Dualism: The Two Realms of Illusion
By Gary Osborn
Copyright © Gary Osborn 2000. All Rights Reserved.
The Ancient of Days
William Blake, 1794; Relief etching with watercolor,
23.3 x 16.8 cm; British Museum, London
It was René Descartes, (1596-1650) the French philosopher and mathematician, who first conceptualised the philosophy of ‘Dualism.’
This philosophy is what Descartes is well known for, but it constituted only one of his many works. Today, many scholars prefer to gather together all of Descartes’ work and put it into one convenient drawer called ‘Cartesianism.’
Descartes was famous for the quote: “I think therefore I am” and many renowned philosophers have considered Descartes to be the “father of modern philosophy.” His writings and essays became very popular with the great thinkers of the time. But today many contemporary philosophers would object to this elevation of his work, mainly because Descartes’ work is often used to promote Materialism. It is typical that those who defend Cartesianism are mainly physiologists who still consider Descartes’ work on Dualism to be a logical and well-defined description of the world regarding our perception of reality. Many of these scholars would even regard Descartes’ work as a definitive and workable ideology; the perfect “cornerstone” regarding Man’s understanding of his own perception.
Dualism is the philosophy, which considers ‘mind’ and ‘body’ – or rather, ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ to be two very different and separate things. This philosophy was composed from Descartes’ own reflections and intellectual observations.
If we look further into Descartes’ development of his theme – that mind and matter are two separate distinctions – we can see that he was merely asserting the obvious as regards our normal perception . . . that our natural perception of reality is really a ‘dual perception.’
This dual perception of ours does not begin and end with the distinctions between mind and matter – which is at the heart of Dualism; it also extends into our everyday experience and interaction with things that have their opposite in nature.
For example there is ‘yes’ and ‘no’ – ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ – ‘light’ and ‘dark’ – ‘day’ and ‘night’ – ‘black’ and ‘white’ – ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ – ‘dry’ and ‘wet’ – ‘male ’ and ‘female’ – ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ – ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ – ‘life’ and ‘death’ etc. The list is endless.
Above we see these opposites connected by the word ‘and.’ This of course would be a perception of these things stemming from the female/mental perception that likes to see things connected or joined together to make a relative whole.
Alternatively, from the male/material perception these opposites would usually be connected by the word ‘or.’
For example: ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ – ‘day’ or ‘night’ – ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ – ‘black’ or ‘white’ – ‘pleasure’ or ‘pain’ – ‘male’ or ‘female’ – ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ . . . ‘man’ or ‘mouse’ etc.
From the male’s domain, things are generally seen as either being one thing or another. This makes for competitiveness as in one thing taking the ascendancy and authority over another – i.e., usually those things that are male related or masculine in preference or nature. I give emphasis to the male and female opposites and all our relative perceptions of them many times throughout my work as it was something the ancients understood very well.
In any case, the success of Descartes’ philosophy was a ‘certainty’ that couldn’t fail, because we each have a ‘natural’ tendency to perceive all things as having an opposite polarity anyway. All contradiction, argument, conflict and hypocrisy is based on our dual perception related to our likes and dislikes – and in effect, all the resulting dichotomies and permutations relating to our ‘and’-‘or’ emphasis regarding our many expressions of them and references to them.
It may seem to many of our contemporary scholars, that Descartes unwittingly exploited this obvious and natural perception of ours by developing a philosophy around it. Developed it he did, but the subsequent establishment of Cartesianism as a workable doctrine was orchestrated by those who had ulterior motives.
The authority of Descartes’ genius, which remained unchallenged and so therefore unquestionably accepted, guaranteed the success of Dualism, and so dualistic thought became part of the system.
Dualism was used to ‘officially’ divide mind from matter while at the same time extra emphasis was given to the world of matter – mainly because we don’t really have a comprehensive understanding regarding the unpredictable realm of the mind.
Physical objects are sturdy and as fixed, crystallised and as predictable as a square block or cube that sits still and motionless on a table. The mind is uncontrollable and unpredictable like a round ball, or sphere that rolls and bounces all over the place.
Its interesting to note that straight, linear or sharp-angled shapes and forms – like what we would find in squares and cubes – are associated with the male or Masculine Principle, and that all curved, soft, round, spherical forms are associated with the Feminine Principle. The significance of forms and shapes regarding gender is something we will come back to later.
