THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE
Volume One
By
Prof. Dr. Muhammad al’Mahdi
Child/Clinical Psychologist
1
INTRODUCTION TO
THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE
TRILOGY
In the 1960’s in the United States I set out on a search for Truth. This was to be no quest
to fill some missing spiritual vacuum; I had already firmly determined that God did not
exist. Not only did I not believe in God, but I was convinced that all logic, reason, and
scientific evidence confirmed that God did not exist; and, that for anyone to believe in the
existence of God was such an outdated, superstitious way of life that it would hold them
back from fulfilling their human potential and would likewise block the human race from
achieving its ultimate destiny. So certain was I that I once stated, establishing the highest
authenticity of my atheistic credentials when I was lecturing to a large class of about 500
introductory psychology students that, “If there was ever going to be the last person on
Earth who didn’t believe in God it would be me”.
My search for truth included almost fourteen years as a full time university student and
resulted in my going through three and a half PhD programs in child, clinical,
experimental, and educational psychology. I had originally intended, and began, my
studies in the physical sciences. This allowed me, due to previous training in nuclear
electronics, to spend four years as a research assistant in one of the foremost theoretical
physics laboratories of that time, where I had the opportunity to meet and discuss the most
basic nature of our physical universe with several recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Perhaps related to the ‘special’ social and cultural circumstances of the 1960’s, I moved
from the physical sciences to the social sciences partly because of the very unhappy and
difficult life I had growing up and partly because of an increasingly serious awareness
that all was not right with human society. I decided that I would go into psychology,
particularly child psychology, so that perhaps I could do something to ensure that in the
future children would not have to go through what I had gone through and could live in
an enlightened world of peace and love.
During my studies in psychology I came across a ‘tool’ of great value for anyone who
hoped to help bring about a better world, this tool was the Laws of Learning. During an
undergraduate class in experimental psychology we were given a live chicken and told to
devise a fairly complex task to teach it using the Laws of Learning. I wanted my chicken
to stand on one leg only, its right leg, to hop in a full circle to the right on that one leg,
then to push a red button on the wall of the experimental chamber with its beak, have a
bite of food, and keep repeating that same sequence of behaviours without error time after
time.
2
This could have been an almost impossible task as chickens are not very intelligent
animals and most people, including myself without a knowledge of the Laws of Learning,
would have had no idea how to even begin such a difficult training program. When less
than ten minutes after I had begun training my chicken to do this seemingly impossible
task I was able to sit there watching it repeatedly and errorlessly completing the whole
complicated sequence of responses which made up the task I had set for it, I was more
than amazed. Of course I never could have done this without the knowledge of the Laws
of Learning, which I applied rigorously and consistently as I trained the chicken to do that
complex task. Still, it all happened so quickly and easily that it appeared to be an almost
miraculous happening.
I still remember thinking, “If I could use the Laws of Learning to teach an animal with as
little intelligence as a chicken to do that quite complex task so quickly, why couldn’t
those same Laws of Learning be used to help children grow up to be good and decent
human beings?” This was the beginning that led me years later, during my third PhD
program, to come up with the hypothesis that, “If you were to give to any individual or
social group just two things, a positive, accurate, and motivational world view, plus a
good understanding of the Laws of Learning by which all human characteristics are
developed, then that individual or social group would move naturally and inevitably
toward everything good and right.”
My work in using the Laws of Learning to teach children resulted in me being given a
government primary school, the ‘worst’ one in the school district, to test that hypothesis
under experimental conditions. So I set out to prove the hypothesis as a children’s values
education program. Just as with my experiment with the chicken many years earlier the
results were beyond all expectations. Within a year the children, the teachers, and the
school environment had become astonishingly positive and productive. Extra academic
training had not even been part of our experimental program, but due to motivational
factors and a focus on the benefits of learning and possessing knowledge as one of the
values the children were taught, the school which had tested last in the district of 27
schools each year for twelve years in a row during standardized academic testing moved
up to number seven academically after only one year of the program.
Compared statistically against matched experimental control schools the results were so
unbelievably good for an educational research program that they were almost an
embarrassment. You just don’t get results that good in educational experiments: but, the
U. S. Commissioner of Education took enough interest in the program to offer to have it
replicated in government funded schools all across America. I didn’t feel it was ready for
such wide use yet, it was after all only in the experimental stages, and although I think
then I knew enough about the second part of the hypothesis, the Laws of Learning, to
justify the spread of the program, I realized I was far from understanding the second
3
necessary component of the hypothesis, the positive, accurate, and motivational world
view, well enough.
To many people’s shock, and perhaps some regret, I left the experimental program which
had proved so successful. In fact to continue my search for Truth I left America, where I
had become increasingly disenchanted with the social culture and the government’s
policies, and went out into the world to find that required positive, accurate, and
motivational world view. It was a search that would take me to not only many more years
of intense study on my own covering all areas of science and philosophy, but also
theology, the study of religious knowledge. My travels, even as I remained a confirmed
non-believer in God, eventually took me to priests and monasteries, gurus and ashrams,
monks and Buddhist temples around the world.
During all these years after leaving the formal study of the physical sciences I had been
keeping up with the many enlightening discoveries in theoretical physics. Modern physics
was then going through a very exciting period, we now had a quite good understanding of
the most basic nature of matter and how the physical universe came to be what it is today.
I became more and more interested in the philosophical implications of Einstein’s
Theories of Relativity. Connections were being made in my consciousness between the
implications of Einstein’s work and the revealed knowledge of religious believers which I
had long rejected.
I remember well the day that I finally had to concede that if I wanted to be fair and
objective as a scientist I would have to accept that due to the findings of modern physics,
particularly Einstein’s Theories of Relativity, I could no longer deny the existence of
God. I had to accept that modern science and logic now offered powerful proof of the
existence of God. And, I remember equally well my first two words to myself when I
realized I now had to accept the existence of God as a reality. This is very revealing as to
my character at the time, but those two words were, “Oh no!” I understood immediately
that my life would have to change drastically, since knowing that God existed also meant
having an obligation to live according to the Will of God rather that feeling free to
succumb to the whims of human desire.
No one could have been more shocked than I when what had been intended to be the
ultimate journey into secular materialistic science and philosophy took me first to the
knowledge of the existence of God then to a realization that I could follow no other path
in life but Islam.
(Muhammad al’Mahdi, 2004)
FORWARD TO
4
THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE
TRILOGY
I wrote these three books almost 20 years ago now, although much of the information
presented in these works remains at the present limits of human knowledge of science and
logic. They represent an early step in the shaping process of my life over a 40 year search
for Truth that led me from confirmed atheism, non-belief in God, to becoming a Muslim
dedicating his life to service for Allah. The word ‘shaping’ is a technical word from the
Laws of Learning. It means to go through a series of small steps from any beginning point
toward any goal.
Learning the multiplication tables could serve as a simple example of shaping, and by the
way, shaping is the way I taught the chicken to perform that quite complex task described
in the introduction. We take as the starting point a child who knows nothing of
multiplication, and we set as a goal the child knowing the multiplication tables up to
12X12. It is impossible to jump right from not even knowing the concept of
multiplication to knowing how to multiply 12X12. We must teach the child the
multiplication tables in a series of small steps. First you teach 1X1, 1X2, etc. If you make
any step too big the learning process will break down and the final goal will never be
achieved. There is no other way to achieve the goal, and that is how all human
characteristics are developed. That is how I found God!
I was, in the middle of last year, diagnosed with a terminal illness and given about three
months to live. Now it is a year later, and I feel very Blessed by Allah to even be alive
and able to write this brief forward to these books I wrote so long ago even though my
health is obviously failing. I feel very comfortable with the fact that I will soon be leaving
this physical existence, but I also want to be sure in the time I have left that I do
everything I can to ensure whatever benefits can be had from my life’s work can be
passed on to human society. I am hoping that the difficult and time consuming path that
brought me to Islam can be accelerated for others by the reading of these three books. Not
everyone has the time, the inclination, or the opportunity to devote their whole life to
study.
Since the knowledge in these three books was learned, understood, and written from a
secular, materialistic view of science and logic they should be well received even by those
who presently have no religious interests. For those of religions other than Islam, they can
feel comfortable with the knowledge in these books because they are written with no
Islamic words or perspective, and non-Muslims should find support for much that they
already believe to be true. And, for those who are already Muslim, they can benefit from
these books by seeing how close one can come to understanding the rightness of the
5
traditional beliefs and practices of Islam through modern scientific knowledge and logic.
In addition, for young Muslims in particular, the knowledge in these three volumes can
provide an armour against the powerful negative influences of Western secular
materialism, which if left unchecked will subtly steal from many of our youth their belief
in and practice of the beauty and greatness of traditionally understood Islam.
THE TRILOGY (These three volumes were written as a continuous conversation between
a young girl of the future and a mythical philosopher-scientist. The reason for this was to
make the presentation of some very difficult and complex information much less
threatening and easier to read.)
Volume One: The presentation of one consistent body of knowledge from the light at the
beginning of the Created universe to Adam’s children in the world today. This volume
contains cosmology, physics, biology, philosophy, and theology woven together to give a
detailed account of the totality of the physical Creation. It gives objective answers to
humanity’s long asked questions such as; does God exist, what is the meaning of life,
what is the true nature of good and evil, where does our free will come from, is there life
after death, and what does the future hold for the human race?
Volume Two: Looks at a number of areas of human social behaviour, such as politics,
human sexuality and correct male/female relationships, economics, religion,
entertainment industry, health care, education, and criminal behaviour and discusses what
is wrong with the world as it is now and what would constitute a right world given the
world view presented in Volume One.
Volume Three: Presents a complete review of the Laws of Learning by which all animal
behaviour is governed, and by which all human behaviour can be developed to be
consistent with the Will of God. It is this knowledge which if unknown leaves us to blow
aimlessly with the winds of negative influence, or if known allows us to fully utilize our
free will and progress forever onward toward all that is good and right.
(NOTE: I developed the knowledge base for these volumes during the 1960’s, 70’s
and 80’s. I wrote these works in the early to middle 1980’s. I have purposefully left
these works in their original form, rather than re-edit them on the basis of my
present understanding of Islam. I was not a Muslim when I began this work –
indeed this work led me to Islam – and, although I was a Muslim when I completed
these works, my knowledge of Islam was then quite rudimentary. I now know much
more about Islam than I did then, and realize some small part of that which I have
written may appear to be – but not in reality be – inconsistent with traditional
Islamic theology due to the scientific nature of the concepts and language I have
used. There may also be some – very few – points in which my writings are actually
in conflict with true Islamic knowledge; in these cases I accept the true Islamic
knowledge as correct and my words to be in error. For those who are believers
reading this trilogy it is important to know that whenever you see the term ‘natural
6
law’ or ‘natural order’ you can replace it in your mind with the more familiar term
‘the Will of Allah’. Muhammad al’Mahdi, 2004)
This is a story about the most remarkable little girl in the world. Actually, she is the
most remarkable person in the world. She lives in the mountains with her parents, not too
far from a great city. Her name is Tinny Rainbird; she is eleven years old. It's not so
remarkable that Tinny is so remarkable, she grew up in very unusual circumstances.
7
About fifteen years ago Tinny's mother and father were graduate students at one of the
most famous universities in the world. Her mother was studying physics and her father
was studying psychology. Her mother's professors thought she showed the potential to
become the greatest physicist there had ever been, and her father's professors thought he
showed the potential to become the greatest psychologist there had ever been.
Shortly before Tinny's mother and father were to receive their doctoral degrees they met
and fell in love. They got married and left the university. They never did receive their
doctorates. Their professors were very disappointed. They thought that was the end of two
potentially great careers.
Tinny's mother and father had not given up their fields of study, they couldn't do that.
Tinny's mother loved physics with all her heart, just as her father loved psychology,
Tinny's parents had decided to dedicate their lives to study. They would live their life
together as an experiment. They found a beautiful, remote spot in the mountains and built
a house. Just the two of them.
They had chosen the location well. They were virtually able to be self-sufficient, which
was their goal. They had fresh water, and all the vegetables and fruit they could use from
their large garden and small orchard. Neither of Tinny's parents ate meat because they
thought it was unnecessary; and more importantly they had high regard for all forms of
life. They also had all the electricity they needed. Tinny's mother had designed an energy
system that very efficiently combined solar and wind power. Every few months they
would travel into the city to buy any other supplies they needed and many, many books.
Not just books on physics and psychology, but books on every area of science and human
knowledge.
Tinny's mother and father lived an idyllic life. They lived a life of learning and loving.
Tinny's mother was beginning to understand physics better than anyone had ever
understood physics before, and her father was beginning to understand psychology better
than anyone had ever understood psychology before. They decided the time has right to
bring another being into existence. They had a child, a beautiful little girl. They named
her Tinny Rainbird. During those first eleven years of Tinny's life her parents included
her fully in their loving and learning. Tinny had never experienced a moment when she
did not feel loved; and she gave her love in return. Her mother and father never once
touched her in anger, nor even spoke a harsh word to her. They had accepted her as a
fully equal member of the family from the day she was conceived. As Tinny grew she
watched her mother and father work and love and learn. It was only natural that she also
worked and loved and learned.
Tinny never went to school, and her mother and father never taught her in any formal
manner. Tinny had been welcome in all her mother's and father's conversations, even
those of a most technical and philosophical nature. Whenever Tinny asked a question she
would get a good answer in words she could understand. She never learned there are
8
some things a child couldn't understand. Tinny loved to learn. By the time she was eleven
years old she could understand physics, psychology, and many other areas of knowledge
as well as most university professors. Tinny didn't realise this has unusual; she had never
met another person other than her mother and father. She really was a most remarkable
little girl.
Tinny had a favourite place where she would go when she wanted to be alone and think.
It was a small grassy glen, surrounded by trees, where the sun would shine through the
leaves bathing her in streams of light. She was not happy today, as was often the case
lately. It was not her home or family which made her unhappy. It was the world outside
she had never seen. Her mother and father were always totally honest with her; and when
Tinny asked questions about how things were in the rest of the world, they told her the
truth. There was crime and violence. Many people did not treat each other in a loving
manner. There were many sad people whose lives had been hurt by drugs and alcohol.
There were people who were treated as less than equal because of their colour or sex or
age. There were people starving because others took far more than was right. There were
people who would pollute and destroy the environment for profit. There were people
fighting each other to prove theirs was the right religion. There were nations fighting each
other to prove theirs was the right political system. There were wars where millions died.
And there was the threat of nuclear war; a nuclear war which could destroy all life on the
planet.
Although all of those things saddened Tinny greatly, she knew there was hope. There
were many good people in the world, and given enough time they would right all the
wrongs of the world. The worry which crept into Tinny's thoughts more and more lately
was, ''but would there be time?'' Tinny knew there was the chance, any moment, that the
many thousand nuclear armed missiles in the world would be fired off; thus ending any
hope for the beautiful future she foresaw. How could this horror be stopped? What could
she do to stop it? She had no answer. It was these thoughts which saddened her today.
She had been sitting with her legs crossed and her back straight. It was a posture for
meditation she had learned from her mother and father. She thought of her parents now,
dying in a nuclear blast. ''I wish there was something I could do'', she thought. A tear
formed in her eye and slowly ran down her cheek. Her vision blurred for a moment, and
when it cleared there was a man standing in front of her. He was an old man with white
hair and a white beard. He wore a simple white robe. The light from the sun streaming in
through the leaves seemed attracted to him. He was very bright; almost, but not quite, too
bright to look at. Tinny felt no fear; she could sense his gentleness and love. She could
also sense a special power about him.
Tinny asked, ''Who are you?''
He answered, ''I am a philosopher-scientist; I have come because I heard your wish.''
9
TINNY: How could you hear my wish? I didn't say it aloud, I thought it.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A thought speaks as loudly as a word. I heard you and
have come to grant your wish. I could see the purity of your unselfish desire. You didn't
ask for yourself, you asked for the world.
TINNY: Surely others have wished the same thing. Surely others have wished there was
something they could do to save the world from destruction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Yes, many have made that wish, but it is such a special
wish that it is very hard to grant. You are the first capable of having that wish come true.
TINNY: What makes me different?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is your innocence, allowing you to ask such a question,
which is part of the answer. Your mind has been free of limits; you have been able to see
truth. Through you a door has been opened to a higher level of human consciousness.
Someday all will be as you are.
TINNY: I don't feel special. I just feel like me.
PHlLOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No one person on this planet has ever seen so clearly the
true nature of our existence. In your mind is locked the knowledge which will allow your
wish to be granted. It is my task to help you unlock that treasure.
TINNY: I'll do anything to help save the world from destruction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The problems of the world are very complex, so the
answers will not be simple ones. At first the things we must discuss may not seem like
they could possibly help solve the world's problems; but eventually it will become clear
how all this knowledge is necessary to help save the world.
TINNY: I believe you. I'll work really hard to learn all this knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know you will. It won't be hard because I will tell you
nothing you don't already know. I'll just help you to better understand the implications of
the knowledge you already have.
TINNY: Can we start soon?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We can begin right away?
TINNY: Where will we start?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where do you think would be the most appropriate place
to begin?
TINNY: At the beginning I guess; but I'm not sure where that is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Existence itself has no beginning, it has always been. So
let's start with the beginning of this material universe. Tell me how that came about.
10
TINNY: Mother and I have discussed that many times. It is said all physical existence
began with an event called the 'Big Bang.'
