identity, of treatment of other persons based on ethnic and racial differences:

“All civilized nations now accept what was widely denied up to the 1920s, that a woman’s vote, in an election or on a jury, is the equal of a man’s. In today’s enlightened societies … women are no longer regarded as property, as they clearly were in biblical times. ( … ) The word ‘negro’, even though not intended to be insulting, can be used to date a piece of English prose. Prejudices are indeed revealing giveaways of the date of a piece of writing.” (id. 265, 269)

Within the course of biological-spiritual evolution the evolutionary biologist emphasizes the importance of comparative approach to “units of biological inheritance” and “units of cultural inheritance“. Although the Darwinian explanation may seem to be “cruel” (or too simplified to give an explanation about human complex biological and spiritual being), it has sense when enlarged on the subtle thought space of human culture on the planetary level. What is so specific about meme? Meme is a “replicator“, and a replicator is:

“… a piece of coded information that makes exact copies of itself, along with occasional inexact copies or ‘mutations’. The point about this is the Darwinian one. Those varieties of replicator that happen to be good at getting copied become more numerous at the expense of alternative replicators that are bad at getting copied.” (Dawkins 2006: 191)

And this is precisely the very answer on the question that the author himself rises:

“Where, then, have these concerted and steady changes in social consciousness come from? ( … ) For my purposes it is sufficient that they certainly have not come from religion. ( … ) First, how is it synchronized across so many people? It spreads itself from mind to mind through conversations in bars … through books and book reviews, through newspapers and broadcasting, and nowadays through the Internet. Changes in the moral climate are signalled in editorials, on radio talk shows, in political speeches …” (id. 270)

Memes and meme complexes as inherited forms dispersed “from mind to mind“ have largely entered a comprehensive theory of culture. According to the biologist, memes are accepted by some authors (P. Richerson, R. Boyd), but as “cultural variants“, or rejected by others. From the biosemiotic point of view, for example, memes are interpreted in terms of simplified concepts of signs, and their coping in terms of “degenerate translation”.[14] If memes are interpreted as thought formations we interchange, then we have to agree about the impact they have on their spreaders in communication.[15]

In his book The God Delusion Dawkins largely discusses the existence of religious consciousness in our modern society and its patterns of behaviour, making analogy with examples from The Old Testament within the framework of morality. The conclusion is that certain models of thinking – such as feeling anger because there is “God’s anger”[16] – are still present in contemporary societies, in spite of the fact that through the history there have been however some consciousness shifts showing “softer“ ways of thinking in relation to “the times of the Scripture“. It is probable that these models of thinking, these meme complexes, still exist – and persist – because they are accompanied by religious symbolic ceremonies and practices:

”In the early stages of a religion’s evolution, before it becomes organized, simple memes survive by virtue of their universal appeal to human psychology. This is where the meme theory of religion and the psychological by-product theory of religion overlap. The later stages, where a religion becomes organized, elaborate and arbitrarily different from other religions, are quite well handled by the theory of memeplexes – cartels of mutually compatible memes”. (Dawkins 2006: 201)

Liturgical services are still practiced because of belief in their symbolical power. They are evident confirmation of the existence of memes so widely “replicated“ that they still survive:

“Some religious ideas, like some genes, might survive because of absolute merit. These memes would survive in any meme pool, regardless of the other memes that surround them. ( … ) Some religious ideas survive because they are compatible with other memes that are already numerous in the meme pool – as part of a memeplex.” (id. 199)

Memes, which can be also interpreted as units of “culturally inherited thinking“, are kind of subtle energetic forms of thoughts and emotions that – just like genes – descendants inherit from their ascendants.[17] They regard all kinds of cultural and social inherited beliefs, such as, for example, the folkloric ones (beliefs in fairies, natural spirits and other creatures) or mythological ones. The folklore beliefs, as ways of expression of the collective unconscious, are still present in today’s societies, just like archetypes are. They are to be correlated with memes, especially if we perceive them in terms of “thought accumulations” in noosphere. As formations of the thought space, or thought field, they are shared by all humanity, and represent a planetary “heritage of ancestral experiences“.

We may say that here it is a matter of thought energies being present in collective human thought field, which are more and more consciously perceivable in our noospheric environment, horizontally (socio-cultural interaction) as well as vertically (socio-cultural heritage), in their anthropomorphic interpretations.

The problem matter of this kind of perception and of anthropomorphic interpreting poses Tsiolkovsky in 1920-s – an inclination to project human features on animals, living nature and other phenomena. This human inclination explains in fact many artistic (movies) and, in the first place, literary creations such as folk beliefs and legends, folk tales, fairy tales, postmodern myths etc. Considerations of mythical and scientific consciousnesses from a comparative perspective applied to literature reveal postmodern myths as “new myths“, although “mythical foundations of overall culture“ in the Postmodern theory “are understood as fiction“. (Solar 2000: 81)

Folklore creations may be interpreted as “a specific forms of expression of the social way of thinking and behaviour that have to be bonded with other cultural phenomena“; they represent “a symbolic form of the reaction on social processes” (Biti 1981: 180) According to Biti, the folkloristics “is not interested in how energy is embodied in a form“, because for this discipline the form is secondary. Oral tradition and folk tales, fairy tales are in this respect “ontological archetypes, primal givennesses of our existence“. (cf. Biti 1981: 57)

This problem matter might be one of the guidelines on how to research, for example, literary and wider (popular culture) creativity within the context of the theory of memes and field theories. It might examine the nature of the bond between anthropomorphic creations as artefacts (energetic manifestations) of human creativity and energetic intelligence – awareness – of its symbolic level. One of the main questions that arise within this topic is what energy – resonance, frequencies, vibes and the like – has to do with the fact that humanity is capable of thinking in images.[18]

The thought space with its energy is what Sheldrake describes as a morphic field when considers “the question of biological development, of morphogenesis“:

“An alternative to the mechanist/reductionist approach, which has been around since the 1920s, is the idea of morphogenetic (form-shaping) fields. In this model, growing organisms are shaped by fields which are both within and around them, fields which contain, as it were, the form of the organism.” (Sheldrake 1987a)

These fields are interconnected by mutual resonance:

“Each species has its own fields, and within each organism there are fields within fields. (… ) There is a whole series of fields within fields. ( … ) Through the fields, by a process called morphic resonance, the influence of like upon like, there is a connection among similar fields. That means that the field’s structure has a cumulative memory, based on what has happened to the species in the past. This idea applies not only to living organisms but also to protein molecules, crystals, even to atoms. ( … ) Morphic field is a broader term which includes the fields of both form and behaviour …” (id.)