The nature of the mind is associated not only with one’s thoughts and observations, but also with imagination, personal desires, dreams, alternative perceptions of reality etc. In other words, the mind is an area of contention for those who don’t understand its creative nature. Again, the mind is unpredictable and cannot be effectively controlled . . . unless of course you can make a person believe in something . . .
Since very early times it has been acknowledged that minds are better controlled through a particular focus of belief. And, as many of us are now beginning to realise, ‘belief’ is the thing that keeps the mind fixed and crystallised on one thing or in one place as it were.
Cartesianism instantly took hold and was later primed to become another addition to the ruling institutions – a ‘pattern’ that soon lent itself to the Materialistic ideology. Many powerful people realised that in many ways, the Cartesian ideology could be sufficiently utilised as an established form of control over society. And as everything begins with education, it wasn’t long before Descartes’ observations and analytical methods were introduced into the current curriculum under ‘Philosophy’ and ‘Science.’
It was no wonder then that this philosophy became popular with those who could use it when it suited them.
It was observed that people who understood something of Descartes’ dualistic philosophy could only agree with it – after all it was something that was easy to relate to . . . because it agrees with our own perception of the world.
A deeper look into this obvious revelation by Descartes may have revealed something else about human perception and consciousness. But those who saw something exploitative about this new philosophy quickly checked this.
Not really knowing what they were doing, they unwittingly moved in and side-tracked those who had maybe caught a brief glimpse of something which they couldn’t quite put their finger on, and so the real revelation behind Descartes’ observations had been lost for another three hundred and odd years.
Instead of tackling the ‘duality of consciousness’ revealed by the philosophy of Descartes and understanding the reasons behind this dual perception, the dichotomy in human consciousness revealed by Descartes was immediately acted upon by the rejection of one of these dualities for another – i.e., the male ‘OR’ principle at work – and this resulted in a further and wider division of consciousness.
By taking a close look at the properties of each of the two dualities regarding mind and matter, it seems we got lost again in the “chicken and the egg” syndrome . . . what came first? . . Is it mind over matter or, matter over mind? . . “Methinks matter over mind m’ Lord.”
Instead of realising, that in truth, the two are really fused together as one energy: that mind is also matter and that it is we who have separated this ‘one energy’ into two; we never questioned this division and began to opt for matter asserting that matter came first and that consciousness is derivative of matter.
Deep down, many intelligent people knew that this was total nonsense, but it soon became official: Matter was assumed to be the be-all and end-all of everything . . . purely for political reasons of course.
You see Descartes’ philosophy seemed to fit quite nicely with the new paradigm of knowledge that was being discovered not long after his time. And so Descartes’ ‘Dualism’ later became an important addition to the intent purpose and development of Materialism and the Materialistic ideology that had found a warm reception during the so-called “Age of Reason.”
The Age of Reason
The Age of Reason – which began at the end of the 18th century – was really the age when the ‘practical’ and ‘methodical’ developments of rationalistic thought were first being applied.
In the West, the need for a more rational way of looking at the world was first realised during the creative atmosphere of the Renaissance. This new-age of thinking was brought about by the synthesis or fusion between the ‘rediscovered’ knowledge of the West, (which had been preserved in the East throughout the Dark Ages) with that of the East.
What emerged from this fusion between Western and Eastern knowledge, was of course a ‘third thing’ – a ‘third’ way of looking at things which had led to many new ideas and concepts. The recently ‘rediscovered’ works of antiquity – especially ancient Greek literature – which also revealed the scientific methods used by the ancient Greeks – all lent itself to this fervent need for rationalism.
At that time, the trade links that brought the West and East together were very much established. And so it wasn’t long before the lost knowledge of the West – which had been kept for centuries in the hands of Arab scholars since the conquests of Alexander the Great – finally found its way home again. Of course this knowledge had also been infused with the mystical insights of certain illumined individuals in the East. Mysticism and the attainment of spiritual enlightenment has always been a fundamental part of the cultural way of life in the East. In a way, Alexander was an effective and active component regarding Man’s evolution. Through his conquests in the East – Alexander had set up a pattern of ‘synthesis’ – or rather a fusion of energy regarding Man’s divided consciousness, which would later come to fruition in the distant future.