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see, and what exactly was the Big Bang?
TINNY: Well, Big Bang was the name given to a theory which said: at its beginning, all
the matter of the entire universe was together in one place. The temperature and pressure
were so great that matter couldn't remain in such a condition. A tremendous explosion
was believed to have then taken place, which threw all that matter outwards to become
the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see some difficulties with that theory, but go on would
you. Explain in detail how that beginning matter became the universe.
TINNY: I've had some doubts about the early part of that theory myself; but I think the
explanation it offers after those first moments is quite good. Very early, as the universe
was expanding, it contained lots of electromagnetic radiation and a large number of
subatomic particles, such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and many others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where did all those particles come from?
TINNY: All radiation is made of up of little packages of energy, called photons. It would
also be fair to call photons, light energy. Photons usually travel at the speed of light; but,
during that early period they were all packed so tightly together that they couldn't move
without bumping into each other. When two photons with sufficient energy collide they
produce pairs of material particles. For example, if photons of a certain energy were to
collide, that collision would produce both an electron and the antiparticle of an electron,
called a positron.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that how all the subatomic particles were produced?
TINNY: There might be hundreds of different kinds of particles in existence; many of
those would have been produced by collisions between photons of light. There are other
processes which can result in the creation of the various subatomic particles, but those
processes would be difficult to explain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the most commonly known particles?
TINNY: Probably the electron, the proton, and the neutron. Those are the particles which
make up the atoms of all the different elements.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that what happened next? Did the atoms form?
TINNY: No, the universe was still so hot and dense that all of those first particles which
formed were immediately destroyed. Physicists call it annihilated, which means they
changed back into energy, to photons. During that period the universe was continually
expanding and cooling.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What was the next step?
11
TINNY: The universe got big enough and cool enough so that most of the photons of
light energy quit colliding with each other; at that point all of the particles which had not
been annihilated remained in existence. The universe kept expanding and cooling, but it
now consisted of stable electrons, protons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did all of those particles act randomly, or did they follow
any rules?
TINNY: Everything in the universe appears to follow certain rules. There are the four
very basic forces of physics which seem to govern the behaviour of particles. They are the
strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you sure those are four separate forces?
TINNY: Actually, I think there is just one primary law but in various situations we see
different aspects of that one law working. Since we can't see the connection between the
different aspects of the one law we think of them as separate laws. The four basic laws of
physics are our perception of the result of that one primary law in action.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Has anyone ever been able to prove that idea?
TINNY: Not yet, but I feel sure it will be proven. I have my own description of that one
law. Do you want to hear it? It's quite different from the way physicists usually describe
our reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Remember, I said I was a philosopher-scientist. I am more
interested in finding truth than I am in how that truth is worded.
TINNY: My understanding of the one law is that all sub-particles must organise
themselves in the most complex arrangement possible, given the limits of their
environment, such is the essential nature of all physical forms. What we see as the basic
laws of physics are the particles going about the business of carrying out that requirement.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a very revolutionary way to view the one prime
law. I'm sure it will arise again as we discuss the true nature of existence, but for now go
on with your explanation of how the universe came to be.
TINNY: The next change which took place when the universe had expanded and cooled a
bit more was the joining of many of the protons with neutrons.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why did they join together?
TINNY: Because of one of those four basic forces I was telling you about. The strong
nuclear force binds the nucleus of the atom together. Protons and neutrons joining
together form the nuclei of all atoms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you tell me why the protons and neutrons didn't join
together earlier, perhaps when they first formed?
12
TINNY: Yes, the strong nuclear force has a certain amount of strength. When the
universe was too hot and too dense there were other forces acting on the proton and
neutron which were more powerful than the strong nuclear force.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So for certain natural laws to be able to take affect the
state of the universe must be just right.
TINNY: That's correct. The environment determines what will take place.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if we change just one word of that last statement,
the word 'will' to the word 'can'?
TINNY: The environment determines what can take place. That's more what I really
meant to say.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I thought so. Sometimes little words which mean almost
the same thing can make a big difference.
TINNY: Anyway, now the still expanding universe is filled with photons of light, free
electrons, free protons, and proton/neutron pairs. A single proton is the nucleus of a
hydrogen atom, and two proton/neutron pairs form the nucleus of a helium atom.
Hydrogen and helium are the two simplest elements.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll bet you're going to tell me that as the universe
continued to cool another one of those four basic forces of physics began to exercise its
influence over the matter in the universe.
TINNY: That’s right. It was the electromagnetic force. One of the things the
electromagnetic force does is bind the electron to the nucleus of the atom. So now the
single protons captured one electron each and made hydrogen atoms; and the double
proton/neutron pairs captured two electrons each and made helium atoms. Because there
were more single protons than proton/neutron pairs there was several times as much
hydrogen as helium created.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's quite amazing isn't it? The universe started out as
energy and later became filled with atoms of hydrogen and helium. Could things have
been different than that?
TINNY: Nope. As long as physical law remains unchanged the universe would develop
that same way every time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say physical universes have come into
existence more than once?
TINNY: I'm not sure. I don't think there is any way to know.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The answer will come to you; but let's continue on with
your story.
13
TINNY: As all those hydrogen atoms, helium atoms, subatomic particles, and photons of
light energy which made up the universe kept expanding and cooling, another of the four
basic forces of physics was having a lot of effect on the matter then in existence. That
force was gravity, which was quite powerful when all the matter of the whole universe
occupied a very small volume of space compared to the size of the universe today.
Gravity broke that mass of hydrogen and helium up into great gaseous clouds. Gravity
within those great clouds of gas formed many billions of smaller clouds of hydrogen and
helium.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what names do we give to those different sized
clouds of hydrogen and helium gas?
TINNY: The great gaseous clouds formed galaxies. The smaller clouds of hydrogen and
helium formed the stars. We live in one of those galaxies which formed; we call it the
Milky Way Galaxy. Our sun is one of the many billions of stars which later formed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: About how many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
TINNY: A huge number, maybe one hundred billion stars.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And how many galaxies in the known universe?
TINNY: Perhaps about the same number as there are stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, one
hundred billion or more.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If those numbers are right and each galaxy had about the
same number of stars that would mean there were as many as ten thousand billion billion
stars in the known universe. Do you mean to say all those stars came from that original
hydrogen and helium gas?
TINNY: I do, but it wasn't quite that simple.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean?
TINNY: Most of those first stars which formed no longer exist. Since the only two
elements in the universe at that time were hydrogen and helium, the first stars which
formed were giant stars, made up totally of those two gases. Those early stars were called
first generation stars. Most were so massive that they collapsed in on themselves, then
blew apart in great explosions called supernovas. When those giant stars collapsed, the
pressure pushed their hydrogen and helium atoms together with so much force that they
merged into one another, forming larger atoms. That process is called nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fusion is the process which allows stars to burn for billions of years. It is also the
process which formed virtually all of the other elements that exist in the universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that all of the different elements such as
carbon, oxygen, sulfur, lead, gold, uranium, and others formed from hydrogen and helium
gas in the center of stars?
14
TINNY: That's right, over 100 different elements formed through the fusion process
during the normal life cycle of those first stars, and at the moment when particularly
massive stars explode as supernovas; but, some of those elements were so radioactive
they didn't survive for very long. There are less than one hundred natural elements now
left on our planet. The gold in this ring I'm wearing used to be in the middle of a star.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Amazing.
TINNY: It sure is. I like to think that I'm wearing a piece of a star on my finger.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened to all of those different elements which
formed?
TINNY: All of those new elements now combined, throughout the ever cooling and
expanding universe, with the already existing hydrogen and helium atoms, other free
particles, and photons. Then second and subsequent generations of stars began to form.
They formed much the same way as did the first generation stars which were made only
of hydrogen and helium.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Using our star, the sun, as an example would you explain
in some detail how this formation takes place?
TINNY: As space was then filled with different sorts of particles, gases, and chunks of
matter, there were places where more matter had accumulated than others. In those places
the gravity would be greater, causing other bits of matter and gases in surrounding space
to gather in those areas of highest gravity. The centres of those accumulations of gaseous
and solid matter became hotter and hotter until the solid matter evaporated; the resulting
mixture of elements began to glow, radiating heat and light. Our sun was one of those
stars which formed in that manner.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was our sun the same then as it is now?
TINNY: No, it had not stabilised at that early moment in its life. Due to the way gases
coalesce, or come together, they tend to start swirling in a circular motion. So the various
gases and solid matter which were to become our sun started swirling around; and as that
swirling material formed a flattened sphere, that sphere began turning on its axis. The
more the sphere contracted the faster it would spin. As the sun spun at high speed it threw
off some of its substance, which streamed outwards from the fast moving equator. As the
sun threw off that material the speed of rotation was slowed. After a number of cycles of
expansion and contraction our sun stabilised to roughly the size it is now.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is our sun a very large or unusual star?
TINNY: No, our sun is a very average star of a type called a yellow dwarf. There are
many millions or billions like it in our Milky Way Galaxy. In the known universe there
would be trillions of stars like our sun.
15
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened to all the matter which was thrown off by
our sun as it was rotating so rapidly during its early development?
TINNY: That matter, combined with the other material already rotating along a plane
from the sun's equator, coalesced into spheres called planets which orbit the sun. The
small inner planets being formed of the heavier elements, and the larger outer planets
being formed largely of various gases.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said that there were trillions of stars like our sun.
Would they have planets also?
TINNY: Probably all or most types of stars have planets. All stars similar to our sun
would have formed the same way as our sun; therefore, any star which formed in that
manner would have planets orbiting it. In fact it would have small heavy planets in the
closer orbits and larger gaseous planets in the outer orbits.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That makes me wonder about all sorts of possibilities.
TINNY: Me too.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain how our planet, the earth, actually
developed?
TINNY: As all that matter was being thrown off while our sun developed, some large part
of the heavier elements along with gases and other lighter elements began to condense
around an area of high density and gravity about 93 million miles from the sun. The
process would have looked very much like a smaller version of the sun's beginning,
except that matter was generally much heavier, there was much less of it, and it didn't
become as hot as it condensed into a sphere.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It did become hot though, didn't it?
TINNY: Much hotter than it is now. With all the pressure, friction, and radiation the earth
became a molten ball. Most of the heavier elements such as iron and elements chemically
attracted to iron sank to the centre; and the lighter elements and others chemically
attracted to those lighter elements rose to the surface.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is the earth no longer a molten ball?
TINNY: Most of it still is, but that hot core is now miles below the surface where we
usually never see the molten material, except where it breaks through in places such as
volcanoes. The surface, though, cooled into a hard crust consisting of those mainly lighter
materials. The different continents are really giant plates of stone which float around very
slowly on the surface of that molten inner core.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we live here on the surface of the earth things don't
seem at all like you describe them.
16
TINNY: That's one of the most important lessons I have learned; that which seems so
obviously true in our everyday lives may turn out to be something totally different when
looked at from a broader perspective.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a very important philosophical concept.
TINNY: Is it?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Yes my child, it is; but for now let's get back to the
explanation of how the earth developed. What happened next while the hard crust has
forming over the molten core?
TINNY: Well, in the earth's crust, and between the crust and the molten core, were
trapped many different atoms in the form of gases, such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and
nitrogen. Those gases and others had largely remained separate elements as they traveled
through space. Now forced together in a closed environment, very hot and under pressure,
some of those gases began to combine in new relationships with other gases. That new
relationship between elements which developed we now call chemistry. For example,
instead of hydrogen and oxygen gas existing only as separate elements, they now existed
in that new united relationship as water vapour; two atoms of hydrogen (H), linked up
with one atom of oxygen (O), described in terms of chemistry as H2O. Other gases
present at the time, carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and hydrogen, also formed simple molecules
such as ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4).
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened to those different gases, single elements,
and compound molecules which existed then?
TINNY: Those four gases, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and their compounds such
as water, ammonia, and methane became the main constituents of the early atmosphere of
our planet. They formed an atmosphere by escaping from their entrapment inside and
under the crust of the earth through volcanoes and other breaks in the earth's surface.
Much of that early atmosphere escaped into space, but some was saved by the
gravitational effect of the earth which held those active gas molecules close to the surface
of the planet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did that early atmosphere have an effect on the surface of
the planet?
TINNY: It changed the surface of the earth greatly. Since much of that new atmosphere
was water vapour it caused torrential rains to fall from the sky to the cooling, but still
very hot, surface of the planet. For millions of years that water would fall and evaporate
only to fall again, in endless cycles. The rain contained various other chemical
compounds including newly formed acids. The effect of those constant heavy downpours,
through corrosion and erosion, was to break up some of the surface rock and wash it
down to the lower areas on the planet forming seas.
17
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were those seas like the seas today?
TINNY: No, they would have been much thicker with various chemical compounds but
less salty. Also at that time they had no life in them, only simple chemicals. The seas of
that early period have been called a 'primeval soup'. They were probably so full of other
molecules in addition to water that they weren't as clear as the seas are now.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And of course, the reason they had no life in them was
because there has no life on the planet then.
TINNY: That's right, but it wouldn't have been too long after those first seas formed till
the chemistry which was taking place, between the different elements and simple
chemical compounds, formed more complicated molecules which still exist in all life
today.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which molecules are those?
TINNY: Those molecules are called amino-acids. They are the building blocks of all the
different proteins which make up our bodies and the bodies of all plants and animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are amino-acids made up of, and how did they
form?
TINNY: Amino acids are organic molecules made up of basic carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and nitrogen. Amino acids are just like the earlier chemical compounds, only more
complex. Amino acids come together naturally when the conditions are right, just as
earlier chemical compounds such as water did. Those varied compounds form because
some atoms have a chemical affinity for certain other atoms. It's as if certain atoms like
each other's company and want to stand next to each other, sharing some of their parts.
When they do that, which atoms choose to stand next to which other atoms, how many
atoms stand together, and where they stand determines which chemical molecule they
form. It is those different relationships between atoms which causes them to show
different characteristics when combined, as when two gases, hydrogen and oxygen, unite
together in the right way they become liquid water.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So whenever a sea full of chemicals forms into a 'primeval
soup', amino-acids will develop in that chemical sea.
TINNY: That's not so easy to say for sure. There was more happening at that time than
those chemicals just sitting quietly in the sea. There was lightning and much more
radiation coming from both the sun and the earth than there is today. The lightning,
radiation, and probably other factors caused the chemicals to react to each other in ways
they wouldn't have otherwise. In a situation like that the lightning and radiation would be
called a catalyst, which prompts other things to happen but is not part of the final
outcome.
18
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what happened next after the amino-acids had
developed?
TINNY: Molecules kept getting bigger and more complex in their organisation. Many of
those molecules included carbon atoms, and are often referred to as organic molecules.
Some of those organic molecules found they had an effect on other smaller molecules or
parts of molecules around them. That happened because of the way the atoms lined up
inside certain types of large molecules. Atoms and pieces of organic molecules, outside
those large organic molecules, lined up next to the sections of those large molecules
which they had the greatest affinity for. Molecules which have that ability are called
replicators. Replicator molecules could produce either copies of themselves or chemically
mirrored images of themselves made up of the different atoms which were most attracted
to them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was a very complicated answer. What does it mean
more simply?
TINNY: Some molecules gained the ability to make new molecules out of the raw
material around them in that primeval soup. Those new molecules would be either copies
of the original or mirror images of the original molecule.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think understand what you're saying. Were there only a
few kinds of molecules or many different kinds in that early soup of chemicals in the
seas?
TINNY: Those early atoms and molecules joined together in every possible way they
could given their circumstances. There would have been many different molecules made
up of all the various groupings of atoms which could take place. Some of the new
molecules would not have existed very long though.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: Some of those groupings of atoms which formed would have become very stable
molecules, and some would have been quite unstable. Those unstable molecules could
easily break apart into their individual atoms or smaller molecules. So that stable
molecules would continue to exist as they were, and the unstable ones would break up;
their atoms would then be used up creating more of the stable molecules, and would no
longer be available to make up the unstable molecules. The process is a form of natural
selection among chemicals. Those possessing the characteristics which allow them to
survive in a given environment will continue to exist, and those which don't have such
characteristics cease to exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did that affect those replicator molecules which had
the ability to create other molecules?
TINNY: There were only a certain number of molecules which could exist in the early
seas because there was only so much raw material to be used in making molecules. Any
19
molecule which could replicate itself would become an increasingly large proportion of
the total molecule population of the seas.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that was the case wouldn't there eventually be only one
kind of organic molecule left in the sea, the one which was the most successful, stable
replicator?
TINNY: You would think so, but as always things are more complex than they first
appear. In those early times the replicator molecules were not perfect, sometimes they
would form new molecules which were different than the original. Also, there was lots of
stimulation from the environment which caused alterations in some molecular forms.
Those changes could have been brought about by the high levels of radiation, lightning,
and other factors which influence chemical reactions. There were always new types of
molecules coming into existence, among which could be more stable replicators, better
replicators, faster replicators, or molecules with some other new characteristic which
increased their chances for survival.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was there any major new characteristic which came along
to aid survival at that time?
TINNY: The main one I know of was the ability gained by some molecules to break up
other existing molecules into their basic parts and use those parts to further their own
purposes. Molecules with that new ability could be called proto-animals because they
were the earliest molecular forms to break down other molecules and use the components
for their own benefit. That process is chemically similar to animals who eat other animals
and plants, thereby breaking down and utilising their molecules by digestion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that those early organic molecules which
had the ability to break down and use the component parts of other molecules were
actually the first animals? I thought plants developed before animals.