Moreover, Sheldrake broadens efficiency of morphic fields on human experience of the environment, giving the example of Washington D.C. as “geomantically designed“, or another one of the Pentagon which is “five-sided“ (having “the in-house newspaper … called the Pentagram“). Among the questions he ponders are:

“Who was the architect? ( … ) Why did he adopt this five-fold symbolism? What system of symbolism was he tuning into, consciously or unconsciously? What archetypal patterns were at work at that time in him?” (Sheldrake 1988)

These questions have to do with both the “power of places” – with the earth energies we today believe exist, and with “symbols” – products of human thought energy. The symbolization as a manifestation of socio-cultural beliefs is also present in Sheldrake’s theory of morphic fields: in the morphic resonance the biochemist included the issue of archetypes of the collective unconscious.

The idea of the “field“ is traceable, for example, in Nikolai Fedorov’s teaching about “particles”, which follows teachings of the Early Church Fathers; in Tsiolkovsky’s idea of atoms as of citizens of Cosmos; in Florensky’s pneumatosphere and in his approach to language as to the key phenomenon of the culture.

 

A Bond between Interior, Spiritual and Exterior, Empirical

Considering that the processes in the human organism, in the body reflect one’s behaviour, and vice versa, it is not odd that the scientists explore the connection between matter and thoughts that precede acts as a result of someone’s behaviour. Here we give a look at Upper Right or IT Quadrant.

One of the integral practical thinkers is Masaru Emoto, who has proven that water – a key element of the human body – reflects human thoughts. His results approve that the energy of words (vibrations or resonance of words) is the manifestation of thoughts, showing the effects on the crystals of water. Emoto has proved and documented that water molecules reflect thoughts and emotions. The conclusion he has made is that if we treat others – and the environment we live in – with love and gratitude, we contribute to the raising awareness of the coexistence. This kind of understanding the nature of human communication is not new, it has roots in spiritual practices, but somehow it is not brought to our awareness on a larger scale.

In accordance with Sheldrake’s theory based on integral thinking, there are analogies between “genetics and morphic resonance … involved in heredity“:

“The theory of morphic resonance leads to a much broader view which allows one of the great heresies of biology once more to be taken seriously: namely, the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Behaviours which organisms learn, or forms which they develop, can be inherited by others even if they are not descended from the original organisms – by morphic resonance.” (Sheldrake 1987a)

Sheldrake’s theory finds its verification in Emoto’s experiments with water crystals, as the validation of the existence of morphic resonance (cf. Emoto 2006: 71). The biochemist extends the view on evolution to a new concept of memory. It means that positive and benevolent thinking – reflecting someone’s behaviour – changes cellular patterns creating new processes in direction of physical well-being and social well-behaving. In other words, it indicates “the self-resonance process” as the self-correction process of individual and collective memory:

“The key concept of morphic resonance is that similar things influence similar things across both space and time. The amount of influence depends on the degree of similarity. ( … ) This self-resonance with past states of the same organism in the realm of form helps to stabilize the morphogenetic fields, to stabilize the form of the organism, even though the chemical constituents in the cells are turning over and changing. Habitual patterns of behaviour are also tuned into by the self-resonance process.” (Sheldrake 1987a)

The concepts of morphic fields and morphic resonance enabled by morphic fields, as the author explains, are “ideas for amplifying Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious and archetypal psychology”. (Sheldrake 1987b) By this the author considers the society to be a superorganism and explicates his natural scientific approach to the social phenomena:

“My hypothesis is that societies have social and cultural morphic fields which embrace and organize all that resides within them. Although comprised of thousands and thousands of individual human beings, the society can function and respond as a unified whole via the characteristics of its morphic field. To visualize this, it is helpful to remember that fields by their very nature are both within and around the things to which they refer. A magnetic field is both within a magnet and around it; a gravitational field is both within the earth and around it. Field theories thus take us beyond the traditional rigid definition of “inside” and “outside.” (Sheldrake 1987b)

As Masaru Emoto documents – “everything is vibration“, and if it is so, then the very human body by containing water vibrates as well and communicates in accordance with morphic resonance. The human body includes body fluids, such as blood, lymphatic fluids, tears, semen etc., being a complex and subtle system. In Florensky’s ”esoteric approach” to body fluids and in his referencing to Plato (in the essay “Magicity of the Word“), we note that the author gives particular importance to “semen” comparing it to “word“. (Florensky 2000: 230-249) Some researchers of Florensky’s work (S. Khoruzhy) believe that in this regard he anticipated issues of the field of information and genetic code.

According to Emoto:

“Water is so sensitive to the unique frequencies, being emitted by everything that exists in the world, that in fact mirrors all the outside world. ( … ) Water faithfully mirrors all the vibrations that are created in the world and changes these vibrations into a form that is seen by the human eye. When water is shown a written word, it receives it as vibration and expresses the message in a specific way.” (Emoto 2006: 30)

In Fedorov’s teaching, for example, we find the explanation of minute immortal particles, which humanity is made from. According to Fedorov, who refers to Gregory of Nyssa (one of the Church Fathers from 4^th century), the body of the dead disperses in elemental particles, in elements that do not disappear, but are spread everywhere, even in the Solar System, maybe also in some ”other worlds” (Fedorov 1906). Although Fedorov’s understanding of minute particles – of quantumness as we understand it today – may seem childish to us, it contains, nevertheless, its essentiality.

An Individual Spiritual Growth – the Inner Space Experiences

If we give attention to interior changes of the individual, to “inner personal work“, we move within the I Quadrant. In the Quadrant of Self, Wilber considers stages of personal development and growth from the perception of the “ordinary“ reality, i.e. from “sensorimotor and rational and existential“ – to “transpersonal“. In terms of awareness, an identification with the material and with the biological dimensions moves to an identification with a mental self (which is, primarily, egocentric), and to an identification with a group (based on cultural and social roles and conventions). This sociocentric and ethnocentric self is what we meet mostly in everyday “external space” experiences. The identity continues to expand towards a postconventional one, i.e. transcends towards a global, worldscentric awareness (Wilber 1996).