During the Age of Reason, it was believed then as now, that the ‘true’ perception of reality could only be reached by the rational thinking mind, which uses its faculties of logic and reason as a focus. This belief and other associated beliefs then led to the suppression, and even the ‘rejection,’ of the so-called irrational ‘states of mind’ associated with the emotions.
If we look at the way cultures have interacted with each other in the past, we can see that the emotional state of mind is always given direction by the logical and so-called “rational” mind. Certain cultures – when they reach a certain level of logical understanding – begin to dominate those cultures whose level is still at the emotional stage of development.
This logical phase of development is basically male in principle and it always seeks to dominate the softer, emotional, ‘female principle.’ The male likes to think the female ‘needs’ the direction and protection of the male to survive in this physical reality. This is why the ‘male-principle’ easily relates to and associates itself with Materialism, and why it promotes this hard and cold physical reality as being the “one and only reality.” The active and directed ‘male-principle’ really wants to dominate physical reality so that it can manipulate, control and exploit it. In doing this the ‘male-principle’ can easily lose itself in a close-up view of the world which is blind to the bigger picture. Of course it is the passive ‘female-principle’ which gives the physical world its meaning, but the male doesn’t want to recognise this as it would undermine the power it has set up for itself. It’s not difficult to see that this age-old conflict between the male and female principles is the real duality. From this we can see why Descartes’ ‘Dualism’ was grasped at with eager minds. His philosophy gave certain people (mainly the ‘male-principle’) a good excuse to further separate matter from mind. According to Descartes’ dualistic concept, this division seemed obvious. The reason why matter was given extra emphasis over that of the mind is also obvious – as in male over female . . . but let’s walk ourselves through this again . . .
The ‘Age of Reason’ was really born out of the ‘conscious’ acknowledgement of this obvious division in our consciousness, which was reflected in the seemingly obvious differences between mind and matter. It was an age that embraced such views as those that which Descartes expounded in his philosophy. You see Descartes made us consciously aware of our dual perception.
This conscious acknowledgement further split and reinforced our dual perception because we then began to divide the objects of our perception into two large but neat boxes . . . one box for the “Material World,” and one for the “Mental World.”
After the last of Descartes’ works was published, certain people began to realise the immense power that could be created from all the dichotomies born from this new conscious realisation regarding the natural division in Man’s perception.
The ‘powers-that-be’ entertained the idea, that to gain power over a collective society, it would be best to further divide the people in themselves by influential manipulation: The ‘powers-that-be’ could guide and assist a ‘belief’ in the reality of either one or the other, regarding the two illusory polarities of our dual perception. This is done by creating friction and conflict through the manipulation of people’s likes, dislikes; preferences and prejudices etc. By dividing the people in themselves, this would make it easier to manipulate and control society – a purely Machiavellian technique.
Most of us know that a country divided, is a country ripe for invasion and control. The same with people: A person divided in him/her self by his/her focus on all the contradictory elements, can also be effectively controlled.
After this would come the exploitation regarding our collective sense perception of the material world, and to accomplish this effectively, matter would have to be made “God” over everything else.
The focus on matter being the only reality became paramount because certain people knew that by making the physical world of our sense perception all important, they could control consensus reality. Also by controlling the consensus reality they could control people.
Psychological, irrational fear – as opposed to the body’s instinctual fear expressed in any momentary reflex action for survival – is a condition of the emotional states of mind and cannot be seen as rational or logical.
Psychological fear is seen to be a condition that basically stems from one’s ignorance. It was then that people became aware of the ignorance that was believed to have been a condition of any superstitious belief.
People then believed that any superstitious belief was just a creation of the mind born from fear.
Such fear is of course irrational and is a condition brought about by the emotions . . . highly charged emotions in a person can be contagious . . . this can lead to mass hysteria . . . hysteria of course can lead to an uncontrolled society.
Since the emotional states are associated with the female-principle, this need to control the emotional states is just another repetition of an old pattern . . . Man’s desire and need to control the female energy . . .
Man's Suppression of the Feminine Energy
In general, and stemming from some primordial part of his divided psyche, the male fears the female energy because he doesn’t understand it. Women do not really have an understanding of their own energy because the male has controlled her for so long; he has made her ignorant of her own potential.
Today we find that there is now an ‘awakening’ and a release of this feminine energy. The liberation of this energy really began during the mid to late Sixties of this century with the Woman’s lib movement. There is now a strong backlash against the ‘male-principle,’ which has been in dominance for too long. In many ways, the ‘male-principle’ has created an imbalance on every level.