TINNY: No, I wasn't saying they were really animals, just that some early organic
molecules had the ability to 'eat' other molecular forms in a way which is characteristic of
animals; but those early organic molecules 'ate' in a much simpler way. If you consider
the first life forms on our planet to be one-celled organisms, then it is perhaps true that
plants developed before animals; but, as I come to know more about how life developed it
becomes harder to say exactly at what point life began.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Didn't God create all life?
TINNY: Well that certainly changes the direction of the discussion we have been having.
That doesn't sound like a very scientific question.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is because you live at this particular time in history
which causes you to perceive that question as not being scientific. For thousands of years
in the history of science queries about God's nature would have been among the most
important scientific questions.
20
TINNY: I see what you mean. Before what has been called the Scientific Revolution, a
few hundred years ago, science had been very different. From ancient times the goals of
science had been wisdom, understanding natural law, and learning to live in harmony
with the natural order. Knowledge was pursued to better understand the will of God and
thereby know the right way to live.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was that a good or a bad way to view science?
TINNY: That's hard to say. We've come a long way since that time. Many scientists and
philosophers have said a view of reality which included God was not needed. In many
ways when science was linked to religious beliefs scientific progress was held back, and
in some cases people were even forced to hold religious beliefs that science had proved to
be wrong. I guess my answer to your question is that the old view of science had both
good and bad features.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Simultaneously one and different.
TINNY: I'll bet you didn't think I'd know what you mean by the statement,
'simultaneously one and different.' It means that in any question where it seems the
answer must be one or the other, both answers are often true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I had no doubt you would know what meant. I only
mention that idea now because I expect it will be an idea which will arise often in our
talk. Anyway, back to our discussion about organic molecules.
TINNY: Oh yes. Well, I had just been saying that atoms of the basic elements present on
our planet as it formed had been developing into more and more complex molecules. In
particular organic molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen had
developed the ability to replicate themselves and to break down other molecules so their
chemical parts could be used.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You had been explaining that those molecules kept
developing new characteristics, allowing them to be more stable than other molecules in
the primeval sea, and ensuring their survival.
TINNY: Right. Since some of the organic molecules now living in the sea could break
down other molecules and use their parts, any molecules which developed a protection
against those predator molecules would have a definite survival advantage. Some
molecules now developed a covering which would isolate them from the surrounding
environment, and protect them from other molecules who would otherwise have been able
to destroy them. Now that organic molecules could exist within their chemical shells, safe
from the external environment, they continued to develop into larger and more complex
forms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It almost sounds like those organic molecules you have
been describing are the same as the first one-celled living organisms.
21
TINNY: There are lots of steps which we didn't discuss, but that's a fairly accurate
appraisal. By the time the grouping of molecules surrounded by a chemical shell added
the ability to use energy directly from the environment, as from sunlight, it would be
correct to consider them to be early one-celled plants. They were still very simple
compared to most plants around today; but yes, they were plant life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we talked about all this it only took a short while to
explain, but did that progressive development happen very quickly?
TINNY: The opposite. It took as much as a billion years for some of those stages in
development to be reached. Even some of the very small changes would have taken
millions of years.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And to think, that was just the beginning of what has been
called life.
TINNY: You say, ‘‘what has been called life''; do you mean that's not where life began?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I might answer that question with another. What is life?
TINNY: Life is usually considered to be the conditions which distinguish plants and
animals from inorganic objects.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And that point is usually considered to begin with the onecelled plants and animals; but what are the actual characteristics which something must
have to be considered alive?
TINNY: Three of the main characteristics are reproduction, growth through metabolism,
and the ability to adapt to the environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And would you explain what metabolism is?
TINNY: It's the process by which other organic forms are broken down so their
component parts can be used for food.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If those three characteristics distinguish what is life from
what isn't, then do you think that the early one-celled organisms were the first to show
those characteristics?
TINNY: Actually I don't think they were the first. The organic molecules we discussed
showed those same characteristics although perhaps much more simply. They replicated
either their own form or chemically mirrored images, they broke down other organic
molecules to use their components, and their forms altered to best survive in the changing
environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it appears that the early one-celled plants and animals
were not the first material forms which could be considered alive.
22
TINNY: I don't think it would be easy to find the exact point when life began, because as
those three characteristics of life are expressed more and more simply there never seems
to be an exact point where the simplest manifestation of a characteristic becomes nonexpression of a characteristic.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would be more correct to call the point where inorganic
matter develops into simple plants and animals the beginning of biological life, rather
than the beginning of life. Life itself can be traced back through an unbroken series of
events to the beginning of the physical universe. Life is an essential characteristic of
matter, which results in activity.
TINNY: Yes, and along the way as matter organises into more and more complex
groupings it shows an increasingly complex range of characteristics, some of those being
major new characteristics. Even those major new characteristics, though, had earlier and
more simple expression in less complex groupings of matter.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would be the major new levels of expression of
material development between the beginning of the physical universe and biological life?
TINNY: First there was light, the photons of electromagnetic energy. Those early photons
created particles of matter, the subatomic particles, when they collided with other
photons. As the universe cooled and expanded some of those different types of subatomic
particles joined together in space or in stars forming all the different kinds of atoms. Then
as planets developed, the different atoms found they were able to combine with other
atoms to form molecules. Those molecules developed and became more complicated until
they manifested the three main characteristics which distinguish biological life. The major
levels in the sequence at that point were light, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules,
plant and animal life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So biological life is not something new that began from
nothing, but was the end product of a long series of events, which had taken place as
matter organised into more and more complex forms, from the beginning of the universe.
TINNY: Since that is how it happened there is justification to believe life actually began
as the universe began; that every material form from the simplest subatomic particle,
manifests some characteristic of life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So then biological life is just a stage in the progressive
development of the material universe.
TINNY: My ancestors must include animals and plants, rocks and chemicals, planets and
stars, molecules and atoms, sub-atomic particles and light.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those were indeed your ancestors.
TINNY: And I thought it was amazing to wear a piece of a star on my finger. I was once a
star, and I was once light.
23
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps you still are.
TINNY: What do you mean?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Think about it; but, for now tell me what took place
during that continued process of development from the early one-celled plants and
animals
TINNY: That's an awful lot to tell about. I'll have to be very brief and skip from point to
point. As I said, the early complex organic molecules should probably be the point from
which biological life is considered to have begun. The transition from that molecular
stage to bacteria and the first one-celled organisms was the beginning of plant life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: About how long ago did all that take place?
TINNY: It was over three billion years ago. That's three thousand million years ago.
Anyway, the atmosphere had no oxygen when the first biological life developed. The first
bacteria which developed did not need oxygen to live. Bacteria used the process of
fermentation to convert their food sources to energy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where did all the oxygen in our atmosphere come from?
TINNY: Those bacteria which used fermentation to get energy to survive didn't give off
any oxygen, but the fermentation process wasn't a very efficient one. As I had said earlier,
changes keep coming along as the environment allows, whereby the organisms become
more efficient survivors. The change that took place next was from fermentation to a new
process called respiration, which was a much more efficient way to break down food
sources for energy. While the fermentation process didn't produce any oxygen the new
process, plant respiration, gave off oxygen as a by-product.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did those early life forms, which didn't use oxygen, all of
a sudden change and become oxygen producers?
TINNY: No, changes usually move in a series of small steps rather than large sudden
jumps. There was an intermediate step, organisms called blue-green algae, which used a
combination of fermentation and respiration. They would have been the first living forms
to put oxygen into the atmosphere.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How complex were those early bacteria and one-celled
organisms?
TINNY: Very complicated as organic molecules, but extremely simple as one-celled
organisms. The earliest one-celled organisms were just varied organic molecular
combinations housed within a chemical shell, performing different functions. They didn't
have a cell nucleus. Over time one grouping of molecules within the cell took more and
more responsibility for organising the activity of the varied molecular groups housed
within the chemical shell, for the benefit of the whole. That organising complex of
molecules became the cell nucleus.
24
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And were all those early one-celled organisms plants or
were there one-celled animals also?
TINNY: Although the first one-celled organisms could have been plants, it wasn't all that
long until one-celled animal life existed also. It's important to remember that those early
life forms were very similar in basic structure, whether they were plants or animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is
the difference between plant life and animal life?
TINNY: Probably the two greatest differences are that plants give off oxygen as a product
of their respiration and animals give off carbon-dioxide. The other main difference is that
plants take their energy needs directly from the environment while animals tend to take
their energy indirectly, by breaking down the molecules of other living organisms. There
is also a difference in the way plants and animals seek their food. Plants tend to be either
stationary or use involuntary movement, for example floating through the sea. Animals on
the other hand tend to use voluntary movement to seek their food sources.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So at that point in the history of our planet we had both
one-celled plants and one-celled animals existing, and the atmosphere beginning to
contain oxygen. Did those one-celled plants and animals live both in the seas and on the
land?
TINNY: In the beginning they all lived in the seas. It would still be a billion years or so
until either plants or animals could live on the land. In fact it would be almost that long
until one-celled organisms developed into multi-celled organisms. During that time many,
many different types of one-celled plants and animals developed, some being successful
and surviving, but most failing and disappearing. During those billions of years the
atmosphere was constantly increasing its percentage of oxygen. About five hundred
million years ago the first multi-celled plants and animals developed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What were those early multi-celled plants and animals
like?
TINNY: The multi-celled plants would have included various types of seaweed; the
animals would have included forms of sponges, later jellyfish and non-segmented worms.
It was those forms of life which filled the seas until the early hard shelled organisms like
snails and clams developed. Then came segmented worms and fish.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All that development seems to be in the sea. Wasn't there
anything on land?
TINNY: The first living things to go on to the land were plants, and that migration didn't
take place until fish developed in the sea.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How long ago did the first plants come on to land, and
what were they like?
25
TINNY: The first land plants were a type of moss, and that would have probably been
over four hundred million years ago. A hundred million years or so after the mosses went
on to land there would have been early trees developing. It has during that period when
the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere reached a level about the same as he have today.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were the trees responsible for the great increase of
oxygen in the atmosphere?
TINNY: They were. Trees give off huge amounts of oxygen compared to any other
plants. That's why it's so important for us to make sure we don't destroy too many of our
forests. Animal life and human life both need lots of trees to have good air to breathe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could we go back and finish the story of how life
developed?
TINNY: Not too long after plants went on to the land, animal life followed. The first
animals to make that move were amphibians. Amphibians have the characteristics of sea
animals in early life, then move on to land for the latter part of their lives. The amphibian
stage of development was followed by reptiles. Several hundred million years ago the
first birds and mammals developed, to be followed by the modern trees, grasses, and
flowering plants. The dinosaurs would have been dying out about the same time as the
earliest primates were developing, sixty or seventy million years ago.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those early primates were very different than human
beings though, weren't they?:
TINNY: Very, very different. They weren't even like monkeys, the most common
primates today. Monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees are usually called higher primates.
Their line of development separated from the original primate line about forty million
years ago.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about human beings, are they also higher primates?
TINNY: Many people consider that to be the case.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But is it true?
TINNY: Could I finish the story of the progression from the early primates to human
beings before I answer that question?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Whatever you like.
TINNY: The members of the higher primate line, which broke off from the early
primates, would have looked very much like monkeys look today. The line of
development separated again about thirty million years ago when a new line broke away
from the monkey line and developed into the great apes. The great apes are hominoids
such as the orangutan, gorillas, and chimpanzees. It was a further split from that hominoid
line which developed into the homo-sapiens.
26
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Homo-sapiens is the technical name for human beings,
isn't it?
TINNY: That's right. The closest of the hominoids to human beings are chimpanzees.
Even those lines separated ten million years, or more, ago.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the line which led to homo-sapiens has been separate
from the great apes for about ten million years.
TINNY: That's how it seems.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were apes our direct ancestors?
TINNY: It would be more correct to say that we share common ancestors with apes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't that make you feel a bit strange to know you are
related to monkeys and gorillas?
TINNY: Having apes as distant relations doesn't seem nearly as strange as do my earlier
ancestors. My earlier ancestors were reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, amoebas, bacteria,
molecules, stars, atoms, subatomic particles, and light.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're right. With ancestors as diverse as all those it
wouldn't seem so amazing to think that our ancestors ten million years ago looked much
like apes: what happened to the homo-sapien line of development in the last ten million
years?
TINNY: Changes take place within all levels of material existence as life seeks to find
ways to be most successful in any given environment. Our early ancestors developed the
ability to walk on two legs instead of four. The feet specialised in walking, the hands
specialised in holding things and manipulating objects. The brain size was getting
constantly larger. Those early ancestors became better thinkers, better with their hands,
and began to use those combined abilities to make tools and various other artifacts which
increased their chances of survival in the environment of that time. Those trends of
development continued until perhaps fifty thousand years ago, by which time our
ancestors were essentially the same as us; they were the early modern homo-sapiens. We
really haven't changed much physically in the last forty or fifty thousand years.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So where do we go from here?
TINNY: Do you mean where does the human species go or where do we go next in our
discussion?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have some questions I would like to ask you about what
we have already discussed. It all sounded quite plausible, but is it exactly the way things
really happened?
TINNY: Probably not exactly as things happened, but fairly close.
27
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A long time ago just about everyone believed that the sun
rotated around the earth. They were quite convinced then that they were right, and yet
they turned out to be wrong. What makes it any more likely that you are right in the things
you have told me than those people of old, who turned out to be so wrong?
TINNY: Because most of the things I told you have been proven by science.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is science more accurate today than it was in the past?
Does science ever really prove anything?
TINNY: The philosophy and methods of science have progressed far in the past several
hundred years. Science today is far more accurate than science has been in the past. As to
whether science ever really proves anything, it is part of the modern scientific method to
accept that no fact is proven absolutely true. What we call facts in science are actually
those things which have the highest probability of being true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it possible to know absolutely that something is true?
TINNY: I'm not sure. Some things seem so absolutely true I can't bring myself to doubt
them, but even then I realise there is some chance they are not true. That's one of the
things about modern science; it goes beyond what seems to be true to our everyday
senses, and at least approaches what is really true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if it turns out that it is impossible to know any
absolute truth, would that mean that nothing is absolutely true?
TINNY: I think I've read something like that somewhere; probably in a book on
philosophy. If I remember right, it was claimed that nothing is absolutely true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did you believe that?
TINNY: No. It was clear to me that whether or not we could know absolute truth had no
logical connection with whether or not absolute truth existed. Actually it seems that we
may very well know some absolute truths, but the odd thing is that we have no way of
being sure they are absolutely true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again your answers seem to be getting complicated.
TINNY: Well you ask some very difficult questions. It's hard to give simple answers to
such difficult questions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you understand your answers?
TINNY: Yes, quite well.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me just clarify some points on the things you have
already told me. Let's go back to the beginning of the universe, you called it the 'Big
Bang'. You said something about a time when all the matter in the universe was in one
place. How big would that accumulation of all matter have been?
28
TINNY: The further you go back in time the smaller the size of the universe. If you go all
the way back to the beginning of time, the universe had no size at all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you said all matter was together in one place at the
beginning of the universe. Are you really saying that all the matter of ten thousand billion
billion stars had no size at all when it was in one place?
TINNY: I almost hate to say something which sounds so unreasonable, but if I go by the
evidence that is the conclusion I must come to. At the moment the universe began all of
that matter was concentrated at a point with no size.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps if we go back to before the universe began it will
clear things up a bit. What was there before the physical universe came into existence?
Was it just unlimited, completely empty space?
TINNY: Not even that. There was no space, empty or otherwise.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This gets more and more mysterious. First you tell me
there was a time when there was no matter, now you tell me there was no space. Was time
just flowing along waiting for space and matter to come into existence?
TINNY: There was no time either. There was nothing. No time, no space, no matter.
When there is no matter there is no time, nor any space. Space, time, and matter are all
related in such a way that one cannot exist without the others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How then did space, time, and matter begin if there was
nothing in existence?
TINNY: By the word nothing I meant no time, space, or matter. It does not mean there
was no existence other than space, time, or matter.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Very metaphysical.
TINNY: Was that a joke?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Only if you thought it was funny.
TINNY: In answer to your question about how time, space, and matter came into
existence, I would say that a dimensionless singularity appeared. At that singularity, or
point in existence, light was manifested. That light consisted of intense electromagnetic
radiation of all frequencies confined to a tiny area, which virtually immediately began
creating and annihilating matter. That primal electromagnetic radiation and the newly
created material particles expanded in all directions at incredible speed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It couldn't have expanded faster than the speed of light
could it?
TINNY: In the beginning the expansion of the universe would have been much faster
than the speed of light.
29
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Isn't
that a physical limit?
TINNY: The speed of light is the limit as to how fast matter can travel through space; but
there is no such limit to how fast space itself can expand.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then is space?
TINNY: Space is a perception of the three dimensions of matter.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what then is time?
Tinny: Time is a perception of the motion of matter.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are very cosmic answers.
TINNY: It's hard to tell if you are teasing me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You answer that both time and space are aspects of
perception. Don't they have an existence beyond our perceptions? Aren't time and space
considered absolute?