The “inner space” experiences have also certain stages, certain gradation within the transcendental realm. By transcendental consciousness states at the psychic level between personal and transpersonal realms Wilber implies transcendental phenomena as:

“… shamanic visions and voyages; arousal of kundaliny energy… overwhelming feelings of the numinous; spontaneous spiritual awakenings… identification with aspects of nature – plant identification, animal identification – up to an identification of all of nature (cosmic consciousness, nature mysticism, and the World Soul). (Wilber 1996: 207-208)

In the “psychic worldspace” the perception is real as the rocks are at the physical level or concepts at the mental level:

“If cognition awakens or develops to this psychic level, you simply perceive these new objects … They … simply present themselves … Of course, if you haven’t awakened psychic cognition, then you will see non of this, just as a rock cannot see mental images. And you will probably have unpleasant things to say about people who do see them.“ (id. 208)

The evolution continues from “psychic” to “subtle“ worldspace including:

“… processes … subtler than gross, ordinary waking consciousness. These include interior luminosities and sounds, archetypal forms and patterns, extremely subtle bliss currents and cognitions … expansive affective states of love and compassion, as well as subtler pathological states of what can only be called Kosmic terror, Kosmic evil, Kosmic horror. As always, because of the dialectic of progress, this subtle development is most definitely not just a day at the beach.“ (id. 211)

The following stage of transpersonal growth is the “causal” level (Tao, Brahman):

“Because all possible objects have not yet arisen, this is a completely unmanifest state of pure Emptiness. What you actually ‘see’ in this state is infinite nothing, which simply means that it is too Full to be contained in any object or any subject or any sight or any sound. It is pure consciousness, pure awareness, prior to any manifestation at all – prior to subjects and objects, prior to phenomena, prior to holons, prior to things, prior to anything. It is utterly timeless, spaceless, objectless.” (id. 225)

The causal level is transcended by the “nondual“:

“… according to the Nondual traditions … at some point … as you … rest in the Witness, the sense of being the Witness “in here“ completely vanishes itself, and the Witness turns out to be everything that is witnessed. Tha causal gives way to the Nondual, and formless mysticism gives way to nondual mysticism. ( … ) In Buddhist terms, this is not just the … nature mysticism; and not just the … deity mysticism; and not just the … causal or formless mysticism. It is beyond … It embraces the entire spectrum of consciousness – transcends all, includes all.” (id. 226-227)

This kind of experiencing inner space is such personal and deep that it is difficult to verbalize it. The subtlety of experiencing realities which lie behind the ordinary one, however, might be compared with the concept of field in physics:

“Subsequent to the emergence of the field concept, physicists have attempted to unify the various fields into a single fundamental field which would incorporate all physical phenomena. ( … ) The Brahman of the Hindus, like the Dharmakaya of the Buddhists and the Tao of the Taoists, can be seen, perhaps, as the ultimate unified field from which spring not only the phenomena studied in physics, but all other phenomena as well. ( … )  Thus, the Void of the Eastern mystics can easily be compared to the quantum field of subatomic physics. Like the quantum field, it gives birth to an infinite variety of forms …” (Capra 1975: 211-212)

Capra emphasizes that the Eastern mystics and modern physicists share the comprehension of the universe as “an inseparable whole … where all forms are fluid and ever-changing”. Thus, speaking about the universe as wholeness, there is an accordance between the Eastern mysticism and the “bootstrap theory” (today’s “string theory”) that ”the properties of any one part are determined by those of all the others” and that “every part contains all the others”. (id. 292) According to Capra:

“The experience of interpenetration in the state of enlightenment can be seen as a mystical vision of the complete ‘bootstrap’ situation, where all phenomena in the universe are harmoniously interrelated. In such a state of consciousness, the realm of the intellect is transcended and causal explanations become unnecessary, being replaced by the direct experience of the mutual interdependence of all things and events.” (id. 293)

Personal mystical experiences are described by some Russian Cosmists such as Vladimir Soloviev and Pavel Florensky. In Soloviev’s poem “Three meetings” (1876) are poetically expressed mystical visions of Sophia, the divine principle. Specific insights are noted down by Tsiolkovsky within his reactualization of the idea of panpsychism: all matter is conscious to some degree and all matter senses, although in various intensities at various levels of its consciousness. The same refers to all atoms in the cosmos whose existence, according to Tsiolkovsky, is an alternation of their dreaming states and their “real lives”. (cf. Tsiolkovsky 1925)

Florensky’s analyses of visual arts include correlations between internal and external perspectives and are broadened to the questions of the inner I-ness. The inner I-ness is artistically represented in iconography in reverse perspective. If “external space” in human experiences is correlated to representations in linear perspective, then inner space is symbolized by reverse perspective. (cf. Florensky 1993) The reverse perspective presumes that we have “knowledge about things”, i.e. “knowledge of their essence”. (Uzharevich 2011: 127-146)

It is obvious that knowledge of essence, or “mystical” knowledge, or inner and deep I-ness experiences can be externalized only in some symbolic way, because of their unutterable nature.[20] In that sense, symbolizations (symbolic forms), wheter artistic ones or mathematic ones, are equally valid as are linguistic descriptions. As such, they are all ”symbolic descriptions” of the inner knowledge. (cf. Florensky 2000: 104-118)

Towards Love and Comprehension

The crucial element in our living dimension is the time, experienced as time flow, which facilitates that we perceive and make paradigm shifts:

“Some of us lag behind the advancing wave of the changing moral Zeitgeist and some of us are slightly ahead. But most of us in the twenty-first century are bunched together and way ahead of our counterparts in the Middle Ages, or in the time of Abraham, or even as recently as the 1920s. ( … ) One way to put it would be in terms of changing meme frequencies in the meme pool …” (Dawkins 2006: 270-271)

However, there is also the shift going on in perceiving time itself. “Changing meme frequencies“ means – as explained by Dawkins – the presence of certain memes in terms of their “quantity“, in terms of the number of replicators. On the other hand, the frequency of meme can be understood in the light of its “quality” – as a “piece of coded information“. Our perception of time is changing. It also implies changes in our space-time perception. We become aware of more subtle consciousness dimensions that elevate the quality of coexistence in collective energetic field we share.