The female floodgates have opened and this of course coincides with the recent experiences of, and collective interest in paranormal and mystical phenomena. The movement in the collective consciousness of Man has also made itself felt in the recent backlash against the institution of science and many other male oriented institutions. In an indirect way, this release of feminine energy will eventually lead to a working synthesis between the male and female principles, which will then hopefully create a ‘balance,’ and then a re-fusion in human consciousness.
It’s important to remember the above, because we shall be taking a good look at what this female energy represents, but for now we shall continue with the Cartesian theme.
The new paradigm which was being promoted during the so-called Age of Reason, was a complete turn-around from the old paradigm: A society which was ‘subconsciously’ aware of its dual patterning of reality and so gave more importance to the mental and emotional side of dual perception. (I would remind the reader that the ‘female-principle’ is also associated with the subconscious and subjective realms.)
Organised religion had played its part in controlling its believers, but this was no guarantee against the strong emotional backlashes that had always threatened its power.
Religion is born from faith. Having faith in the existence of something does not mean that we have to see, or physically sense something to believe in it.
Faith is a belief in something that is not always apparent to the physical senses. Emotion is of course a mental feeling. A mental feeling that something is right and true is called ‘intuition.’
Emotion then, is associated with intuition; intuition can be associated with faith; faith is associated with religion. Religion and the emotional states can be seen to go hand in hand.
Primarily the earliest religions sprang from the Goddess cults, which were shamanic in origin and were rife well before and during the Pagan era. So organised religion is really a corrupted version of these early cults.
Organised religion – as opposed to any other religion – really determines the nature of Man’s emotional states. This is why organised religion was implemented to control a nation’s emotional states and why most cultures that are emotionally inclined still hold fast to organised religion. In brief, all organised religions are institutions that are male orientated.
Again, it was the ‘male-principle’ that controlled religion and made it an organisation that could also implement the subjugation of women.
It is easy to see why religion is associated with the emotional states.
There are many degrees regarding Man’s emotional states and they all swing between the lows of depression and the heights of ecstasy. Being associated with ecstasy they are also associated with Mysticism.
Being associated with Mysticism they are also associated with the paranormal, superstition, and the Occult.
Any religion regarding both the individual (Mysticism) or organised religion (which tries to take control of the consensus) is a cult, which stems from emotional identification with, and dependence on something greater than the self.
Any cult or religion is based on a symbolic system or mythos that can be utilised to control and ‘direct’ the consensus.
It is ironic that this mythos is usually built around a deified or divinised ‘individual’ who has had a ‘personal’ mystical experience.
Today such a person is usually ignored unless he starts a cult and then he is in big trouble as regards the established order. Of course the moral nature of this cult would rely on the persona of such an individual. But most cults are really begun by those who have had no such mystical experience but claim it.
Again, organised religion does play its part in controlling and regulating the emotions of the consensus. However, because the emotional state of the collective consciousness is unstable and therefore unpredictable, there cannot be any guarantee that it can be effectively controlled – as all the religious wars in history can attest to that fact.
A One-World religion, may accomplish this control over Man’s emotional states, but several different religions? No, certainly not, as the emotional states are even more intensely aroused and incited by Man’s division of God and the differing ways that he/she perceives God.
No, the only alternative to this is the belief in a cold, materialistic, unemotional world, chock-full of random processes that follow ‘certain’ logical laws; a mechanical, ‘cause and effect’ universe where no God or ‘Grand Architect,’ as having a hand in its creation could exist, and typically this was the next step . . .
Science, and its rationalist mind-set, was created to become this New World religion . . . a seemingly new pattern, but really an old pattern.
Science
The institution of science is a crystallised pattern which is still stuck in ‘dual perception,’ but has also elevated one of the divisions of this perception. It rests on the principles of this elevated perception . . . Materialism.
For the new rationalists who lived during the Age of Reason, the material world became the ultimate truth because it obviously exists as regards our collective perception of it and agreement of it. The reality of the individual is not taken seriously and is always considered suspect, because his or her personal imaginations, emotions, fantasies and desires can easily distort it.