TINNY: It is true time and space have been considered as absolutes; that time was
flowing smoothly from the past through the present to the future, and space was
independent of the physical phenomena occurring in it. While those beliefs have been
widely accepted, that is not the true nature of reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then tell me, what is the true nature of reality.
TINNY: Time, space and matter are but one unified reality of which our perception,
actually our consciousness, is an integral part.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that time, space, matter, and consciousness
are all one and cannot be separated?
TINNY: They only appear to be separate entities because of the limited nature of our
perceptions. They are actually different manifestations of the one essential reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not many people could understand that; probably most
would not believe it either.
TINNY: It is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean, 'it is'?
TINNY: 'It is' is the statement of absolute truth. It simply means that things are as they
are. Beyond what we believe, beyond what we desire, there exists an essential reality
independent of our subjective perception of reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you said earlier that our perceptions are an integral
part of the essential reality.
30
TINNY: At our present level of consciousness our perceptions are far from fully
developed. It is for this reason, as beings limited to perceiving in the three dimensions,
that we see all things as relative. That is the nature of the three dimensional perspective.
When our consciousness is fully developed we shall see only the absolute.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You, my little guru, are a mystic.
TINNY: I may be a mystic, but I would never be anyone's guru.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that? Isn't it taught in eastern philosophies that the
only successful path to enlightenment is through the guru?
TINNY: Each person must be their own guru. Any guru other than oneself stands between
the seeker of truth and enlightenment, an obstacle to be overcome.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha.
TINNY: Yes, that is what the Buddha taught, but symbolically only.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Of course. Returning to our discussion of how the
physical universe began; you say the universe began as light. Before that initial light there
was nothing; no time, no space, no matter. Electromagnetic energy, which is commonly
referred to as light, came into existence in the form of photons, little packages of energy.
As those newly created photons collided with each other they created all the matter in the
physical universe. As matter was being created, time and space also came into existence;
thereby forming our essential reality. It was that process which became known as the 'Big
Bang'.
TINNY: It is that process which was mistakenly called the 'Big Bang'. The term 'Big
Bang' sounds like a description of a giant explosion, but the beginning of the physical
universe was more like a great expansion than an explosion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the beginning universe expanded smoothly in all
directions rather than violently exploding.
TINNY: That is a much better description. Probably the most misleading thing about the
name 'Big Bang' is the implication that it was a sudden one time event, not a continuous
process. An expansion can continue for an unlimited time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: By that do you just mean that the universe is still
expanding?
TINNY: I mean more than that. Beyond our present ability to perceive, the singularity
still exists. Light is still coming into existence; the universe is still beginning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You make it sound like there is a great powerhouse at the
beginning of material existence that keeps pumping out the raw light-energy of which the
physical universe is made.
31
TINNY: I suppose that's what the beginning of physical existence might look like.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The next thing I want to talk to you about will probably be
the hardest to grasp. I want to discuss quantum physics and relativity theory with you.
TINNY: After we talk about quantum physics and relativity theory anything else would
seem easy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you understand those aspects of our existence well?
TINNY: I think so, but that still doesn't make them easy to talk about. Our basic concepts,
our language, and our whole way of thinking are inadequate to describe what quantum
physics and relativity theory tell us about the reality of our existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I won't ask you to define quantum physics and relativity
theory yet. I think we will gain more by first discussing their implications. Perhaps you
could start by telling me, very generally, what the main implications of quantum physics
and relativity theory tell us.
TINNY: They tell us our most basic beliefs about the universe are wrong. That what
appeared to be obvious about our existence, and what our senses, science, and logic
seemed to tell us was the true nature of existence, turns out to be wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: First, what was the wrong view of our reality?
TINNY: The effect of the incorrect view of reality is in every aspect of our lives, our
beliefs, and our institutions. The basis of that error is the belief that the universe is a
mechanical system made up of separate objects, which in turn can be reduced to
fundamental material building blocks whose properties and interactions were thought to
completely determine all natural phenomena.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds quite reasonable. Each thing in the universe
is separate from all other things around it. All those separate things are made up of
several basic particles: electrons, protons, and neutrons. All the different material objects
and the elementary particles which make up those objects work according to fundamental
laws, and those laws determine what everything in the universe does.
TINNY: Sure it sounds reasonable. It wouldn't have been so widely believed if it didn't
seem so obviously true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then does quantum physics and relativity theory tell
us which is so different from that view?
TINNY: That the universe is one indivisible, dynamic whole, whose parts are inextricably
interrelated and can only be understood as fluid patterns of a cosmic process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So there are no parts, only the whole. Everything we see
as a separate object is actually connected to every other thing. All of those things which
appear to us as objects are actually vibrating patterns of energy. The so-called particles
32
which we believed made up those objects are not little bits of physical material, but would
be better thought of as places within the fabric of existence where the energy fields are
more intense.
TINNY: Yes, that's what quantum physics and relativity theory mean to me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even if all that is true, don't the energy fields still obey the
laws of the universe just as the objects did, or at least as we perceived them to do?
TINNY: No, the dynamic energy patterns of the universe follow no laws, instead they act
according to their nature. As we perceive their natural actions, which are harmonious and
orderly, they appear to us as regulated actions and we describe the regularity of those
actions as laws.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All forms of material existence follow the natural order,
but are not caused to follow the natural order by the laws of science.
TINNY: That's right. When we perceive the ordered relationships between things in the
physical world we describe their actions as being due to laws and forces. From the
perspective of the energy patterns which make up those physical things, they are merely
acting according to their essential nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you call that new view of the true nature of
existence?
TINNY: I just think of it as quantum/relativistic reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do many people in the world today realise that to be the
true nature of our existence?
TINNY: Yes and no. There are many in the world who hold those beliefs, in fact the basic
concepts are quite ancient. The people who hold those views usually conceptualise them
very differently, and use very different words to describe them. In the words which we
have been using, very few people in the world today understand that new worldview,
although every day more and more are coming to realise those truths. In these modern
terms, that knowledge is mainly known to theoretical physicists and philosophers.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is as if two lines of thought meet, one of them very
old and one of them very new.
TINNY: That is the case, and when that marriage of the old and new takes place it is
generally true that major new developments occur in human culture. Those holding the
same view from the different perspectives are broadened in their understanding and
reinforced for the holding of those particular beliefs. The two paths merge, complement
each other, and become more as a whole than either had been alone.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will many come to understand that quantum/relativistic
reality?
33
TINNY: To the degree that it is a correct view it will become known by all. It will
become the most common of knowledge, known in the fullest even by little children.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have great faith in the future.
TINNY: If we survive the cumulative effects of the wrong worldview, which has brought
the human species to the very brink of extinction, the children of the future will far
surpass even the most optimistic expectations.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This quantum/relativistic reality seems, as you say, to be
based on the views of modern science, in particular modern physics. What role will
science play in bringing about this new more correct worldview?
TINNY: The very nature of science will be changed by this new worldview. Although the
ancient goal of science was to gain wisdom, understand natural law, and live in harmony
with the natural order, science has for hundreds of years been the means by which
mankind has come to dominate and control nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds like science took a turn for the worse.
TINNY: Such was the effect of secular materialism, the view that there is no purpose, no
life, and no spirituality in matter; that nature works according to mechanical laws, and
everything in the material world could be explained in terms of the arrangement and
movement of its parts.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did the belief in secular materialism affect human
culture?
TINNY: Science made it more and more difficult to believe in God. The divine eventually
disappeared from science leaving behind a spiritual vacuum that has become
characteristic of the mainstream of our culture.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And you say science is about to take another turn, that
new turn being based on the quantum/relativistic view of reality.
TINNY: That's right. Science during its materialistic period laid claim to and prided itself
on its objectivity. Science purported to stand beyond values and morality. The new
worldview challenges that myth of a value-free science. It gives meaning back to human
life. It provides a means by which the realm of science can exist in perfect harmony with
spiritual aims and religious beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't that be dangerous? In the past religions have at
times stood in the way of human progress, have required that beliefs other than truth be
accepted as true, and have perpetuated great evil upon the members of our culture.
TINNY: I would admit that all those things have been true to some degree; but, it is also
the case that religions have given us some of our greatest truths and have been a source of
great good.
34
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you religious?
TINNY: I'd say I'm spiritual, but I can see good in all things.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the most basic truth held in common by ancient
wisdom, religions, and the quantum/relativistic view of reality?
TINNY: The unity of all things. The cosmos is one inseparable reality; alive, spiritual and
material at the same time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say the cosmos is alive?
TINNY: All existence is alive and conscious.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most material things certainly appear to be dead, inert,
having no life or consciousness.
TINNY: This is once again a difference in point of view, it is the difference between
relative and absolute knowledge. To see relative truth one may observe from the relative
perspective, but to see absolute truth one must have an absolute point of view. From the
relative perspective matter appears to have no life, no consciousness. From the absolute
perspective the essence of matter is life and consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So all within the material plane of existence is relative,
and all that exists beyond the material plane is absolute.
TINNY: Both the material plane, which is changing and relative, and that beyond the
material plane, which is unchanging and absolute, are aspects of an all embracing unity of
existence. Both must be considered reality; both are reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think you have explained quite well what the old view of
reality is. It consists of solid, separate objects made up of basic particles of matter all
doing what the laws and forces of the physical universe tell them they must do. The terms
secularism, materialism and determinism fairly inclusively cover that view of reality.
Would you now tell me more about the quantum/relativistic view of reality?
TINNY: Quantum theory views electromagnetic radiation, as little packages of light
energy called quanta. Those quanta, often called photons, have both a wave nature and a
particle nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are examples of electromagnetic radiation, those
quanta of energy or photons?
TINNY: Visible light, heat, microwaves, x-rays, and radio waves are a few examples of
electromagnetic radiation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And you say that sometimes photons act like waves and
sometimes they act like particles. Do you mean they can change from one to the other?
35
TINNY: Actually photons are neither waves nor particles. Both are just convenient words
to describe different aspects of the true nature of photons; but neither of those concepts
are fully adequate to describe the true nature of electromagnetic phenomena.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem that something could not have the
characteristics of both waves and particles.
TINNY: It is for such reasons a revolutionary new worldview became necessary to
explain paradoxes of that type. Things are simultaneously one and different. This
quantum view holds not only for electromagnetic radiation but also for all subatomic
particles, such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say, even subatomic particles are not
really particles?
TINNY: That's right. Sub-atomic particles also have a wave nature; they sometimes show
wave characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What determines whether electro-magnetic radiation and
subatomic particles show wave characteristics or particle characteristics?
TINNY: The particular characteristics that electromagnetic radiation or subatomic
particles show is determined by how we observe them. If we observe them in a way that
would see waves then they appear as waves, and if we observe them in a way that would
see particles then they appear as particles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does that mean to you?
TINNY: That neither electromagnetic radiation nor subatomic particles have any intrinsic
physical properties independent of their environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And from that fact comes some of the main arguments
against the mechanical worldview of materialism.
TINNY: It shows that there are no material things which exist separate from other things;
that there is a basic unity of all existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there more to this quantum theory?
TINNY: Much more. Another important finding is that at the subatomic level matter does
not exist with certainty in any definite place, and subatomic events don't occur at any
definite time. The appearance and behaviour of subatomic particles can only be
determined as probabilities, not as certainties.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So anything happening at the sub- atomic level can never
be predicted with certainty; we can only predict the likelihood of it happening.
TINNY: The truth is even less definite than that. What we perceive as solid objects, fixed
in time and space, dissolve in the quantum/relativistic reality into patterns of probabilities.
36
And those are not even probabilities of the existence of solid objects, but rather they are
probabilities of interconnections between quantum fields. The properties of those
interconnections are known only through their interaction with all other interconnections
throughout the material existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again we see the basic unity of all things revealed. A
subatomic particle, such as an electron, is not an independently existing material object,
but rather it is the manifestation of a set of relationships with all other things.
TINNY: Complicated, huh?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Very complicated. Is it necessary to understand these
quantum concepts to understand the new worldview which gives a more accurate
perception of reality?
TINNY: Not necessary at all. The implications of the quantum/relativistic reality are
much simpler and easier to understand than the scientific basis for this new worldview. In
the future though, even little children will know all this and more. It will be easy for
them; it will be natural for them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Your faith in little children again.
TINNY: Unlimited, unbounded, complete faith in the children of the future. They will be
beings of a higher consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that what you are?
TINNY: Is it?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You've explained some of what the quantum part of the
term quantum/relativistic means. Tell me about the relativity part.
TINNY: The driving force in the development of relativity theory was the desire to show,
through a unified foundation to the varied concepts in physics, that nature possessed an
inherent harmony. According to relativity theory, space is not three-dimensional and time
is not a separate entity. Space and time are intimately connected, forming a fourdimensional continuum, referred to as space-time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All measurements involving space or time would then lose
any absolute meaning.
TINNY: So now we must accept that space has no meaning as a container of material
objects, and that there is no universal standard of time flow. Since space and time had
been so critical to our worldview and to the description of all natural phenomena, this
new perspective requires we reassess our most basic beliefs and assumptions about
reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With such a basic flaw in our perception of the true nature
of existence, it is not surprising that basing our beliefs and actions on the old, incorrect
37
worldview has led the human race to the brink of extinction. Are there any other surprises
from relativity theory?
TINNY: Relativity theory tells us that matter is another form of energy. I think that is
quite a surprising conclusion. It is that truth which allowed the primal photons of light
energy to create particles of matter such as electrons, protons, and neutrons when those
photons collided, during the early moments of the newly created physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't there a very famous equation which describes the
relationship between energy and matter?
TINNY: You must mean E=mc2.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain that equation to me?
TINNY: The 'E' stands for energy, the 'm' stands for mass, and the 'c' represents the speed
of light. In that formula 'c' is called a constant because the speed of light is unchanging.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There must be something very fundamental about light.
TINNY: There must be; it was through light that the physical universe began. Light
creates matter, and light has metaphysical ramifications. Light is the closest thing we
know of to the basic fabric of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The metaphysical ramifications of light; that sounds quite
intriguing.
TINNY: Light is a link between the non-material plane and the material plane. It was
light which made the transition from the non-material existence to the material existence,
as the causative agent at the beginning of the physical universe. Light remains the link
between the material and non-material existence for all time during the life of the physical
universe. Light is that link today.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say light is a link between
the material and non-material planes of existence?
TINNY: It appears to us that light exists in the world around us, that light is part of this
physical universe; but that is not the case.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that light does not exist in the material universe.
How can that be?
TINNY: It has to do with the speed of light being constant. That fact reflects something in
the essential nature of light which sets it apart from all other things in the material
universe. All other aspects of the material universe are relative, light is absolute. It is for
that reason I said light is the closest thing we know to the basic fabric of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me get this straight. Are you saying that light is the
basic fabric of the universe?
38
TINNY: I wouldn't say light is not the basic fabric of physical existence, but I am saying
less than that it is. Light is at least an essential aspect of that basic fabric.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just because the velocity of light is constant that you
say light does not exist in the material universe?
TINNY: It's because of what the velocity of light means. If we consider several basic
characteristics of all things in the material universe we see that light does not share those
characteristics. Everything in the material universe is involved in a flow of time from the
present to the future; everything in the material universe occupies space or has
dimensionality, meaning it exists in three dimensions, everything in the material universe
has mass, and everything in the material universe has a polarity, either positive or
negative.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And light has none of those characteristics?
TINNY: It shares none of them. I'll explain that in relation to photons, the units of light.
As the speed of light is approached, time slows. As the speed of light is attained, time
stops. Therefore, as a photon travels at the speed of light, time has stopped. Light is not in
the time flow from present to future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might that account for some experiments with light in
which one photon seems to know instantaneously what another photon some distance
away is doing? That is something which seems impossible since no information can be
transmitted over distance at greater than the speed of light, and being instantaneous is
definitely faster than the speed of light.
TINNY: That might be the explanation for those phenomena. Going on to the next
characteristic, as anything draws near the speed of light, one of its three dimensions
approaches zero. As the speed of light is attained that one dimension becomes zero. Since
the formula for volume in space is length times height times width, and one of those three
quantities is zero, the volume of a photon equals zero. So a photon traveling at the speed
of light occupies no space.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And if something occupies no volume of space, it does not
exist in space.
TINNY: Then also when something approaches the speed of light its mass increases. As
the speed of light is attained mass becomes infinite. Since it is obvious photons don't have
infinite mass, as they travel at the speed of light, we must conclude they have no mass. No
mass means no material existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And the last characteristic, polarity; doesn't light have
polarity?
39
TINNY: Well, it is true that light has no polarity, but it may also be true some forms of
matter have no polarity. Having no polarity means the photon has no anti-photon; the
photon can be considered its own anti-photon.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do all particles have antiparticles?
TINNY: Certainly most do. When particles are created it is in pairs, each pair consisting
of a particle and an antiparticle. Examples of those particle/anti-particle pairs are the
electron/positron pair, and the proton/anti-proton pair. Even the neutron, which can be
thought of as a combined proton and electron has its antiparticle, the anti-neutron. A
neutron has no electrical charge because the positive charge of its proton component is
balanced by the equal negative charge of its electron component. The anti-neutron could
be thought of as a combined anti-proton and positron; the anti-proton having identical
characteristics to the proton, except its charge which is negative, and the positron having
identical characteristics to the electron, except its charge which is positive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Light today, just as in the beginning of the universe, has a
transcendental quality. It has none of the characteristics of all things in the material
universe. Time does not pass for light. Light does not exist in space. Light has no mass.