Modern evolutionary theories remind in a way of De Chardin’s idea of spiritual progress towards Omega Point, “direction” in which universe evolves.[21] It might sound idealistic to some, but love and benevolence are both emotional and thoughtful energies towards “higher“ or “more conscious“ being. According to De Chardin, love is “a higher form of human energy“:

“Love is by definition the word we use for attractions of a personal nature. Since once the universe has become a thinking one everything in the last resort moves in and towards personality, it is necessary love, a kind of love, which forms and will increasingly form, in its pure state, the material of human energy. Is it possible to verify a posteriori this conclusion which is imposed on us a priori by the conditions of functioning and maintenance of the thinking activity of the earth’s surface? Yes, I believe so.“ (De Chardin 1984: 24-25)

De Chardin’s comprehension of the reality of universe, which implies humanity, concerns spiritual growth (Wilber’s left quadrants or subjective and intersubjective communication). Don Beck’s comprehension of social development, on the other hand, concerns pragmatic behavioral and social activity (Wilber’s right quadrants or objective and interobjective communication). Both conception of evolving towards Omega point and theory of Spiral Dynamics bring to our attention humanity’s orientation towards social sensibility – love and understanding – at the global, planetary level.

Small increments or very slow but efficacious changes demonstrate that every shift integrates and transcends previous models of socio-cultural interaction. “Higher level“, symbolically speaking, means that we have much clearer view, as we were standing on the top of the mountain instead of at its foot. It means that we discern between old cultural patterns and new models of thinking that are more adequate. In his essay “Sustainable Cultures, Sustainable Planet. A Values System Perspective on Consctructive Dialogue and Cooperative Action” Don Beck notes that sustainability of cultures means, among other things, “recognizing that the centre of gravity for the culture will shift as conditions of existence change in the milieu, either progressive or regressive”. The theorist also draws attention to the consciousness shift: to the importance of “transcending but including previous ways of being while always anticipating what will be next, thus living in open systems”.

A “higher level” in terms of comprehension of the noosphere we live in can be also explained from another point of view. Thus Capra, for example, from a physical standpoint considers our endeavour to comprehend the space as the curvature of our living dimension, which is “curved space-time dimension”. Although it is so, it is difficult to us, explains Capra, to “imagine how it can be ‘bent in some direction’” because our actual comprehension of space is relevant to imagining easily a straight line on a plane, while our comprehension of space-time differs – ”we cannot look at three-dimensional space ‘from outside’”:

“In the ‘general theory of relativity’, the framework of the special theory is extended to include gravity. The effect of gravity, according to general relativity, is to make space-time curved. This, again, is extremely hard to imagine. We can easily imagine a two-dimensional curved surface, such as the surface of an egg, because we can see such curved surfaces lying in three-dimensional space. The meaning of the word curvature for two-dimensional curved surfaces is thus quite clear; but when it comes to three-dimensional space-let alone four-dimensional space-time-our imagination abandons us.” (Capra 1975: 173)

Nevertheless, by comparing scientific and spiritual[22] Capra concludes that it is demonstrable that we are able to shift our perception of usual, conventional to a new paradigm:

“We have thus come to apprehend that our notions of a three-dimensional Euclidean space and of linear flowing time are limited to our ordinary experience of the physical world and have to be completely abandoned when we extend this experience. The Eastern sages, too, talk about an extension of their experience of the world in higher states of consciousness, and they affirm that these states involve a radically different experience of space and time. They emphasize not only that they go beyond ordinary three-dimensional space in meditation, but also – and even more forcefully – that the ordinary awareness of time is transcended. Instead of a linear succession of instants, they experience – so they say – an infinite, timeless, and yet dynamic present.” (id. 178-179)

Capra’s integral approach to questioning of modern physics and mysticism reminds of Pavel Florensky’s approach to questioning spiritual and scientific from philosophical and mathematical points of view. Florensky in “On Symbols of Infinity” in the key of Georg Cantor’s actual and potential infinity examines the perception of space; in “The Limits of Gnoseology” analyzes acts of cognition.

Our cognition of dynamic present might be also explained in terms of comprehension of the energy of the thought space we share, i.e. in terms of energetic perception of realities. We might not imagine them as dimensional levels: it may be more accurate to say that here it is a matter of dimensional frequency.

 

The Art of Words and its Energy

Following our consideration of the energy of the thought space, we can feel very easily the energy that we direct to each other by pronouncing (by writing) words, which is sometimes semiconscious when it comes to a conscious choice of what to express. It is about the communication in aesthetic sense, in artistic, literary expression. In a larger sense, it is also about every form of “creative message“ we interchange with some intention – pictures we make or musical works, photos, images, sculptures, objects of applied arts, for example. However, the words are the most comprehensible tool:

Newspaperman: You said that I’m, just as every creature is, the Light. I’m flattered, although, I admit, I don’t quite comprehend it.

Nikola Tesla: Why shouldn’t you comprehend it, Mr. Smith? It is adequate that you believe in it. Everything is the Light.[23]

By substituting semiotic approach to language for energetic cognition, by feeling energy in every creative act, we take into consideration awakened ability to communicate energetically, to interchange thoughts and feelings consciously, in whose direction we follow Sheldrake’s research. If our energetic cognition isn’t awakened, we feel nothing and can have doubtful thoughts about those who actually perceive that way. That is why literature, as highlights Machiedo when focuses on modes of literature (referring to Italo Calvino’s[24] artistic writing), is understood as an “instrument of cognition“:

“By the ‘form’ or ‘instrument of cognition’ in the sphere of literature should be meant, however, an acting through the word (a necessary terminological precision), in contrast to other arts that use, shall we say, brush, chisel or screen“. (Machiedo 2002: 19)

As we already noted in the context of water crystals, the energy in communication is manifestation of our very thinking, of our very thought formations being manifested through sounds that we produce (Eastern traditions), of phonetic forms as a result of spiritual activity. (cf. Florensky 2000: 141-185) By “esoteric“ saying that words are powerful, it is actually meant that our thoughts, once they are exteriorized as pronounced words, influence changes in the world in the same way material artefacts do[25] (e.g. electronic technology products that facilitate our everyday communication). But it would be probably more appropriate to say that we should give more attention to what we think, say and produce, because we live, in accordance with the latest spiritual-scientific findings, in an “energetic universe” influencing each other one way or another.  It is a matter of producing cultural artefacts at various levels, from material objects to published books to hypertexts to pronounced words. And here we come back to our cultural beliefs.