What is true to an individual does not necessarily mean it is true for everyone; but what is true for everyone means that it must also be true for the individual, and if the individual does not agree then he or she must be certified as "mad" or "deranged" and will often be ostracised to some extent and in one way or another. What is not taken into account is the probability that everyone can be wrong as regards their perception of the world – and of course it is especially suspect if this particular perception of the world has only succeeded because it has been traditionally cultivated and then fostered upon an individual the minute he or she is born.
In the past, the esoteric properties of matter – i.e., the soul or spirit of matter was always passionately searched for by the Alchemist, an ‘individual’ who more-or-less practiced on his own. The Alchemist knew that matter was connected to the mind and that both mind and matter are of the same energy.
He obviously knew that the matter in and around him – i.e., that which lay within his own immediate “bubble” of reality – was his own energy; energy that had become distanced from the Centre of his own consciousness, and that if he was able to find the Centre or Soul of a piece of matter, then he would also have found his own Centre; the Source of all he has created with the energy of his own consciousness. Such an individual could then access the “blueprint room,” of his own creations and could then consciously alter the “programme parameters” of himself and his reality. (This last statement will be seen to have much significance later on in this work.)
I would just like to make it clear at this point that every individual’s “bubble of reality” merges with another’s in ways that cannot be detected. The “energy-bubbles” that surround each of the individuals and creatures that are interacting with each other, merge together to create a consensus “bubble of reality.” It seems that at a deeper holistic level, (the Collective Superconscious being that ‘Source’ and ‘Centre’ within all of us) we all agree on the pattern of reality that we are all helping to create with our own energy.
Another thing: the reason why the ‘individual’ in the truest sense – i.e., non-divided person – is considered a threat to the consensus can be explained in the following:
Such an individual – i.e., one who is consciously aware of his or her own Centre and the creative potential of his or her own energy – acts as a fusion point or interface between the ‘consensus reality’ (the collection of ‘separated’ minds in external physical reality,) and the ‘collective consciousness’ (the unity and Oneness of these separated minds – now incarnate in the external material reality – in the internal mental realm.)
Internally, each individual has within his or her own Centre, the whole of the ‘collective consciousness.’ Externally, each individual has outside him or herself, this same collective consciousness – but each is individualised, divided and separated from one’s self – just like one’s energy, which is divided, fragmented and separated around the self as one’s reality.)
After the Age of Reason, matter was then studied coldly and scientifically by ‘many’ scientists . . . scientists who were first indoctrinated with second-hand knowledge, who were then ordered to correlate their own findings which each other.
Put more simply, matter was separated from the mind, and therefore from the consciousness of the individual who observed it. In other words, by creating an institution, whose members were required to study the world – on the mental pretext that the world and its energies was separate from the individual – and then having their findings approved by a ruling body, which is then authoritatively and formally stated – a division in Man’s consciousness would be assured, and therefore Man could be controlled. And so any individual who had actually achieved the re-fusion in consciousness by the union of these polar energies, (“positive”-matter and “negative”-mind) and in doing so had allowed him or her, the gift to see things which many others could not see, would be considered insane or susceptible to fantasy or mere hallucinations by the consensus who had been indoctrinated by an institution which depends on the division of the Truth.
The unseen spirit of things was ignored, suppressed, rejected, or quickly “killed” when it – or anything associated with it – raised its “ugly” head. Materialism then became a collective, consensus madness – a result of this division.
Many scientists, along with those who had a vested interest in Materialism, began to reject data that didn’t agree with their indoctrinated beliefs. They ignored those things that remained persistent . . . and those things that overstepped the line, and were dangerously close to influencing the consensus, was dutifully debunked and stamped out.
A world that follows ‘certain’ laws can be predicted to a certain degree, and this of course attracts those who need that certainty and predictability.
The purpose of every scientist and physicist then – is to unlock the secrets of those laws and find the real power . . . but ‘who’ is this real power for? Would it be for the consensus, or would it be for those who control the consensus? I think we know the answer to that . . .
Of course, the promoted belief in this material reality as being the “only reality” has everyone trying to unlock those secrets. But from the established view of those in charge of society, it is important that an individual does not find those secrets by him or herself because this would give him or her the potential to over-ride the system and escape it – not physically but mentally – i.e., consciously. And so from this position, and by the strength of his or her own example, as being a person who has tapped into more energy from being an in-dividual in the true meaning of the word, he or she could then influence the destruction of the system to a frightening degree.