And light has no polarity. Light is a link between the material and the non-material,
having a relationship with and being perceived in both planes of existence.
TINNY: One more thing. Interestingly, while of a transcendental nature, light is the
means by which all information is transmitted in the material universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems we must come to better understand our
relationship with light.
TINNY: We might expect the transcendental nature of light to be an integral part of the
future of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Brilliant!
TINNY: It certainly gives new meaning to the saying, 'I have seen the light'.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps it gives old meaning to that saying.
TINNY: Many are the ways in which ancient wisdom has been retained through the ages.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have made it clear how the new worldview of a
quantum/relativistic reality derives from the knowledge of modern physics. The old view
seemed obviously right, but was wrong. The new worldview does not seem to fit with our
everyday perceptions, but is right.
TINNY: The old view, often called the classical view, was of material objects, which may
be reduced to the fundamental building blocks, existing in free space, caught in a constant
flow of time, acting in accord with physical laws and forces. The quantum/relativistic
40
view is of bundles of light energy, intimately connected to all else which exists, being an
essential part of space-time, acting in accord with their fundamental nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The old view is certainly more easy to relate to than the
new view.
TINNY: That's for sure. I can't even talk about quantum/relativistic reality without saying
things which are not entirely true, because words and concepts do not yet exist to fully
describe that view of reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So some things you told me may not be exactly true.
TINNY: Perhaps none of the things I have said are perfectly true. That limit is inherent in
material beings existing in a relative universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The effects and the limits of the old worldview are
certainly pervasive.
TINNY: That old worldview acted as a barrier to the further development of human
consciousness. To attain the next higher level of being we must cast aside that classical
view of reality and fully realise the meaning of quantum/relativistic reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will be the nature of the change which will take
place when all of humanity realises the truth of this new worldview?
TINNY: The human race will forsake the destructive path of force and aggression and
accept the fulfilling path of peace and love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that occurs it will be a most beautiful future.
TINNY: If we are to have a future it will be a beautiful future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?
TINNY: That the human race should turn from the path of force and aggression to the
path of peace and love is the natural course of development. It will happen, in fact it must
happen, unless the human race comes to an end before that change has a chance to take
place.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're worrying about the nuclear threat, aren't you?
TINNY: I'm always worried about the nuclear threat.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As I promised earlier, the solution to that threat will be
contained in the knowledge we discuss.
TINNY: I believe you. We should continue our talk about quantum/relativistic reality
since that is part of the answer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the old view is wrong, why does it seem to be the way
things really are; specifically what is it we see when we see any object?
41
TINNY: There are quite a few things I need to say before the answer to that question will
make sense.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Give me a simple answer now, and then explain the other
things.
TINNY: All objects we see are made up of various atoms. The atoms which appear to
make up solid matter consist almost entirely of empty space with nuclei containing
protons and neutrons which are surrounded by electrons. Each different element is made
up of atoms with a different number of protons and electrons. For example every
hydrogen atom will have one proton in its nucleus and one electron surrounding that
nucleus. Every oxygen atom will have eight protons in its nucleus and eight electrons
surrounding that nucleus. As I said earlier, every subatomic particle, such as an electron,
has a wave nature and a particle nature. The unique properties of each different kind of
atom are determined by the wave nature of the electrons surrounding and interacting with
the nucleus. The wave form of the one electron surrounding the hydrogen nucleus shows
the unique characteristics we perceive as hydrogen. Any other number of electrons
surrounding a nucleus will have a different combined wave form, and will show another
set of characteristics, For that reason an oxygen atom with eight electrons surrounding the
nucleus is perceived as an element totally different from a hydrogen atom.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So what we perceive when we see any object is the
combined effect of the wave forms of the electrons of the atoms which make up that
object.
Tinny: We perceive those waveforms as solid because of the particle nature of each
subatomic particle. Whenever a sub-atomic particle is confined to a small region of space
it reacts to that confinement by moving around very fast. Although most of the volume of
an atom is empty space, it appears solid because the particles move around so fast they
seem to fill all that space at once.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Atoms are usually thought of as small planetary systems,
much like our solar system, the electrons circling the nucleus like planets circling the sun.
Is that what you mean?
TINNY: Once again that is a misunderstanding of our existence based on the old view
which expects reality to occur in a mechanical way, as objects moving in space according
to certain laws. Those electrons are better thought of as waves which have a moving point
of maximum density, that point moving so fast its effect is experienced everywhere within
that electron's range of activity in relation to the nucleus.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the nucleus of the atom like a solid ball?
TINNY: No, the protons and the neutrons which make up the nucleus are also subatomic
particles with a dual nature. They have a wave aspect and a particle aspect just like the
electron. In fact, because the volume of the nucleus is so much smaller than the total
42
volume of the atom, the protons and neutrons confined in that tiny nucleus move about at
speeds up to one hundred times the velocity of electrons surrounding the nucleus of the
atom; because of that great speed the nucleus appears extremely solid.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is it which keeps the electrons bound to the nucleus
of the atom?
TINNY: The electron is bound to the nucleus of the atom by the electromagnetic force;
but remember the electromagnetic force is only a name which we give the apparent
binding of the electron to the nucleus of the atom. From the electron's point of view it is
merely acting in accord with its essential nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That difference is important, isn't it?
TINNY: Very. It is basic to the new worldview; activity is not due to external force, but
instead is due to a harmonious relationship with the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the electromagnetic force do anything besides bind
the electrons to the nucleus of the atom?
TINNY: Many things. It is the interaction of electromagnetic force with the wave aspect
of electrons which is responsible for virtually all structures and phenomena in our
environment. This includes the formation of molecules, all chemical reactions, all
biological processes, and all living organisms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the electromagnetic force, light energy, is a very
integral part of our existence.
TINNY: It is one of the unifying aspects of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what binds the protons and neutrons together in the
nucleus of the atom?
TINNY: That binding power is called the strong nuclear force. This force involves the
extremely powerful attraction of the subatomic particles which make up the nucleus of the
atom. The strong nuclear force has a very short range and so only comes into effect when
those particles get quite near to each other. If the particles are further away from each
other than the maximum effective distance of the attraction of the strong nuclear force
that same force then acts in the exact opposite manner, and repels the particles from each
other.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the strong nuclear force act in many other ways, as
does the electromagnetic force?
TINNY: The strong nuclear force only occurs when there are extremely high energies
available. So other than in the nucleus of atoms that force only comes into effect in places
such as the fusion processes in the centre of stars.
43
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So although the strong nuclear force does not have so
many different applications as the electromagnetic force, it is still rather vital to our
existence.
TINNY: There would be no atoms, and therefore, no life, without the strong nuclear
force, There would just be energy and free subatomic particles making up the universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be a pretty simple existence.
TINNY: It would have no purpose.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say that our existence has purpose?
TINNY: Of course.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said that the subatomic particles which make up the
atoms sometimes act as waves and sometimes as particles, but don't those particles have
mass? How can a wave form have mass?
TINNY: The subatomic particles are dynamic patterns of energy; those energy patterns
appear to us as mass. That was indicated by the equation E=mc2 we discussed earlier.
Mass and energy are two ways of perceiving one essential reality. Mass is a characteristic
of light energy slowed down.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So mass is another one of those things which appeared to
our senses one fairly clear way, but in our new understanding of reality mass turns out to
be something not nearly so obvious.
TINNY: The new reality is seldom obvious, although since there is a unity of all existence
the more you know about any one aspect of the whole the more you know about all other
aspects of the whole. As with anything which becomes familiar, it gets easier to
understand.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any basic lesson in this dual nature of subatomic
particles?
TINNY: The fact that in reality subatomic particles are both matter and energy although
those two forms seem to be opposites, and that subatomic particles also have a wave
aspect and a particle aspect, which seem to be opposites shows us the inherent unity of all
opposites. It is important to understand that unity to see beyond the apparent earthly
opposites.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: It is the path to enlightenment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what is enlightenment?
TINNY: Enlightenment is the realisation of the true nature of existence.
44
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the new step in the development of human
consciousness, which you say will occur when this new worldview spreads throughout
human society, will be enlightenment.
TINNY: It will be a great leap forward along the path to enlightenment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So those new beings will not be fully enlightened.
TINNY: Full enlightenment comes only by attaining perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is perfection in the future of the human race?
TINNY: We can come as close to perfection as we choose.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With all the wrongs which presently exist in the world it's
hard to believe human beings could ever be virtually perfect.
TINNY: In our present form we will never approach perfection; but our present form is
not the final form in the development of consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will be the final form in the development of
consciousness?
TINNY: Perfection is beyond form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean perfection has no form?
TINNY: I never implied that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have spoken several times about a basic fabric which
is the essence of the physical universe. Could this basic fabric be an aspect of perfection?
TINNY: Yes, it could.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then getting back to the true nature of material existence,
tell me more about subatomic particles.
TINNY: Sub-atomic particles are temporary manifestations in three dimensions of a
reality of higher dimensions. Sub-atomic particles don't even exist in any usual meaning
of the term. Sub-atomic particles occupy no definite space, nor do they exist at any certain
time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?
TINNY: As I have indicated earlier, in any given space or at any given time, subatomic
particles only have a probability of existing. Actually this is not even the probability of
sub-atomic particles existing as things, but rather they exist as the probability of
interconnections of dynamic energy patterns.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do those dynamic energy patterns have a name?
45
TINNY: They could be called quantum fields. The universe is a complex web of
interrelations between quantum fields which make up the unified whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain those quantum fields for me?
TINNY: Remembering that subatomic particles are manifestations of a higher reality,
they can be seen as entities of that hyper-dimensional reality showing a temporary threedimensional aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How many dimensions are there to this higher reality?
TINNY: At least four and probably more. In four dimensions subatomic particles can be
considered as part of space-time. In which case the distinction between the particles and
the surrounding space loses any clear meaning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Material objects are not distinct entities but are completely
and inseparably connected to all aspects of the surrounding environment.
TINNY: The separation of objects exists only in our perception. There is no separation in
the absolute sense.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The quantum field is the medium which links all those
seemingly separate aspects of reality.
TINNY: The quantum field can be thought of as the fundamental physical medium which
is present everywhere. Space-time is the whole of that medium and subatomic particles
merely apparent local concentrations of the quantum field. They are temporary pools of
energy which come and go.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We may regard matter as being constituted by the regions
of space-time in which the quantum field is temporarily intense.
TINNY: All physical things and phenomena are transient manifestations of that
underlying fundamental reality. The physical universe is a dynamic web of inseparable
energy patterns.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It all sounds quite illusory.
TINNY: That is the nature of ‘maya’, the illusion that the physical world which appears to
our senses is reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But isn't the physical world around us reality?
TINNY: It is, but only a temporary manifestation of the absolute reality. Because the
physical world is temporary and changing it is the relative aspect of absolute reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Real to us as material beings, illusion to fully enlightened
beings who see from beyond the material plane.
46
TINNY: We must act as if the physical world is real so we may progress to the point
where we exist beyond that illusion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where we shall see all in one and one in all.
TINNY: The unified theory of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: An excellent name for all we shall discuss or that will ever
be discussed.
TINNY: The unified theory of existence is a description of all that is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since no subatomic particles exist definitely in either
space or time, but only exist as probabilities, how is it we can observe them and measure
them?
TINNY: When we consider the probability of any characteristic of a subatomic particle
being manifested we must realise the concept has no meaning beyond the interaction of
the particle with the observer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we don't actually observe the particle, but instead
observe the interaction of the particle with our method of observation.
TINNY: As the observer sets up an experimental situation the observer is also
determining to some extent the properties which will be observed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that observational property relate to the unity, the
interconnected nature, of all existence?
TINNY: Yes, remember that the perception which says there is a separation between the
observer and the observed is due to our limitations as material beings living in a relative
universe. From the perspective of the absolute, the observer and the observed are one.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is not a limitation of the experimental techniques or
scientific instruments, but is instead a limitation inherent in our relative material reality
that the observer in some manner always affects that which is being observed.
TINNY: That fact provides reason to deny the ability of a scientist to be completely
objective; because the implicit relationship between scientist and object of
experimentation is subjective there can be no true objectivity. There can be no such thing
as a value free science.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If science cannot be truly value free, what is the right
system of values for scientists to follow?
TINNY: Right values always follow natural law. Science determines its own value system
as it further uncovers the true nature of our existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well, you haven't left much to believe in from the old
worldview.
47
TINNY: That's because the old worldview was not based on reality; it had no substance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As that which appeared in the old view dissipates into the
mists of illusion, I wonder what is left. I can think of one thing which seems undeniably
true; that is the law of cause and effect.
TINNY: Didn't many aspects of the old view seem undeniably true until we looked at
them from beyond the material plane?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: They did. I suppose cause and effect will disappear along
with all the rest.
TINNY: Right, cause and effect does also cease to exist as reality. None of the factors
which were part of what we call cause and effect exist as reality. As has been shown, the
true nature of existence does not consist of objects acting in accord with the laws and
forces of physics in a constant time flow from past to present to future. The very nature of
cause and effect means that during the constant flow of time some force acts on some
object and a given reaction occurs. Since none of the components of cause and effect
exist as reality, then in reality cause and effect does not exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But things do appear to act as if cause and effect is a real
phenomenon. Why is that?
TINNY: It is because of the probability factor. If we could see individual particles we
would see that they do not act in accord with any strict deterministic law, but act of their
essential nature as events of probability; those events of highest probability occurring
more often than the events of lower probability. As more and more subatomic particles
unite to form any physical object we perceive the action of that object based on the
combined highest probabilities of all the particles involved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Surely you can explain why there is no true cause and
effect more simply than that.
TINNY: I'll try again. In this example I'll be using arbitrary percentages to clarify the
point. If one particle could be observed it might be seen to appear in one small area ninety
per cent of the time, in some other larger area nine per cent of the time, and in a very
large but more remote area one per cent of the time. Each time you observed that particle
there would be a ninety per cent chance it was in one spot, but ten per cent of the time it
would be in various other places. Because of the unbelievably large number of particles it
takes to make up any object, if you were to observe the position of each of the particles
making up that object at any given time most would be in their one specific place of
highest probability. So to our senses the object would appear to really exist at a specific
time and place. Some of the particles which at other times made up the object would not
be present in the object, but most would be in their position of highest probability; thereby
creating the illusion of physical reality.
48
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say that if I am looking at a tree, that at
any given time only ninety per cent of the particles that make up the tree are present and
the other ten percent are somewhere else?
TINNY: No, as I already said, I just used those particular percentages to make the
example easier to talk about. Actually the probability of a large number of particles
existing far enough away as to not be part of the tree is so small as to be negligible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this understanding of cause and effect very important
then?
TINNY: In some ways it's extremely important. It is for such reasons that we can say we
do not live in a totally deterministic universe. Those same reasons are also the basis
behind the existence of free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Although I most certainly agree that all things exist as a
unity and that all things are interconnected, sometimes it is very hard to see that
connection.
TINNY: The better one knows the whole; the better one knows the parts. The more one
knows of the unified theory of existence, the more obvious the interconnection of all
things becomes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you try one more time to explain how cause and
effect does not really exist, but only appears to exist?
TINNY: I'll try a very different explanation. Many aspects of physical science,
particularly laws, are related to cause and effect. One of the very important and very well
known laws of physics is the second law of thermodynamics, sometimes referred to as
dissipation of energy. That law is responsible for phenomena such as the water in a hot
bath cooling and eventually reaching the same temperature as the surroundings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The hot water in the bath gives up its heat energy to the
air, the material of the bath tub, and to the body of the person in the bath.
TINNY: Right, that process is seen to occur in one direction. Any physical system with no
external energy source will move spontaneously in the direction of increasing disorder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean when the hot bath water gives up its heat
to the things surrounding it, it is moving towards disorder?
TINNY: That's what is meant, although it sounds a little strange when put in those terms.
I could describe the entropic effect of heat energy transfer, but it is easier to understand
an example of physical objects.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's hear it.
TINNY: Consider you are in a closed room; you have a bottle full of very potent perfume,
and you open the bottle. The molecules of perfume are very active, and as soon as the
49
bottle is opened some of the perfume molecules will bounce against each other and
against the inside walls of the bottle until millions and billions of them would have
dispersed all around the room. All of the perfume molecules, when enclosed in the bottle,
would be considered an ordered system because all the molecules are arranged in one
place. That is how all the heat energy was when it was contained in the hot water in the
bath; it was restricted to one area of the room. As soon as the bottle is opened the perfume
molecules will begin to dissipate all around the room, mixing with the various molecules
in the air and becoming more and more disordered. That is the process of entropy. It was
considered to be an irreversible process. Molecules contained in a bottle of perfume
always escaped and filled the room, but the molecules of perfume once dissipated through
the air in a room never went back into the bottle of perfume, Hot water in a bath always
cools, it never heats up; unless of course you use more energy to reheat the water. Water
never heats up on its own. It has always been assumed that not only did the perfume
molecules not re-enter the bottle, or the bath water heat up of its own accord, but also that
such events could never happen. We believed that to be the case because our senses told
us, every time we had seen one of those situations, the perfume or the water always acted
the same way. We always saw, no matter how many times we looked, the dissipation of
energy occur. That effect was believed to be due to cause and effect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know what's coming. It turns out that those processes are
reversible; all the perfume molecules could end up back in the bottle, and the bath water
could heat up of its own accord.