And within cultural beliefs here we come back also to different interpretations of Fedorov’s “common task” – “resurrection of our fathers“. According to some interpretations I agree with, it is a matter of recognizing ancestors’ beliefs as inherited ones, as present in us. This means that “ancestors’ memes“, to say so, co-create the thought space we all share. It relates to recognizing that we inherit, generation by generation, thoughts, forms of thinking and feeling, ways of expressing ourselves – at all levels: familial, national, racial, of cultural circle, of civilizational circle etc. This means that we do things as our biological fathers did, that we cook the meals as our mothers did as their mothers did as their mothers (our great-grandmothers) did, for example. This inheritance is subconscious and, thanks to Jung’s insights, we now discern that we are able to substitute these forms with new, more adequate ones (for example, we can cook our way or eat raw food or not eat and like). According to the latest findings and insights of enlightened individuals, these inherited thoughts and feelings are interwoven in the “Akashic field“, which is another term for DNA electromagnetic field.[26] The question is, are we sure that the old forms of thinking serve us today as they did our ancestors. Some of ancestors’ beliefs we do not need any more. We might demystify them by recognizing them as “meme-complexes” that do not suit our current worldviews, and still make use of them, if we like, starting from different levels of consciousness.

The same “instrument of cognition“ for recognizing manifestations of our collective thoughts we may apply within the humanities field in the sphere of visual arts, music, film production etc.

In the framework of integral theory we recognize in the Cosmism an important overall trend, which indicates a larger spiritual awakening and consciousness growth in the beginning of the 20^th century. Nevertheless, this trend was split into two interpretations of reality: one that tries to justify postshumanist, transhumanist idea (fear of death of physical body), and the other, spiritual one that regards deep personal experiences (freedom in awareness of immortality of I-ness).

The issue of energetic perception is closely related to the issue of symbolization, and the issue of symbolization is closely related to stages that are related to meme-complexes. A new paradigm we live in – emerging of integral thinking and holistic thinking as a front line of collective human evolution, symbolized as Yellow and Turquoise stages of the development of consciousness, implies a need to transcend previous stages by integrating them.

A shift in evolving human consciousness allows not only that we combine a little bit of everything with discernment of combined elements, but also includes an applying of new forms of thinking and different forms of symbolization.

According to Sheldrake, the morphic fields have “the form of the organism“. The idea of the form of the organism we meet in Florensky’s understanding of the body of word. The word reveals its “physical body” as an “organism“, its “soul” and its “astral body“. By these three aspects Florensky explains that the word owns its physical body in terms of physical layer (physical-chemical structure), its soul in terms of its psychological layer and its astral body in terms of occult layer. (cf. Florensky 2000: 212-230) The “occult layer” or “mystic layer“, as interpreted by Florensky, is what we “emanate” by pronouncing words – tools in our verbal both artistic and everyday communication. This kind of interpretation is not “new“, but allows us to integrally approach our development, and in more subtle way. In this regard, our space of culture is the space of verbal projection. This refers us to a very different understandings of the principle of creation acts we attributed to God’: “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (Genesis 1:3).[28]

An understanding of words as instruments, as tools, among other things, can be compared by Capra’s understanding of sounds. Capra recognizes similarities in Eastern mysticism and quantum physics. If words as “subtle matter” are sounds, then we can study them in the framework of the field of particles, as well as within Eastern teachings or in metaphor of “Shiva’s cosmic dance“. Quoting from Capra, on the trace of Tsiolkovsky’s aphorism “Where is the mass, there is a sense. ( … ) Where there isn’t given mass, there is some other matter that senses”.[29]

“All things … are aggregations of atoms that dance and by their movements produce sounds. When the rhythm of the dance changes, the sound it produces also changes … (… ) The similarity … becomes particularly striking when we remember that sound is a wave with a certain frequency which changes when the sound does, and that particles, the modern equivalent of the old concept of atoms, are also waves with frequencies proportional to their energies. According to field theory, each particle does indeed ‘perpetually sing its song’, producing rhythmic patterns of energy (the virtual particles) in ‘dense and subtle forms’.” (Capra 1975: 242)

The writings of Pavel Florensky that include linguistic analyses show that the author is inspired by Wilhelm von Humboldt’s dynamic conception of language. The language is defined by Humboldt as a “tool of birthing ideas” and in consequence “of creating the world“; it is an “act of intellectual creative force“, “multiplicity of the force of human spirit“. (Humboldt 2010: 22, 29)

In Florensky’s opus, the author’s giving attention to verbal production as a creative use of language is significantly influenced by Humboldt’s understanding of the bond between language and spirit. Moreover, Florensky deepens his analyses of language on examples of verbal energy of the magic, folklore consciousness. He understands in esoteric key the function of proper names and invocations of “the name of God“. (Florensky 2008) With these examples Florensky draws our attention to ways on how one uses collective “language tools“.

Energetic Perception and Noospheric Time-Space Orientation

Referring to Prigogine, Wilber notes:

“As Ilya Prigogine puts it, the various levels and stages of evolution are irreducible to each other because the transitions between them are characterized by symmetry breaks, which simply means that they are not equivalent rearrangements of the same stuff (whatever that “stuff” might be), but are in part a significant transcendence, a novel and creative twist.” (2011: 40)

In other words, when it comes to the energetic perception in the thought space, if we leave an orientation in both temporal and spacial terms (previous and next, up and down, right and left, higher and lower), we may feel integral and whole. In every theory there are representations such as figures and maps or tabular presentations that are useful for our intellectual self. They help us to mentally understand these and other concepts, and to subtly comprehend our existence by transcending current cultural systems. And current cultural “systems we live in”, in the largest sense, are our inherited beliefs, socially accepted belief models and archetypal forms that can be recognized – integrated and transcended. This is possible if we do not resist the rise of quantum consciousness that many scientists point to: observing from a quantum consciousness, we dwell in a collectively various timeframes, even if we live and share together the same physical space.