So looking back to the time during the Age of Reason, Its no wonder then, that those in power who understood this deeper knowledge and wanted to preserve it and keep it to themselves, began to favour an impassioned and stoical view of the world for the masses and so implemented a new program that promoted the world of matter and the ideology of Materialism.
The discoveries being made by other clever influential people were also helping to shape the new paradigm into a force to be reckoned with . . .
One of the most influential of these was Sir Isaac Newton the famous physicist and mathematician who was born in 1643. (Eight years before Descartes died.)
The Newtonian Influence
In science, Newton is still considered to be the father of classical physics. His scientific findings were seen to be in accord with the methods of analysis laid down by Descartes. And so it wasn’t long before the works of Newton and Descartes became “mighty bastions” for the Materialistic doctrine which was well established by then. Today, this Materialistic perception of reality is known as the ‘Newtonian/Cartesian Paradigm.’
Again, René Descartes built his philosophy around the obvious dichotomy that exists regarding our perception; that mind and matter are two separate things. Matter has substance, while it is obvious that things of a mental nature do not.
This may be true for the masses, however, for the non-divided in-dividual, who can see through Descartes’ philosophy, matter is the substance of the mind and consciousness of the individual – a simple deduction stemming from an undivided mind, which therefore has enough energy to see it.
As we have seen, there are many more dichotomies which exist, of which the “mind Vs matter” problem is only one. For instance there are the contradictions which exist between our perception of a stable and predictable reality which keeps to the laws which physics has determined – and also the unstable, unpredictable, and indeterminable reality of the paranormal which is persistent in making its existence felt. Doesn’t this say something else about our own perception?
Our own perception is divided because we tend to accept one thing and deny another and this has led to an imbalance as regards our perception of reality and what is true.
In short there are many things which we accept and deny: we like, we dislike, we agree, we do not agree, but basically many of these aspects of our dual perception are all related to the male and female principles and more importantly our problem regarding which one has the natural ascendancy.
Our dual perception is that we see everything as either “positive” or “negative.” But it seems that we also want to favour one of these over the other, (which accounts for our “good” and “bad” biases that we touched on in the previous chapter) and it’s this which has caused an imbalance in ourselves and in our surrounding reality.
However, this imbalance does play a fundamental part regarding our perception of the world and our evolution:
The imbalance in our society, caused by our consensus belief in material reality as the only reality, has caused a similar imbalance regarding the world’s ecology. And so the dire implications of this imbalance are being reflected back at us. This causes us to look for the origin of this imbalance that can be found within our own consciousness.
We then find that it is division, which causes this imbalance.
This then makes us look again at the philosophy which was introduced by Descartes and why it was allowed to develop into an ideology which then became part of a purposefully created paradigm:
Descartes’ philosophy regarding the law of duality was really an exploitation of something that happens within our consciousness quite naturally. Yes consciousness is divided into two polarities that display seemingly different properties . . . but this division is an illusion.
In truth, all division is an illusion. And if reality is divided between matter and mind, then our reality is an illusion . . . but it is an illusion that serves a purpose.
The above conclusion should have been the logical outcome of Descartes’ philosophy; that reality is really an illusion created by the division of one energy and that this energy is found at the Centre of one’s Self. As simple as that!
Therefore we create our reality by dividing our own energy into two . . . but our reality is an illusion: a “virtual reality” that we “play” in for ‘learning’ experience.
Man’s experience of this reality and other realities is part of the evolution of consciousness.
A major learning curve of this evolution is the realisation that our dual perception is a false one and that everything is really . . . One.
It was no accident that Descartes’ philosophy was established at the same time as Isaac Newton’s scientific observations. From Newton’s discoveries came the stolid consensus ideology that the universe is mechanical in nature and that its laws could be mathematically calculated and predicted with some precision.
Descartes too was a mathematician who applied mathematics to his ideas and it wasn’t long before his philosophy was complimented by Newtonian mechanics.
Descartes’ was also the first to formulate the scientific method of ‘reductionism.’ In his own words: “One must divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible.” In other words, one must discover what is relevant to the problem and reduce something as far as one can to its simplest data.
Since then, scientists and physicists have kept to Descartes’ method in their analysis, and have got lost in their pattern of dividing and reducing everything to a level where there is no meaning to be found. In truth, Man as scientist is further dividing his own energy.