TINNY: It's always the same answer, isn't it? Yes, both those processes could reverse, but
they seldom do. Probability once again is the deciding factor. If one were to open a bottle
of perfume in each of a billion different rooms every minute for a billion years you would
likely never see all the perfume molecules re-enter even one bottle, so low is the
probability of that event occurring; and the same is true for bath tubs of water heating up
spontaneously. The reason we would be so unlikely to see the process reverse is because
of the almost unimaginably large number of molecular actions involved in those
processes. It is very likely a few molecular interactions would act in the opposite
direction, from disorder to order, but they would be unnoticeable among the incredibly
huge numbers of molecules acting in the manner of highest probability, from order to
disorder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Like the example earlier of the particles which make up a
tree. Those occupying the highest probability time and space make up an apparently solid,
unchanging tree; but unnoticed among the multitudes were the few particles acting in
accord with the much lower probabilities and existing unnoticed in other time and other
space. Some among the multitudes of perfume molecules would re-enter the bottle, and
some among the multitudes of bath water molecules would warm rather than cool, those
events going unnoticed.
50
TINNY: Exactly. In all cases things and events are not definite in time, space, or even
order of occurrence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So there is no true cause and effect, because laws don't
always work, they just usually work. There are always some things or events which act
other than in accord with the seemingly immutable forces of the physical universe.
TINNY: Could we bring the discussion back to simpler ideas for a while? As we
approach those complex areas of quantum uncertainty I become much less sure of how
well I understand the true nature of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have been pushing against the present limits of human
knowledge. Don't worry if you found it difficult.
TINNY: I don't mind; I always desire that my knowledge should surpass all boundaries. I
seek the ultimate knowledge, the fullness of perfect and absolute knowledge. I don't
expect the path to be easy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is ecstasy along that path.
TINNY: I know, I have tasted the nectar.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there anything you would like to talk about while we
take a rest from such esoteric topics?
TINNY: Can I ask anything? We have much more to cover about quantum/relativistic
reality. Can we just leave that topic, talk about other things, and return to it later?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once knowledge is organised and stored within
consciousness it remains eternally; we will find our way back when the time is right.
TINNY: You told me when we began, that knowledge is the answer to the world's
problems, that it can even put an end to the threat of nuclear destruction. How can
knowledge change the world?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Knowledge determines our perception of reality; our
perception of reality determines our thoughts, our beliefs, and our behaviour.
TINNY: So if we incorrectly perceive reality then our thoughts, our beliefs, and our
behaviour will be wrong; but if we correctly perceive reality then our thoughts, our
beliefs, and our behaviour will be in accord with the natural order. We would then live in
harmony with all existence. Could it really be that easy?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is all it would take to solve the many problems
facing the world. Remember, the universe is a marvelous organism; the natural order is
the preferred way, the easiest way, and the only way which allows continued survival.
TINNY: So because our perception of reality was wrong we acted in a wrong manner; but
we thought we were right because our actions were in accord with our wrong knowledge.
51
We thought we were following the natural order, that we could do so happily and survive;
but we were wrong. We were fighting unknowingly against the true natural order and had
no chance to be happy, or to survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To hold those wrong beliefs and to act in that wrong
manner left no other possible outcome for the human race but unhappiness and eventual
extinction.
TINNY: How sad. Did it have to be that way?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It probably had to be that way for some period during the
development of the human race, but it didn't have to be that way for so long.
TINNY: We could have understood the true nature of existence earlier in our history
couldn't we?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We did, but a very powerful influence kept the human
race from acting in accord with the natural order which was manifest in the great truths
that had been available to us.
TINNY: What was that powerful influence which kept the human race from accepting the
beautiful future so freely offered?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Evil.
TINNY: Both good and evil are very hard concepts to understand.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we discuss more of the unified theory of existence
those concepts will become obvious.
TINNY: I have often thought about good and evil. Everyone seems to have different ideas
about what is good and what is evil. Is there a definite answer which clarifies the true
nature of good and evil?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is, and soon you will know that answer without me
telling you.
TINNY: Then I'll wait. I also have a question about truth. Since as material beings we
can't know perfect, absolute truth, how can we know good and evil or anything else in
other than a relative way?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Our knowledge must be limited as long as we are material
beings.
TINNY: So if we cannot have perfect knowledge as material beings we cannot perfectly
know good and evil. If we don't perfectly know good and evil we will never be able to
become perfectly good.
52
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: While it is a fact we cannot fully know perfect truth as
material beings, we do have the potential to approach perfect truth. As we approach
perfect truth we approach the perfect knowledge of good and evil.
TINNY: What then is the path to perfect knowledge?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To know truth more perfectly.
TINNY: There are some who say they are able to commune directly with the absolute.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Possibly they do.
TINNY: What of their claims to have received the knowledge of perfect truth from that
contact?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is no material being beyond the limits of all
material beings. Contact with the absolute is possible for all.
TINNY: I am ready to continue on the path to perfect knowledge. May we begin again
discussing quantum/relativistic reality?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we were talking about the metaphysical
ramifications of light you explained some of the special effects which occur at the
velocity of light.
TINNY: That was special relativity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any other kind of relativity?
TINNY: There is also general relativity which concerns the nature of gravity. There is a
relationship between the concept of space-time and gravity. According to general
relativity, gravity causes space-time to be curved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The basic fabric of the universe, space-time, is curved. It
doesn't seem curved, but then little of this new reality is as things seem.
TINNY: The greater the intensity of the gravitational field the greater the curvature of
space-time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since the physical universe consists of space-time, does
gravity affect the curvature of the whole universe?
TINNY: It does, the physical universe is curved. There are mathematical formulas which
determine what that curvature might be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the curvature of the universe like? If we knew
how the universe was curved we could determine the form of the physical universe.
TINNY: The formulas which determine the curvature of the physical universe give two
different answers. Those two answers are opposites.
53
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the two conflicting forms the formulas say the
physical universe may take?
TINNY: Remembering that space-time is a four-dimensional concept you can see how
difficult it is to attempt a description of higher dimensional form in words and concepts
limited to three dimensions. I will describe the form of the universe as if it were in three
dimensions; this will give some idea of the two different possibilities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is accepted that what you describe as three-dimensional
form is in reality of higher dimensional form, whatever that may mean.
TINNY: One result shows the curvature to be such that the form of the physical universe
would be a sphere. In that case the universe would be considered closed. The other result
shows the curvature to be such that the form of the physical universe would be saddle
shaped. In that case the universe would be considered open.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would it mean if the universe were open or closed?
TINNY: Since space-time is curved, in a closed universe if you were to travel in what
appeared to be a straight line you would eventually return to the place where the journey
began. That same journey in an open universe would result in the place where the journey
began becoming ever more distant.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't it odd that the mathematical formulas show two
different possible forms as the shape of the universe? Which do you think is more likely?
TINNY: I think the two formulas reflect different aspects of the one true form. The most
likely form of the physical universe is that of a torus, actually a hyper dimensional torus.
In three dimensions the torus can be visualised as a doughnut shape. The physical
universe would then have the form of a squashed sphere with a hole through the centre. In
that particular case the hole would be infinitely small.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by an infinitely small hole?
TINNY: A hole whose diameter becomes zero. It would be a point called a singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You mentioned a singularity earlier when you described
the beginning of the universe. It was the point of origin where light energy was
manifested and became matter, to expand, becoming the totality of the physical universe
we now know.
TINNY: That was the same singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears to astronomers that the universe is a sphere,
constantly expanding.
TINNY: That's how it appears alright. There is little doubt that the universe is expanding.
All parts of the observable universe are moving away from all other parts. If we look in
54
any direction with telescopes or other measuring instruments we find the limits of the
physical universe being about the same distance from us.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How far away are those limits?
TINNY: The distance is so far it must be given in terms of light years. One light year
being the distance traveled at the velocity of light in one year. The velocity of light is one
hundred and eighty six thousand miles per second, or about three hundred thousand
kilometers per second.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One light year is a very long way. How many of those
light years span the distance to the limits of the physical universe?
TINNY: About fifteen billion, that is fifteen thousand million light years.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is seen at the limits of the physical universe?
TINNY: It must be recognised that a light year is not just a measure of distance but also
of time. What we see at any distance is the way the objects we are viewing looked when
the light which carried their image to us left the objects, not how the objects look now.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we can look into the past.
TINNY: We can only see the past; the present cannot be seen. When astronomers view
the physical universe fifteen billion light years away, they are looking fifteen billion years
into the past. They see the universe as it was fifteen billion years ago.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why can't we see further than fifteen billion light years?
TINNY: Remember the story about how the physical universe developed. The early
universe was first light, then subatomic particles, then hydrogen and helium atoms, and
then the first generation stars. There was a time before those first stars developed when
the material of the physical universe was so hot and so dense that it was opaque, it
couldn't be seen through. Even if we saw back in time beyond those first generation stars,
we would reach a point where our measuring instruments could probe no further.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we can't quite see to the beginning of the universe.
TINNY: Almost to the beginning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said the limits of the universe which can be observed
are seen as they were fifteen billion years ago. What would it be like there now?
TINNY: Probably very much like it is in our part of the universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If there was someone out there, fifteen billion light years
from here, and they were to observe our area of the universe, what would they see?
TINNY: They would see the limits of the physical universe.
55
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Two places, separated by a distance of fifteen billion light
years, were both the beginning of the physical universe.
TINNY: Fifteen billion years ago the universe was much smaller, a few billion years
before that, at the very beginning, all the matter of the physical universe was together at
the singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if an observer fifteen billion light years from here
were not to look towards us, but in the opposite direction? What would they see?
TINNY: They would see the limits of the physical universe about fifteen billion light
years distant.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is also hard to understand. If we begin from this
planet the limits of the physical universe are a certain distance away; but at the point of
that limit, the limits are still further away. Are there no real limits? Is there no end to the
physical existence?
TINNY: That idea of limits comes from three-dimensional concepts. There is no end to
the physical universe from a three-dimensional perspective. The true limits of physical
existence are in higher dimensions, not in three-dimensional space. As one travels in
three-dimensional space one would never reach the end of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have several times mentioned higher dimensions.
Since the three-dimensional universe is somewhat illusory and is not the absolute
existence, is four- dimensional space-time the higher dimension of an absolute nature or
is there a higher dimension than that?
TINNY: There are many higher dimensions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't think I should ask how many.
TINNY: Such a question may have no meaning, just as many questions which derive from
a material existence do not have meaning from an absolute perspective. Any answer to
such a question must be answered by a paradox.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say the universe is expanding and has been
expanding for more than fifteen billion years. Will that expansion continue forever?
TINNY: Scientists have not yet answered that question since it is believed the total mass
of the universe, the total amount of matter, is the critical factor in determining whether or
not the universe will expand forever. If the total mass is below some critical point there
will not be sufficient gravitational force to stop the expansion of the universe, in which
case the universe would continue to expand forever. If the total mass is above that critical
point it will be sufficient to slow and eventually stop the expansion of the universe, which
would then contract back again into a singularity.
56
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The total mass of the universe is not known. Is that why
scientists do not know the answer to whether or not the universe will expand forever?
TINNY: True, the total mass of the universe is not known, but that is not where the
answer to the question really lies.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you know whether or not the universe will continue to
expand forever?
TINNY: The answer lies in the higher-dimensional shape of the universe. It is the nature
of the universal form that all matter which came from the light at the initial singularity
shall return to light at the terminal singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the universe does expand, slow, stop, and contract.
TINNY: The physical universe never comes to a stop. If the universe was thought of as a
sphere expanding from a point in all directions it would look much like a balloon. It
would expand, reach the limits of its expansion, stop, and contract back to a beginning
point. If that was the form of the physical universe the question of whether or not the
universe would expand forever would be determined by its total mass. As the universe is
in a form which could best be described as a hyper dimensional torus, the total amount of
mass becomes meaningless to the question of expansion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the expansion does not reach some limit, stop, and
contract back to a point, how can you say all matter originates in an initial singularity and
returns to the terminal singularity? Are there two different singularities?
TINNY: No, this is just one singularity, which is both the beginning and the end of the
physical universe. The universe stops expanding but its motion does not come to a stop.
The physical universe is not a sphere, but that part of the universe within the range of our
perceptual limits appears as a sphere. That sphere, described by the limits of our
perception, may be thought of as a bubble traveling through the body of the torus, the
doughnut shaped form of all physical existence. The infinitely small hole in the centre of
this doughnut shaped form is the singularity from which emanates the energy which
becomes the matter of the physical universe. The matter which forms our known physical
universe expands from that initial singularity and moves through the body of the torus.
That movement continues until halfway through the body of the torus expansion ceases,
although motion through the body continues, and contraction begins as the matter
approaches the singularity from the other side of the torus. All matter in the physical
universe then contracts, eventually becoming energy and disappearing from threedimensional existence into the terminal singularity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where does all the matter go as it becomes energy and
disappears into the terminal singularity?
57
TINNY: Said from the three dimensional perspective, that matter emerges from the initial
singularity on the other side of the torus. It is a never ending cycle of creation and
annihilation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it that the physical universe takes the form of a
torus?
TINNY: The torus is the only form which has, as its nature, ceaseless motion. It is the
characteristics of the torus which unite the curvature of relativity and quantum
uncertainty. The quantum/relativistic reality is based on the form of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This is why then that instead of the parts determining the
properties and behaviour of the whole, as in the old view of reality, it is the essential
nature of the whole which determines the properties and behaviour of the parts.
TINNY: The essential nature of the whole not only determines the properties and
behaviour of the material objects which make up the physical universe, but it also
determines the qualities of consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is consciousness also an integral part of the physical
universe?
TINNY: If there were no consciousness there would be no physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
TINNY: The development of perfected consciousness is the very reason for the existence
of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You had said that time and space were, in effect, artifacts
of the existence of matter. Is consciousness also an artifact of the existence of matter?
TINNY: It would be more true to say that time, space, and matter are an aspect of
consciousness. It is through a material stage that new consciousness comes into existence,
inextricably linked in a deterministic relationship with matter. As the material existence
becomes more complex, consciousness manifests an increasing degree of free-will until
able to separate from the physical plane and continue the path to perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does knowledge fit into that process?
TINNY: Knowledge is the means by which that transformation takes place. Absolute
truth is the goal; ignorance must be overcome before liberation can be attained.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that help answer your question as to how knowledge
can put an end to the many social problems presently facing the human race, and can also
put an end to the threat of nuclear destruction facing all life on the planet?
TINNY: It does. With the knowledge of the true nature of our existence comes an inner
transformation. The new consciousness will be one which will allow the return to a state
58
of dynamic balance, a harmony with the natural order of material existence. We will act
in accord with our true nature, which is one of peace and love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The human race does not appear to have as its true nature
peace and love; indeed, it almost appears the opposite. It seems human nature is one of
force and aggression.
TINNY: As we have seen over and over again, what appears to be seldom is. The present
dilemma facing the human race is the struggle between our essential goodness attempting
to emerge and fully manifest itself, and the strong bond to our past externally developed
predilection for evil through the power of force and aggression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The perennial struggle between good and evil.
TINNY: It is the only struggle. All conflict in the physical plane is but an aspect of that
one essential struggle.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which shall prevail, good or evil?
TINNY: Good, of course. That is the natural order of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If good shall prevail, why worry about any impending
evil? Why worry about the threat of a nuclear holocaust?
TINNY: The sum total of good and evil in the whole of physical existence must always be
weighted in favour of the good. There is no question that good will prevail. In any
individual instance, it is the local circumstances which determine whether good or evil
will prevail. The nature, though, of physical existence determines that good has a higher
probability of success than evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about free-will?
TINNY: At the level of consciousness manifested by human beings we must choose good
over evil. That is our obligation to the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And below the level of human consciousness?
TINNY: The probability that good shall prevail more often than evil is determined by the
external environmental circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The necessity to choose good over evil is a very heavy
responsibility for the human race.
TINNY: It is indeed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: While human beings have free-will and must choose good
over evil you also say goodness, the following of the path of peace and love, is the true
human nature. How can both be?
59
TINNY: All levels of material form must exist in harmony with their essential nature or
cease to exist as a form of material existence. It is the essential nature of beings at the
human level of consciousness to live a peaceful and loving existence. We must choose by
the exercise of free-will to follow our true nature or cease to survive as a species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there no alternative?
TINNY: None.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then where is the freedom of choice?
TINNY: If we choose good over evil then we shall survive as a species. If we choose to
allow evil to prevail over good we shall cease to survive as a species. It is not altogether a
nice choice; but we have no alternative but to make that choice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems obvious any who were faced with that choice
would do no other than choose the path of peace and love.
TINNY: It would seem so.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But the human race appears, if not to have chosen the
opposite path leading to the extinction of the species, to at least be undecided as to which
path to choose.
TINNY: To make no choice has the same result as choosing the path of evil - extinction
of the species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So although we have free-will, we are obliged to use that
free-will to choose the path of peace and love.
TINNY: That is the nature of conscious development at the human level. Consciousness
cannot progress any further unless a deliberate choice is made to follow the path of peace
and love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems a bit cold-hearted to say, in effect, choose to exist
in a peaceful and loving manner or die.
TINNY: There is never any alternative at any level of existence but to follow the natural
order or cease to survive. It is not cold-hearted that the human race must also exist in
harmony with all else.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean if the human race transgresses, even
slightly, from the path in harmony with the natural order, then the sentence is death?