As Wilber observes when drawing attention to integral and holistic endeavours in integral spirituality, a very high percentage of world’s population is still at mythical stages of consciousness. (Wilber 2014) Such observation is recognizable also in Dawkins (Dawkins 2006) and in Sheldrake’s researches related to the morphic resonance and the collective unconscious. (Sheldrake 1987a, 1987b, 1988) Don Beck’s illustration of “the living strata in our psycho-cultural archeology” shows different societies and cultures at different levels of “psycho-cultural emergence“. (Don Beck n.d.) What does it mean and how this approximation might be explained? Thanks to possibility of cross-cultural studies we become more and more aware of our living in various timeframes, to say so, in parallel times. This discernment is accompanied by opening quantum questions. Physically we share the same space (our planet), but in interior worldscapes, in our collective worldviews, our timeframes differ. This fact is evident in current calendars – in our various “measurements of time”: we have Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, Islamic calendar, Buddhist calendar, Hebrew calendar, Hindu calendar, Chinese calendar etc. Structures of consciousness and interpretations of time seem to be correlated. Calendars reflect our cultural beliefs and our cultural beliefs reflect our time perception. In another words, our worldviews reflect also how we perceive time.

In our existing spatial-orientational models, a human cognition is operating mainly in two cognitive directions: vertical and horizontal. The “horizontal” energetic interchange ↔ and arising of humankind conscious perception is what the Cosmists have a presentiment about when question noosphere and antroposphere. When questions panpsychism, Tsiolkovsky embraces in terms of energy all that exists. By questioning pneumatosphere Florensky has a presentiment about unifying, in his words, “time cross-sections” when viewing historical periods, i.e. presentiment about intercommunication of various cultures through history.

Whereas the “horizontal“ energetic interchange implies the natural share of thoughts forms among people, telepathy, a “vertical“ energetic interchange ↕ includes phenomena known as insights or channelling or connecting with “higher self“. In both cases there is a kind of “fine-tuned frequency“ that implies a medium in which all singular “higher selves“ interchange thought forms – a different kind of cognition that is “non-local“, quantum.

A vertical and a horizontal line meet in the point. Or in scientific terms:

 ”… there is not just one mode of perceiving the world available to us, but two. We have what neuroscientist Ede Frecska and anthropologist Luis Eduardo Luna call the classical “perceptual-cognitive-symbolic” mode, based on information conveyed by our bodily senses, and we also have the “direct-intuitive-nonlocal” mode, enabled by the quantum receptivity of our brain’s microstructures. In today’s world we tend to perceive the world in the classical mode, yet we could, and sometimes do, perceive aspects of it in the direct mode as well.” (Laszlo 2010)

If we have in mind that all progressive ideas that make change in our noospheric environment come from a “direct mode“, then among the Cosmists we may also find inspired channellers such as, for example, Fedorov, Tsiolkovsky, Chizevsky, Florensky or Kandinsky, the painter and original theorist of abstract art. Considerations of the “invisible“ thought space, recognized in cosmic thinkers, are comparable with today’s quantum questions, morphic resonance[30] and findings about quantum field, morphic field or just field.

Conclusion

In integral and holistic approaches present in today’s theories, there is an intention to stimulate awakening and raising of awareness level as a “collective common task“, although the authors emphasize that essential, qualitative changes start from inside/insight, from individual embracings and transcendings, ensuring the planetary consciousness shift. This process was notably stimulated at the beginning of the 20^th century by the Russian Cosmists.

In this research is outlined an integrative approach to the dimension of human space of thought and its energetic aspect. Although we have today, thanks to integral theories and maps, much clearer sense of orientation in our energetic thought environment, the article shows that many elements of contemporary integral thinking have their continuation in insights and conceptions of the Russian Cosmists.

The sources are recognizable in Greek philosophers, in atomist view, in Platonic philosophy, in Early Church Fathers, in Greek conception of Cosmos as something beautiful, harmonic and whole (adjective kosmetikós in Greek means beautified, ornamented). On the trace of the concepts of Vernadsky’s noosphere, Florensky’s pneumatosphere and Umov’s anthroposphere we may follow the theory of the morphic field; the morphic resonance is related to Florensky’s “verbal projection” within the space of culture; the essential idea of Fedorov’s patrofication is largely studied today; deep personal spiritual experiences are described in detail by Wilber; Masaru Emoto’s experiments with water crystals approve Tsiolkovsky’s reactualization of panpsychism. The principle of integrating scientific and spiritual knowledge and the importance that is given to human values are common features of “cosmic“ and “integral thinking“. Both “cosmic“ and “integral thinkers“ are interested in the same issues, although from various perspectives.

If we follow the stages of consciousness proposed by Wilber, we see that the “front limit” is moved a little bit forward in a hundred years. Today’s both developing of technological innovations and developing of sensibility to energetic perception are related to insights of the thinkers of Russian Cosmism (let’s remember, for example, Tsiolkovsky’s vision of human conquering of outer space, of other planets, and Florensky’s writings on the energy of words). The latest achievement in natural sciences and in new technologies and spiritual endeavours is what we might integrate and transcend in the 21^st century.

The issue that this paper opens requires further researches on how to correlate and integrate new findings in today’s advanced theories with recognizing of archetypal and mythical formations of the collective thought space. Another issue that may be researched is how to correlate an emerging energetic intelligence with creative production within the humanities field (linguistics, literature, music, visual arts and like), which is treasury of human creative thought.

The conclusion of the present paper is that “cosmic thinkers” and today’s “integral thinkers” are equally valuable part of continual process of global raising awareness for good of all humankind.