Those scientists who are trying to seek God, are trying to find this ‘Creator’ by dividing everything and reducing everything to its simplest component to find “Him” . . . not realising that he, himself, is a divided part of God which is himself, and that all the time he has this dual perception, he will always be divided from himself.
It’s not surprising that there is now a reaction against the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm, which is getting stronger everyday. But if our reaction against this paradigm leads to our total rejection of it, we would still be caught in the habitual, repeating pattern, of rejecting something that should be understood and reinfused with a greater understanding:
If we totally reject the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm we will again be trapped in the old pattern of division – and therefore duality.
By rejecting something that didn’t work and accepting something else that we believe is new – until the time comes when we have to reject that – is part of the old pattern. The ‘new something’ is not new it is just another part of the same “animal.”
Our intention should be to fuse everything together again. To do this we should first realise that everything is part of the same “animal” and that this “animal” is ourselves – first and last.
This has been my intention with this essay on Descartes’ Dualism – not to emphasise its falseness and what should now be our rejection of it, but to show a deeper understanding of it – i.e., how it has served its purpose by slowly, and indirectly, leading Man to solve all the complexities associated with his dual perception and bring about his profound realisation, acknowledgement and understanding regarding the Centre of his own consciousness.
Descartes brought our conscious attention to the division that was inherent in us regarding our perception. Though this should have led one to the above conclusion, this observation was exploited in such a way that it led to the old pattern of one of these divisions again getting the upper hand.
Because of the apparent failure of the organised religions in their bid to control the collective, matter and Materialism then gained the ascendancy. [1]
The reason for this was perfectly clear and was substantiated by Newton’s discoveries that had calculated the mechanical and near predictable motion regarding the finite bodies of matter.
Newtonian mechanics may have played its part in explaining physical reality and our normal sense perception of it to some degree, but it cannot fully explain all our experiences regarding our psychical and mystical perceptions of reality.
In relation to the evolution of consciousness, it seems that the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm was developed at a crucial time in our history so that it would later be reacted against (which is now happening.)
It seems inevitable that Man’s consciousness, or ‘Consciousness’ itself, through the conflict, struggle, and refinement of these dualities, which are a result of its own divided energy, will eventually find a ‘middle-ground.’
In this regard Descartes’ philosophy has served its purpose well and there are now many people who would wish to . . . ‘discard’ Descartes – but as I said, we must not discard him yet as the observations which led to his philosophy is but a launching pad into a greater understanding.
What is now important is this:
The profound realisation of this Neutral ‘middle-ground’ between the polarities (being the ‘Midpoint,’ ‘Neutral Point,’ or ‘Third Force’ - the nexus point of my own theories) and it’s importance regarding the nature of ‘uncertainty’ leads us to the revelation that . . . we each create our own reality. ‘Uncertainty’ is the nature of this ‘middle ground,’ as opposed to the illusory ‘certainties’ that are easily found in each of the two polarities that stem from our dual-perception.
The real irony regarding all the above, and one that amuses me very much, is that Newton was a mystic [2] and Descartes took his dreams seriously and used meditative techniques. Descartes also gave emphasis to the pineal gland and is often quoted as saying:
“In man, soul and body touch each other only at a single point, the pineal gland in the head.” [3 ]
This is highly interesting regarding the central theme of my work.
Newton was once the Grand Master of an esoteric secret society and now evidence has come to light that Newton was a practicing alchemist who dabbled in the occult. [4 ]
Of course these revelations are not well known in a society which is still lost in the illusions of dual perception . . . it seems then, that Newton and Descartes – both highly intelligent and highly creative ‘individuals’ – have both had the last laugh . . .
Notes and References
1. This switch in policy is not unlike two political parties, each of whose time in the seat of power is relatively brief and is continually being swapped over for the other. Amusingly this also brings to mind the two opposing parties in this country: that of Conservative and Labour who have been swapping power for years - but both appearing to be dancing to a third influential power that remains neutral behind the scenes and which has equal power over our scientific and religious institutions.
2. See Michael White’s book, Isaac Newton, the Last Sorcerer. 1997.
3. Taken from Subtle Body: Essence and Shadow. David V. Tansley. (Thames & Hudson. 1977.) p. 56.
4. Newton is cited as belonging to a secret esoteric order in the best selling book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. His name is on a list of Grand Masters related to the Order of the Prieure de Sion along with other notable names in history such as Nostradamus and Jean Cocteau.