TINNY: No, if that were the case the human race would no longer exist. The human race
has been given greater latitude to stray from the right path than any previous level of
material existence which has developed on this planet. There is a limit, though, that may
not be breached. The human race has reached and is pushing that limit.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The nuclear threat?
60
TINNY: First among many. Other areas of disharmony with the natural order are close
behind. If we do not soon choose as a society to turn from our present path it will just be a
matter of which evil we finally and terminally succumb to.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that depressing?
TINNY: But isn't it joyous to know that we have within our power the ability to choose a
future of peace and love, truth and beauty?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Indeed it is.
TINNY: If one dwells on the negative, one only strengthens the negative.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And, I suppose, that if one dwells on the positive, one
only strengthens the positive.
TINNY: That's right. It's also a lot more pleasant to dwell on the positive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that denying reality, which could certainly be
dangerous?
TINNY: It is most certainly possible to keep one's attention focused on the positive while
remaining objectively aware of the negative. It is the nature of positive and negative that
whichever receives the most attention will prevail.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's unfortunate.
TINNY: Not really, since it could be no other way.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean we could not have a material existence
where the positive shall prevail over the negative regardless of the degree of attention
each receives?
TINNY: That's the case.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean the essential nature of things could not be
other than it is on the physical plane of existence?
TINNY: That is the nature of physical existence, it can not be otherwise.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have said that the purpose of the physical universe is
to develop perfected consciousness. Is that why the physical plane of existence must be as
it is?
TINNY: There is no other way to achieve a perfected nature. Actually though, the
purpose of the physical universe is not only to develop perfect consciousness, but its
purpose is to allow the development of the perfect and absolute manifestation of all
positive aspects of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The physical universe is the cradle of perfected being.
61
TINNY: At least that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You had said the most basic law of physical existence was
that the matter of the universe shall organise into the most complex arrangement it can,
given the environmental circumstances.
TINNY: That is the one essential law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that process of material development usually referred
to as evolution?
TINNY: It is a misunderstanding of that process which has been called evolution;
therefore, evolution is an incorrect concept. The theory of evolution is based on some
wrong assumptions about the nature of the developmental process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those wrong assumptions contained within the
concept of evolution?
TINNY: When the theory of evolution was first developed it was during a time when the
old, incorrect view of the world was a major influence on the thinking in all sciences. In
the biological area those flawed beliefs influenced scientists who were observing the
developmental process of the physical universe and trying to understand that process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain the relationship between some of those
flawed perceptions and what has been called evolution?
TINNY: One very basic flaw was due to the old assumption that the universe consists of
objects separate from other things. In the theory of evolution it was believed that life
began with the first one-celled organisms, and that the billions of years of material
development before the first biological life was not an integral, continuous part of that
process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the unity of existence went unrealised.
TINNY: Another flaw in the concept of evolution lies at the core of the theory. That core
belief says the developmental process can be defined as the survival of the fittest. At a
time when the so called basic forces were such an important part of science, and change
both physical and social was thought to be the result of conflict, it was believed that the
environment acts upon the organism by imposing changes. Within the concept of
evolution is the tacit idea that more complex forms develop from simpler forms under the
pressure of their environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the environment does not force the organism to change
to be better able to survive in the given environmental conditions, why does the organism
change?
62
TINNY: Change is not externally controlled in the physical sense, but instead is internally
directed. New forms develop due to a pressure from their essential nature which can only
be manifested as the environment allows.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about the struggle to survive; the survival of the
fittest?
TINNY: Once again the true nature of the physical existence was perceived but
misunderstood. Survival of the fittest has been wrongly considered to mean the most
physically dominant. In the new view of reality survival of the fittest is more correctly
seen as having the most harmonious relationship with the natural order; that is the true
criterion of fitness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Success not through force and aggression, but through
harmonious relationship with the totality of existence.
TINNY: From the very beginning of physical existence the role of external force has been
decreasing in favour of inner harmony. Coercion has been fading in favour of
cooperation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about the need for competition in evolution?
TINNY: Competition definitely has a place within the development of material existence.
The nature of the competition in that universal progression is not an issue of the
dominance of one level of existence over another or of one individual over another, but is
the constant striving within the self for personal excellence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any other major flaws in evolutionary theory?
TINNY: Another flawed belief is that evolution has no direction, no purpose; that it is a
random process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Evolution is not random?
TINNY: Indeed not. The progressive development of material form is an expression of
the essential nature of physical existence. Actually, even without realising that matter has
an essential nature to express, it's hard to believe anyone could consider a process random
which has resulted in billions of years of development in one direction, from the simple to
the complex.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If change was truly random it would have at each
opportunity an equal chance of moving in either direction. The developmental process is
not random but is an expression of the natural order of existence which is manifested on
the material plane as movement from the simple to the complex. Are there any limits to
the ways physical form may be manifested?
TINNY: As stated earlier, the structure imposed by existence on the physical universe
determines the nature of the quantum/relativistic reality. The form of the physical
63
universe as a whole determines the limits of expression which may be manifested by its
parts.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean there are some physical forms which
cannot come into existence through the developmental process as it progresses from the
simple to the complex?
TINNY: The number of physical forms which cannot exist is many times larger than the
number of forms which can exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even looking at the different forms life has taken on this
planet the possibilities seem limitless.
TINNY: The limits provide wide variation at the level of biological existence. They are
inherent in the structure of matter. The limits can be seen much more easily in the early
development of the physical universe than they can when the development has become so
complex as biological form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do the limits of basic matter act in the early
development of the physical universe?
TINNY: Changes in material form do not make up an unbroken continuum but, instead,
are limited in number and scope by quantum factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What limits do quantum factors place on the expression of
physical form?
TINNY: At the level of subatomic particles those quantum factors place limitations on the
characteristics manifested by the particles. Those limitations show up as polarity of
charge, direction of spin, and others. Those limitations are expressed as quantum
numbers. Any characteristics expressed will always be specifically in accord with the
quantities indicated by those quantum numbers. Any quantity other than those expressed
by the relevant quantum numbers may not be manifested by any subatomic particle.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see the effect of quantum factors at the subatomic level
of material existence. Is there a similar set of restrictions due to quantum factors at the
atomic level?
TINNY: Yes, and those limitations are also easy to see. The word quantum refers to units
of some particular amount rather than being continuously variable. The number of protons
in the nucleus of an atom begins with one in the hydrogen atom, jumps to two in the
helium atom, three in the lithium atom, and so on up to about one hundred or more. There
can never be an atomic expression of form halfway between hydrogen and helium, with
some fractional number of protons greater than one and less than two. That limitation is
due to the quantum/relativistic reality which is an expression of the structure of the
physical universe.
64
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have shown me the effect of limitations due to
quantum factors at the level of subatomic particles and at the atomic level. Do those
limitations also exist at the molecular level?
TINNY: Those limitations exist at all levels. The quantum factors at each level express
themselves both at that level and all higher levels. The quantum factors which affect light,
or more generally electromagnetic radiation, determine which subatomic particles may
take material form. The quantum factors which affect both electromagnetic radiation and
sub- atomic particles determine which atoms may take material form. The quantum
factors which affect electromagnetic radiation, subatomic particles, and atoms determine
which molecules may take material form. The quantum factors which affect
electromagnetic radiation, subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules determine which
forms of biological life may be expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the limits to material form at all levels of physical
existence are determined by the essential nature of the physical universe. All forms at all
levels of material existence are determined by a complexity of interacting quantum factors
from their own level and all previous levels.
TINNY: That is how it is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you explain it, the developmental process of physical
progression sounds very different from the concepts of evolutionary theory,
TINNY: As always, difficulties occur when an attempt is made to describe the nature of
existence in terms of how things appear rather than as they truly are.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you call the progressive developmental
process which permeates the physical universe?
TINNY: I call it envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's very similar to the word evolution. How do you
define that new word 'envolution' which describes the developmental process?
TINNY: Envolution is the natural unfolding of the material existence in a series of
successive small steps from a simple deterministic beginning to a perfect transcendental
culmination.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That definition includes virtually all properties and
behaviour in the physical universe.
TINNY: Envolution is a description of the one basic law. Included in the concept of
envolution is a further assumption; that the process is cyclic. After the simple
deterministic beginning comes perfect transcendental existence. After perfect
transcendental existence comes a simple deterministic beginning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One becoming the many, and many becoming the one.
65
TINNY: The eternal cycle.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me see if I understand the concept of envolution. As
the physical universe begins it has a purpose, which is the creation of conscious existence,
perfected in every aspect. The physical universe has an essential structure which
determines the quantum/relativistic reality. That reality expresses the true nature of
material existence. The physical universe begins as simple material forms acting in a
largely determined manner in accord with their true nature. As simple matter develops
into more complex organisations of matter, it begins to manifest a greater range of
characteristics. The material stages of development progress through subatomic particles,
atoms, and molecules to become biological organisms. The specific forms which can be
manifested in each of those physical levels of existence is limited by the quantum factors
of its own level and all preceding levels. That developmental process continues until the
state of perfected transcendental existence is achieved. From that perfect transcendental
existence emanates new physical existence of a simple deterministic nature.
TINNY: That is the process of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the natural relationship between the particular
levels of material development and the environment?
TINNY: It is to be an harmonious, complementary relationship. As the environment
changes, further expressions of physical form are given the opportunity to manifest within
the limitations of quantum factors. As the physical forms change, their effect on the
environment results in changes in the environment. As the environment then changes that
once again allows new physical forms to manifest, which further alters the environment in
continually complementary cycles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you say was the most pervasive basic
difference between the concepts of evolution and envolution?
TINNY: The theory of evolution is based on change through force by the external
environment, while envolution is based on change in accord with an essential inner
nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That difference has important implications to the human
race, doesn't it?
TINNY: As material existence becomes more complex the implications of that basic
difference becomes more critical. To the human race that difference is a matter of life and
death.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can only hope you succeed.
TINNY: What do you mean, you hope I succeed?
66
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Never forget it is through you that the survival of the
human race shall come. You are to be the channel through which the true nature of
existence is offered to humanity.
TINNY: I'm just a child.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you here other than you are you could not have been
chosen. How do you feel about the responsibility you hold?
TINNY: I accept all things as they are.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give some examples of the envolutionary
process at different levels of material existence?
TINNY: I'll explain the process at two levels, the molecular and the biological. The
essentials of the process are the same at both lower and higher levels of material
development. These examples would be considered as representative, not exact.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll be interested to hear envolution explained in relation to
molecular development.
TINNY: Before there was molecular development, material existence manifested at its
most complex was in the form of various atomic structures; hydrogen, helium, and all the
other elements created by the fusion process in the first generation stars. After those
different atoms were formed they first existed as separate entities. As those atoms acted in
accord with their essential nature they altered the environment in such a way which
allowed a new level of material existence to be manifested. That new level of material
existence was expressed by the various atomic forms being able to join with other types
of atomic forms. The atoms, no longer limited to existence as separate entities, created
atomic multiples, referred to as molecules. As does all material existence, molecules
progressed along a path of development from the simple to the complex.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the most simple molecular form?
TINNY: The simplest of the molecules are those made up of metal atoms joining only
with others of their own kind. Molecules of this type can be called monatomic. All atoms
consist of protons in the nucleus and electrons surrounding that nucleus. In the case of
those most simple molecules the metallic bond between atoms leaves the electrons free to
travel through the material structure of the monatomic molecule. All basic metals are
formed from monatomic molecular bonds. It is the property of freedom that type of bond
gives electrons which allows metals to conduct electric current. Even though all simple
molecules of that type are made up of only one type of atom, it is here we can easily see
how the increasing complexity of material form allows expression of an increasing
number of qualities and characteristics. Atoms bonded in those simple monatomic
molecules show properties which do not exist in single atoms. New characteristics emerge
such as the aforementioned conductivity, and malleability, the quality of being able to be
shaped.
67
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which molecular form comes next?
TINNY: The next more complex molecular form is the type where one kind of atom
unites with another kind of atom. Salts are an example of that simple type of compound
molecule. A common salt is the molecule made up of one atom of sodium (Na) and one
atom of chlorine (Cl), the chemical formula being NaCl, sodium chloride. In that type of
molecule the atoms are held together by electrical attraction. That type of molecular
bonding is called ionic. In ionic bonds the electrons do not travel freely but are confined
to a local area where the attraction is distributed between a number of atoms in such a
way that no common electron is firmly linked to only one other atom. The simple
compound molecules of that type include not only salts but also many acids and bases.
Because those molecules do not have individual binding between their atoms they often
tend to be soluble, which means they will easily dissolve.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what is the next more complex molecular form?
TINNY: The next most complex molecular form has a type of bond that does not depend
on electrical attraction, but on sharing. That type of bond is called covalent and involves
the combining of atoms sharing several electrons. In that molecular form electrons are
linked always to the specific atoms which make up each molecule. Many molecules of
that type consist of atoms of hydrogen and carbon in various covalent relationships.
Those covalent compounds of hydrogen and carbon are called hydrocarbons. Because the
covalent bonded molecule has a rather permanent bond between the atoms of the
molecule, they exhibit a certain permanence. For this reason many hydrocarbons are not
soluble, they do not dissolve in water. Hydrocarbons take such forms as oils, petrol,
cooking gas, plus the most simple early hydrocarbons such as methane (CH4), a gas in the
primeval atmosphere.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem there would be no more ways which
individual atoms could be bound together but those three.
TINNY: That's true, there are no more ways which individual atoms could be bound
together; but there are more complex forms of molecules.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can that be?
TINNY: The next stage of molecular complexity could be called compounds of
compounds. Molecules of that type involving hydrocarbons are often called organic
molecules.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Now that the molecules are not just combinations of
individual atoms, but combinations of groupings of different atoms, there would have
been a great increase in the number of possible molecules which could form.
TINNY: At that stage of molecular development there were hundreds of thousands of
different organic molecules possible. Those increasingly complex molecular forms
68
allowed new limits of material expression within the essential constraints of quantum
factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That increasingly complex progression of material form
allows greater and greater freedom of expression. All of those different molecular forms
were inherent within the potential of the subatomic particles in the very early universe,
but they couldn't be expressed until material existence had developed to a certain level of
complexity.
TINNY: A natural unfolding.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there still other types of molecular forms?
TINNY: A few more. A further development in molecular form was the chain molecule,
which may contain hundreds of thousands of identical links, each link being made up of a
number of atoms in combination. Molecules of that type are called polymers and express
the new characteristic of being able to grow in length by drawing energy from the
environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say those molecules can grow.
TINNY: In a very simple way polymer molecules take on that new characteristic similar
to the growth process of living organisms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're not saying polymers are alive, are you?
TINNY: I am not saying they are biological organisms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did you just evade my question?
TINNY: Life is a continuous process which is manifested at every level of material
development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's get back to the different molecular forms which have
been developing. What comes after the polymers, those chained molecules made of
identical links of combinations of atoms?
TINNY: The next development in the increasing complexity of molecular forms, which
went beyond the simple polymers, were chains of identical links with side chains coming
off those identical links.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the side chains off the identical links all the same?
TINNY: No, those side chains can be made up of many different combinations of atoms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do molecules of that type have any common name?
TINNY: Proteins are an example of that type of molecule.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Proteins are the basic building blocks of all biological
organisms.
69
TINNY: That's right. Protein molecules make up the structures of biological organisms,
and perform the functions of biological organisms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me some examples of what you mean
when you say those protein molecules make up the structures of, and perform the
functions of biological organisms?
TINNY: Structures made of protein molecules include hair, skin, scales, feathers, all the
organs of the body, and many others. The functions include respiration, digestion, and
reproduction among many others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do those protein molecules look like?
TINNY: The side chains provide the means to twist the main chain into a spiral, called a
helix. The side chains may also hook up to other links on the chain giving the molecules
an elaborate spatial structure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would that do?
TINNY: The particular spatial structure determines the properties and functions the
protein molecule may express. For example, the haemoglobin molecule in the blood
makes a container which picks up oxygen in the lungs and transports it to the various
parts of the body.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What new characteristics does the protein molecule add
beyond those of previous levels?
TINNY: The simple polymer molecules of the previous stage added the characteristic of
growth. The protein molecules add a simple form of animation, a mobility beyond the
random motion of previous stages.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there many different types of protein molecules?
TINNY: The number of possible types is yet unknown, but that number would be
immense. Human beings alone require some fifty thousand different proteins.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any level of molecular complexity beyond the
protein?
TINNY: The most complex level of molecular form is made up of two long chain
molecules with their side chains linking the main bodies of the two chains along their
length.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those molecules called?
TINNY: Deoxyribonucleic acid is an example of that most complex molecular form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's a very difficult name to say.
TINNY: That's probably why it's usually shortened to DNA.
70
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's better. What new characteristic does the DNA
molecule express?
TINNY: The DNA molecule is able to store information.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does it do that?
TINNY: The information is encoded by the particular sequence of the atomic structures
along the length of the double spiral of the molecular chain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What information does the DNA carry?
TINNY: It carries all the information needed to create and organise the proteins which
make up the bodies of living organisms out of the available raw materials, the necessary
basic atoms. It also carries all the information to organise and control the functions of the
living organism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be a lot of information.