References

Beck, D. E. (n.d.) “Stages of Social Development. The Cultural Dynamics that Spark Violence,

Spread Prosperity, and Shape Globalization”,

http://www.spiraldynamics.net/DrDonBeck/essays/stages_of_social_development.htm

Beck, D. E. (n.d.) “Sustainable Cultures, Sustainable Planet. A Values System Perspective on

Consctructive Dialogue and Cooperative Action”,     http://www.spiraldynamics.net/DrDonBeck/essays/sustainable_culture_sustainable_planet.htm

Biti, V. (1981) Fairy tale and oral tradition, story and narration / Bajka i predaja, povijest i pripovijedanje, SN Liber, Zagreb.

Capra, F. (1975) The Tao of Physics. An Exploration of the Paralleles Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Boulder, Colorado, Shambala Publications, Inc. / Tao fizike, prev. V. Jakić, Poduzetništvo Jakić, Cres, 2004.

Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion, Bantam Press / Iluzija o Bogu, prev. Ž. Vodinelić, Izvori, Zagreb, 2007.

Dawkins, R. (2011) The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True, Free Press, NY.

De Chardin, P. T. (1984) On Love and Happiness, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. NY.

Demin, V. (2005) Tsiolkovsky / Циолковский, Молодая гвардия, Москва.

Emoto, M. (2006) The Hidden Messages in Water / Послания воды: тайные коды кристаллов льда, София, Москва.

Fedorov, N. F. (1906) Philosophy of the Common Task / Философия общего дела (Вопрос о братстве, или родстве, o причинах небратского, т.е. немирного состояния мира и о средствах к восстановлению родства, ч. IV), http://www.vzms.org/delo.html

Florensky, P. A. (1993) Analysis of Space and Time in the Works of Visual Arts / Analiz prostranstvennosti i vremeni v hudožestvenno-izobrazitel’nyh proizvedenijah, Прогресс, Moskva.

Florensky, P. A. (2000) Works, Vol.3/1 / Сочинения, Т.3/1, Мысль, Москва.

Florensky, P. A. (2008) The Names: Works. Anthology of Though / Имена: Сочинения. Aнтолoгия мысли, Эксмо, Москва.

Humboldt, W. von (1836) The Heterogeneity of Language and its Influence on the Intellectual Development of Mankind / O raznolikosti gradbe ljudskih jezika i njezinu utjecaju na duhovni razvoj čovječanstva (2010), s njem. prev. A. Stamać, Alfa, Zagreb.

Laszlo, E. (2010) “Cosmic Symphony: A Deeper Look at Quantum Consciousness“, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/cosmic-symphony-a-deeper_b_532315.html

Machiedo, M. (2002) On Modes of Literature. Trans-italianistic Compendium (2nd ed.) / O modusima književnosti. Transtalijanistički kompendij (2. izd.), Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo, Zagreb.

Semenova, S. G., Gacheva A. G. (1993) Russian Cosmism. Anthology of Philosophical Thought / Русский космизм. Антология философской мысли, Педагогика-Пресс, Москва.

Sheldrake, R. (2005) “Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields“,

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html

Sheldrake, R. (1987a) “Mind, Memory, and Archetype: Morphic Resonance and the Collective

Unconscious“, Part I, Psicological Perspectives, 18 (1), 9-25,

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/morphic1_paper.pdf

Sheldrake, R. (1987b) “Society, Spirit & Ritual: Morphic Resonance and the Collective

Unconscious“, Part II, Psicological Perspectives, 18 (2), 320-331,

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/morphic2_paper.pdf

Sheldrake, R. (1988) “Society, Spirit & Ritual: Morphic Resonance and the Collective Unconscious“, Part III, Psychological Perspectives, 19 (1), 64-78.

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/pdf/morphic3_paper.pdf

Solar, M. (2000) The Limits of the Literary Science. Selected essays / Granice znanosti o književnosti. Izabrani ogledi, Naklada Pavičić, Zagreb.

Tsiolkovsky, E. K. (1925) Monism of the Universe / Moнизм Вселенной, http://modernlib.ru/books/ciolkovskiy_konstantin/monizm_vselennoy/read/

Uzharevich, J. (2011) Möbius  strip. The book about the spaces / Möbiusova vrpca. Knjiga o prostorima, Službeni glasnik, Beograd.

Vernadsky, V. I. (2004) Biosphere and Noosphere / Биосфера и ноосфера, Айрис-пресс, Москва.

Vershich, S. (2008) “The Theory of a Holarchic Evolution of Cosmos or Holistic Embracing of Fragmented Consciousness“, Philosophical Researches / “Teorija holarhijske evolucije Kozmosa ili holističko obgrljivanje fragmentiranih svijesti“, Filozofska istraživanja (izvr. ur. M. Krivak), 110 (2), Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo, Zagreb, 415-434.

Vershich, S. (2010) The Russian Cosmic Idea and Our Time, feuilleton, p. 1-5 / Ruska kozmička ideja i naše vrijeme, feljton, 1-5, Nexus Br. 49-53 (ur. hrv. izd. D. Imenjak), Zagreb.

Vershich, S. (2013a) “Energy and Symbolic in Pavel Florensky’s Conception of Space“, Philosophical Researches / “Energijsko i simboličko u koncepciji prostora Pavla Florenskoga“, Filozofska istraživanja (izvr. ur. I. Zagorec), 131 (3), Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo, Zagreb, 551-565.

Vershich, S. (2013b) “Pavel Florensky and Russian Symbolism“, The Art of Words / “Pavel Florenski i ruski simbolizam“, Umjetnost riječi (gl. ur. D. Dukić), 1-2 (LVII), Hrvatsko filološko društvo, Zagreb, 21-36.

Vershich, S. (2013c) The space of Culture. Pavel Florensky and Russian Cosmism / Prostor kulture. Pavel Florenskij i ruski kozmizam, Naklada Breza, Zagreb.

Wilber, K. (1996) A Brief History of Everything, Newleaf, Dublin / Kratka povijest svega, prev. D. Sobol, Gorin, Rijeka, 2005.

Wilber, K. (2001a) A Theory of Everything. An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality, Gateway, Dublin / Teorija svega. Integralna vizija za biznis, politiku, znanost i duhovnost, prev. D. Sobol, Gorin, Rijeka, 2004.

Wilber, K. (2001b) Quantum Questions. Mystical Writings of the World’s Great Physicists, Shambala, Boston.

Wilber, K. (2011) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. The Spirit of Evolution (2nd ed.), Shambala, Boston & London.

Wilber, K. (2014) Ken Wilber Interviewed by Chris Grosso (January 2014), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYjvKmYmPNY

Endnotes

[1] Their endeavours were interrupted by the Soviet period: some of them emigrated, many of them, unfortunately, died as victims of political repression and terror. Subsequently many ideas of the Cosmists were diversely developed.

[2] Among contemporary “non-Russian thinkers”, who contributed to the change of the paradigm, we may also remember N. Tesla, A. Einstein, M. Planck, N. Bohr, H. Bergson, G. Cantor, C. G. Jung, E. Cassirer, A. N. Whitehead, B. Russell and many others.

[3] The term was coined by Vernadsky’s and De Chardin’s French colleague E. Le Roi, scientist and philosopher (1870-1954). Vernadsky met French supporters of Bergson’s idea of creative evolution during his Sorbonne lectures on biosphere in 1923.

[4] There is also an esoteric trend: Nikolai and Helena Rerikh are considered representatives of Russian Cosmism.

[5] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism. Many people agree that there is nothing integral nor holistic in, for example, the idea of chipping humans and find in it dysfunctions of reasoning, which is in contradiction to the spiritual common sense.

[6] This interpretation is demonstrable. There are many cases of people who die, whose body is clinically dead, but when they come back with their enhanced awareness, they revive in their body – they “are resurrected”. Subsequently they talk about priority of personal spiritual experience over the body, showing the bond between awareness and body.

[7] This issue essentially involves SF production (a combination of “utopian” and “mythical” interpretation) with its ethical questions that follow dystopian literary works of “soviet authors”, such as, for example, Andrei Platonov (story “Markun”) or Yevgeny Zamyatin (novel “We”).

[8] Panpsychism, which is related to animism, is traceable in Greek philosophy and is enriched in Tsiolkovsky’s interpretation with his intuition on depths of Cosmos and perception of time.

[9] Man is defined as a “heterotrophic” being eating complex organic food.

[10] Let’s remember at least Hira Ratan Manek, well known among scientists, and Jasmuheen, an Australian bretharian.

[11] The sphere of Pneuma refers to sphere of spiritual essence (pneuma in Greek means “breath” and “spirit”).

[12] In The God Delusion Dawkins asks do we indeed need religion to be good or moral. Another question regards morality of legitimate representatives that stand for religious moral itself. Here we meet an ethical aspect of beliefs. (cf. Dawkins 2006: 358) There is also an example of how to “get to heaven” instead of how to live “Christian values”, which are basic human values recognizable in all religious systems.

[13] It is odd that the consciousness shift in France and Belgium happened only after the World War II, and in Switzerland only a few decades ago.

[14] Cf. Kull, K. (2000) “Copy versus translate, meme versus sign: development of biological textuality“, European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1), 101-120, http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/copytr.htm

[15] On explanation of the “energicity of word” in Florensky’s interpretation of the space of culture see in: Vershich 2013a.

[16] The belief in “original sin” still exists, and the story of Adam and Eve is learned in schools without any explanation of its metaphorical meaning. Moreover, this story consists not only of the anger, but also of the feeling of personal guilt: “When the god noticed this he was furious with them for … acquiring knowledge … He … condemned them and all their descendants to a life of hardship and pain. To this day, the story of Adam’s and Eve’s terrible disobedience is still taken seriously by many people …“ (Dawkins 2011: 35)

[17] Another example in the course of history are esoteric practices and esoteric literature.

[18] On energy  and “magic” in works of visual arts see: Florensky 1993. On thinking in images in visual media see: J. Johnson, “Electric Fairytales: The Return of Mythic Consciousness in Movies”, http://beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/957-electric-fairytales-the-return-of-mythic-consciousness-in-movies-and-media

[19] The source: Emoto, M. (2006) The Hidden Messages in Water – Эмото, М. (2006) Послания воды: тайные коды кристаллов льда, София, Москва, 64.

[20] The reverse perspective implies an “inner observer” rather than an “outer observer”, whose focal point is “outside the picture”. These contradictions in terminology cause subsequently deep contradictions that arise in the psycho physiological, gnoseological and ontological spheres. (Uzharevich 2011: 127-146)

[21] The evolving of the Universe towards the Omega Point could be understood as a “cosmic expression” of humanity evolving towards holistic consciousness. From De Chardin’s point of view Omega Point equals the Christ consciousness.

[22] On the dialog between physics and mysticism cf. Wilber’s Quantum Questions, where the author discusses “two extreme limits of the Great Nest of Being“ (Wilber 2001b: 25)

[23] http://www.freedomtek.org/tekstovi/nikola_tesla_intervju_1899.php

[24] Italo Calvino (1923-1985) – Italian neorealist and postmodern writer.

[25] On Florensky’s magic issues within the “organoprojection”, see “The Magic Interpretation of the World” in chapter II.1.3. “An Anthropological-organicist aspect of Space” in: Vershich 2013c: 153-177.

[26] See, for example, Lee Carroll’s insights in Kryon Book 12: The Twelve Layers of DNA. An Esoteric Study of the Mastery Within, Platinum Publishing House, 2010. The review of this new paradigm “Kryon’s Messages – Let’s be Quantum”, “The Light”, (ed. D. Imenjak), 110 (February), Zagreb, 2012, 8-11.

[27] The source: www.images.yandex.ru

[28] http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/

[29] Demin 2005: 290

[30] The term morphic resonance coined by Shaldrake points to energetic interchange and is applicable to all levels: individual, familial, group level, national, planetary, cosmic.

About the Author

Sanja Veršić lives in Zagreb, teaching Italian and Russian, translating, writing and researching energy cognition of language in artistic and non-artistic communication. Her research interests move from Lotman’s semiotics of culture (Culture as Semiotic Problem in the Work of Yuri Lotman 2004, M.A.) to Russian Cosmism and Florensky’s energy of space and word (The Space of Culture. Pavel Florensky and Russian Cosmism 2013, Ph.D.) to energy reading, considering Wilber’s integral theory of consciousness and its applicability to Humanities.