TINNY: If it was all written out in words the information carried by the human DNA
molecule would fill several thousand books.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How big is one of those DNA molecules?
TINNY: Too small to see.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's amazing something so small could contain so much.
TINNY: Most amazing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After that explanation the process of envolution at the
molecular level is much more clear.
TINNY: As atoms group together in increasing numbers and in increasing complexity
their physical forms manifest an increasingly greater range of molecular characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The characteristics of the highest of those molecular
forms are very similar to the characteristics of biological organisms.
TINNY: I suppose now you'll want me to explain biological development according to the
concept of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I do, but first I feel there is something you want to ask me.
TINNY: There is. I have been wondering about it all the time we were discussing
molecular development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is it?
TINNY: You said I was the channel through which the true nature of existence is offered
to humanity.
71
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's right.
TINNY: It's hard for me to believe that there are no others who know these things we
have been talking about.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is true others know of these things, although the
numbers who do are small. Even among those who know these things, the knowledge is
most often imperfect.
TINNY: But my knowledge isn't perfect either.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: True, but it always happens this way.
TINNY: What always happens this way?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At times of great change in the progression of human
consciousness the one who is chosen as the channel always exists among many others
who know the new knowledge but imperfectly, and a few others who know almost all the
same new truths.
TINNY: What sets the one chosen as the channel of new knowledge apart from all
others?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps no more than the particular moment in time.
TINNY: So the chosen one is not special?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is the message that is special, not the messenger.
TINNY: How is the messenger chosen?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The messenger is chosen in accord with the natural order
of things. The development of consciousness envolves until at each level a limit is
reached whereby the energy of new knowledge stretches the boundaries of that level in
preparation to burst forth, reaching heights previously unknown. At that point, as the
energies of new knowledge infuse the population, one being becomes the focal point. The
impact of new knowledge culminates at that focal point, a whole rising beyond the sum of
the parts.
TINNY: So the messenger becomes the vessel which first contains the whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And opens the gateway to a level of existence previously
unattainable.
TINNY: Do all other beings then follow the messenger along that path?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All who follow the chosen one go nowhere.
TINNY: The chosen ones have always been followed.
72
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is for that reason the promise of the message has never
been fulfilled.
TINNY: Who then should be followed?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No one should be followed. It is the message that must be
followed, not the messenger.
TINNY: What should the chosen one do?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Follow the path opened by the message.
TINNY: No more than that?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No more than that.
TINNY: So I'm not special?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Only for yourself, for no other reason.
TINNY: Good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have those answers satisfied you?
TINNY: They have. I'm ready now to explain biological development according to the
concept of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where will you begin?
TINNY: I'll begin with the earliest forms of animal life, although there are great
similarities to plant life. Plant life goes through a very similar series of progressive steps
from simple one-celled organisms to very complex plants of a higher order, the flowering
plants. Since it is the animal line of development which progresses to the human level,
that line of development will best serve to indicate the essential aspects of the
envolutionary process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said once that plants might have developed before
animals. Does that mean that animals came from plants?
TINNY: No, but that question is similar to another much asked question, ''Did human
beings come from the apes?'' The answer to that question is ''no''. The truth is that apes
and human beings share a common ancestor. It would be equally incorrect to say that
animal life came from plant life, although plants and animals also share a common
ancestor.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the common ancestor of both plant and animal
life?
TINNY: The complex molecules must be seen as the ancestors of both plant and animal
life.
73
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That gives a very different meaning to the word ancestor
doesn't it?
TINNY: Yes, but not quite so different as other earlier ancestors we discussed such as
stars, atoms, and light.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any proof that the various forms of animal life are
related to human beings?
TINNY: Very strong evidence exists. The evidence I find most compelling are the
comparisons which have been made between the genes of humans and various animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say genes what are you actually referring to?
TINNY: Genes are the messages held by the DNA molecules in the cell's nucleus; these
being the instructions which tell how the living organism is to form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is found when animal DNA is compared with
human DNA?
TINNY: You must remember that the total message on the DNA molecule is very long,
containing many million different atoms in some special order. That being the case, if the
message is the same in two different forms of life it would be virtually impossible for
those identical message segments to be due to chance. Anyway, what we find is that large
segments of the DNA molecule are identical in all forms of animal life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And are animal DNA molecules also similar to human
DNA molecules?
TINNY: Yes, the closer the relationship the more and longer are the identical segments
on the DNA molecule.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which of all the animals shares the greatest amount of
identical DNA segments with human beings?
TINNY: The chimpanzee.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does the DNA of other animals compare with human
DNA?
TINNY: The DNA of dogs is further removed than apes, ducks further than dogs, snakes
further than ducks, frogs further than snakes, snails further than frogs, and amoebas
further than snails.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is what would be expected if the developmental
process from the simple one-celled organisms to the so very complex human being was
truly the way the envolutionary progression occurred.
TINNY: It is, isn't it.
74
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me some idea how much of the DNA
molecule is identical between a chimpanzee and a human being?
TINNY: Almost all. The differences in message segments on the DNA molecules
between human and chimpanzee are only a few per cent.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So chimpanzees are very close relatives.
TINNY: Compared to all other animals they certainly are.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't it bother you at all to realise how closely you are
related to the various apes?
TINNY: Not at all. I'm very proud of the relationship I have with all other living things.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even plants?
TINNY: Certainly. I once hugged a tree and felt great love for it as another living being
that shares the planet with me. Just because plants are very distant relatives doesn't lessen
their importance. When things are right in the world we will live in harmony together. We
owe our very lives to plants. It was the plants which made the earth a place where human
beings could come into existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me once again what the essential difference is
between plant life and animal life.
TINNY: I will give you three main differences, but then I want to discuss the question
further.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's fine. I always want you to fully express yourself.
Never let my questions limit you.
TINNY: The three main differences would be that plants breathe carbon dioxide (CO2),
and animals breathe oxygen; plants take their energy directly from the environment, and
animals take their energy indirectly by eating other organisms which have stored energy;
and plants either have virtually no mobility or their mobility is without direction, such as
floating in water or air, while animals possess direct or voluntary motion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are very big differences.
TINNY: They are, but I don't feel those differences make plants and animals separate
forms of life. All biological existence should be seen as a varied but united family.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That united family of life is seldom seen.
TINNY: That's what I was saying earlier about the impact of the old worldview which
saw all things as separate from each other, while the reality is that all existence is one
unified whole.
75
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is it you are saying about the relationship of plants
and animals?
TINNY: As the complex molecules moved from physical existence to biological
existence both plant and animal organisms came into being. Plants and animals,
manifesting many similar characteristics of life early in their pattern of development, took
different paths as they both aspired to the one goal that is sought by all material existence;
that goal being the perfected manifestation of all positive characteristics. That same
branching of the developing life forms has occurred many times since then. It was that
earliest branching of life between plants and animals which now shows the greatest
difference of expression, but that is only because that particular branching was the earliest
division of developing biological life. It does not make the difference between plants and
animals of special significance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You mentioned that plants and animals manifest many
similar characteristics; what are some of those?
TINNY: If I give a very brief overview of plant development you will see some of those
similar characteristics. The earliest plants were one-celled organisms which then
progressed to become organisms consisting of many almost identical cells. Each of those
cells possessed a DNA molecule which determined the physical structure of that
particular plant. The multi-celled plants became organisms with differentiated cells
performing varied functions and creating structures such as stems and leaves. This cell
differentiation became more specialised as different plant organs developed; among those
were the reproductive organs which produced new embryo plants. Plants then developed
circulatory systems to make sure that the new specialised organs received sufficient
nourishment. Another development was the segmented cellular formations which allowed
plants to grow to great heights. This, by the way, could be seen as cells forming in chains
like the chains of molecules in polymers. Plants next became seed bearing which allowed
a greater spread and mixing of their genetic material; and finally a very sophisticated form
of sexual reproduction developed in the most modern representative of the plant kingdom,
flowering plants.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This DNA you say plants possess, is it also similar to
human DNA?
TINNY: The structure, the atoms, and molecular groups which make up plant DNA are
identical to the DNA of humans and all animals. The messages carried by plant DNA are
quite different though.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do comparisons between plant DNA and human DNA
show we are related?
TINNY: There is no doubt. Not only is the basic DNA structure identical, but there are
enough identical message segments to leave no doubt that plants are our distant relatives.
76
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see why you say plant life and animal life are just two
different expressions of the one fundamental type, biological life, The similarities are
much greater, and of a more basic nature, than the differences.
TINNY: Just as it is easy to feel love toward the more developed forms of animal life,
such as cats, horses, and dolphins who are so beautiful, it is easy to feel love toward the
more developed forms of plant life, like trees and flowers who are also very beautiful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think now would be a good time to begin telling me in
some detail the process of animal envolution.
TINNY: The first level of animal life is the one-celled organism. Amoeba and protozoa
are examples of one-celled animal life. Those one-celled organisms are all capable of
purposeful movement and digestion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all one-celled animal life forms equal in their
development?
TINNY: No, the progressive process of envolution continued during and long after the
period in which all biological life on the planet was unicellular. The range of one-celled
organisms goes from the simplest which is little more than a cell body filled with
undifferentiated protoplasm containing a nucleus, to one-celled organisms so
sophisticated in their make-up that the cell-body contains rudimentary organs which
become fully expressed only much later in the developmental process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did those quite complex one-celled organisms develop
later than the simple one-celled animal life forms?
TINNY: That's correct. Those one-celled organisms, which show rudimentary organs,
envolved much later than the first one-celled organisms which had a very simple
structural make-up.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So each level of physical existence does not just exist to
allow higher forms to develop, but also keeps progressing itself.
TINNY: That's what I was saying about plant life. Not only was the earliest plant life
necessary to allow all animal life to develop, but it also continued progressing within the
limits of plant nature. The one-celled animal organisms were necessary to allow all higher
animal forms to develop, but also continued progressing within the limits of one-celled
animal nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Every once in a while something you say helps my
understanding of the whole to fall into place. What you have just said about each level
providing a platform for higher life forms to take off from, and at the same time going
through further progressive development according to its own nature, really clarifies for
me the totality of the process called envolution.
77
TINNY: Every bit of matter in the universe, regardless of its particular level of
development, has as its most essential nature the responsibility of striving to achieve
perfection in every aspect. We see that attempt to achieve perfection as the progressive
development of matter from the simple to the complex, constantly expressing a greater
range of characteristics. When one looks only at any given segment of that process the
final goal cannot easily be seen, but from an observation of the process of envolution as a
whole, purpose and final goal are obvious.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What came after the one-celled animal organisms?
TINNY: Next came multi-celled organisms made up of large numbers of almost identical
cells. There was a little bit of cell differentiation, but not much. Sea sponges are a
common form of that multicellular level of animal life. They have no specialised organs
or tissues. Their whole structure, inside and out, is almost identical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There seems to be a similarity between atoms and cells.
First either single atoms or single cells existed. At the next higher level of development
large numbers of single identical atoms formed monatomic bonds, uniting together in a
new molecular form, and large numbers of single identical cells formed bonds uniting
together into a new multicellular organism.
TINNY: It won't be the last similarity you see between molecular development and
biological development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those repeated patterns of development are not what
would be expected if all material development occurred by chance.
TINNY: Considering the complexities behind those repeated patterns of development, the
probability of those processes being random is just about zero.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And that's why you say there is a purpose and a direction
to the process of envolution.
TINNY: I say there is a purpose and direction to life because I have experienced a
oneness with all existence, but knowing about such things as the repeated patterns of
material development gives strong objective support to my inner experience.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you need to have your inner experience verified by
objective external information?
TINNY: At my level of conscious development I still do. It aids me to know the truth
when I can see the same reality when looking within or without.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have said there is no essential difference between
that which is inside and that which is outside because all is one. All is linked to and part
of the unified existence.
78
TINNY: That's exactly why I find it such powerful evidence when the internal and
external view show the same truth. At the present human level of conscious development
our perceptions are so imperfect that we may misperceive what we see either internally or
externally. If our senses were perfect we could know perfect truth whether we looked
within or without, for we would see only the one essential reality. Since we have limits at
this point in our development the best way to know truth is when the inner, subjective
view and outer, objective view coincide.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see. What followed the multi-celled animal forms?
TINNY: The next stage of animal life developed a single specialised organ, the stomach.
The multicellular organism formed itself around a hollow chamber, within which cells
specialised in the digestion of food.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What type of animal form occurs within that stage?
TINNY: The sea anemone is a good example. Jellyfish are another example. In the case
of jellyfish they also use the same hollow chamber to propel themselves.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What animal forms develop after those single organ life
forms?
TINNY: It is a logical progression; first one-celled organisms, then multi-celled
organisms. Next single organ life forms, then multi-organed animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the next stage has a combination of organs?
TINNY: That's right. Within that next stage we find the development of virtually all
organs which higher animal forms possess.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What organs are those?
TINNY: The heart, liver, sex organs, and others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do all the different animals which make up that multiorganed stage of development possess all those organs?
TINNY: No, just as within the single celled stage, there was a great deal of development
within the multi-organed stage, from the very simple to the quite complex. The different
organs are manifested in varying degrees in the diverse animal life forms which make up
that stage of development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Name some animals which are at this multi-organed stage
of development.
TINNY: Snails, clams, starfish, squid, and the octopus are a few well known members of
that early multi-organed stage of development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What comes next?
79
TINNY: The next stage of development was an interesting one. At that stage organisms
became arranged in chainlike segments. The organs then occurred in some sort of order
unlike the previous stage where the organs occurred at varied positions within the body.
At that new level of development the organs occurred with the mouth, and some
specialised sense organs being located at the top, in the head. Next, in descending order,
come the heart, stomach and liver, with the sex organs located at the bottom end. That
ordered sequence of organs allows them to perform their functions more effectively.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are some examples of that segmented stage of
animal existence?
TINNY: A couple of common examples are earthworms and leeches.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again a new stage of development of animal life
seems familiar. Wasn't there a molecular form that was similar to those segmented
biological life forms?
TINNY: Going back once again to molecular development, first there were single atoms,
then groups of identical atoms, then groups of different atoms, then groups of grouped
atoms, then chains of groups of atoms. This could be related to animal life forms during
their progressive development as single cells, then groups of identical cells, then cells
specialising and forming a single organ, then groups of organs, then a chain of segments
containing organs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wasn't it in the next molecular stage of development when
side chains occurred off the segments of the main chain?
TINNY: It was.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the next stage of animal development, after the
segmented forms, have any characteristic at all similar to the side chains off the main
chain as in protein molecules?
TINNY: There is indeed a similarity. The next stage of animal development was the
arthropods. That name, arthropod, refers to their having segmented legs. Those legs grew
from the body segments. Legs of that type are segmented side chains, attached to a
segmented main body.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's an amazing similarity isn't it?
TINNY: Is it ever.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are some examples of animals with segmented body
parts and segmented legs?
TINNY: There are hundreds of thousands of different types. That stage of development
includes all insects, spiders, crabs, centipedes, millipedes, and many others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After all that development what comes next?
80
TINNY: The next major step in the developmental process was the central nervous
system, which extended along the animal's back and was encased in a protective bony
spine.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kinds of animals possess that new characteristic?
TINNY: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do all forms of life from fish to human beings have a
central nervous system?
TINNY: Every one of them. The central nervous system was the last of the major stages
of animal development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about all the differences which occur during the
development of animal life from fish to mammals?
TINNY: They would be better under stood as progressive changes within a stage rather
than as new stages. Although for the sake of consistency it is acceptable to refer to fish,
amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals as different stages of biological development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do the differences appear to be so much greater at
the higher stages of animal life than at the lower stages?
TINNY: At the lowest stages the range of change that may take place is very limited, so
what appears as very little change may have a great effect. At the highest levels the range
of change that may take place is almost unlimited, so what appears as a great change may
have a relatively small effect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The similarities between molecular development and
biological development at every level prior to that final one are obvious and powerful; but
what similarity exists between the highest level of molecular development, the DNA
molecule, and the central nervous system in the higher animals?
TINNY: I think you probably know the answer to that by now. The DNA molecule
provides a means by which to store information and pass it on to future generations. The
central nervous system fulfils an identical function; it allows information to be stored and
passed on to future generations.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The final link in the reasoning.
TINNY: From that connection comes all sorts of insights about consciousness and the
future of the process of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You see very clearly.
TINNY: All that I see seems obvious. How could I not see those truths?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Because of who you are you could not fail to see truth.
81
TINNY: I won't go into detail about the path of development from fish, to amphibians, to
reptiles, to birds, and then to mammals, since that progression is quite well known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is no need to. I have a much better understanding of
the process of envolution now you have explained the developmental sequence which
biological life underwent.
TINNY: Should I go on with further explanation of envolution now?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I am anxious to hear more, but first let me ask several
questions.
TINNY: O.K.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was development a slow gradual shift or a sudden leap
from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, and from reptiles to mammals?
TINNY: Development within any stage is a slow process through a series of small steps;
but the progressive development from one stage of life to the next takes place through a
sudden leap.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: For example, within the developmental stage of fish there
will only be slow progressive development; but between the fish and the amphibian,
development is quite sudden.
TINNY: The reason the developmental process works in that manner is because each time
any new stage of biological life is reached a rapid expansion of numbers and
diversification of types takes place. During that period all the possibilities which are
intrinsic to that particular stage of biological life are explored, those which could be
manifested, given the environmental circumstances, are expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As soon as a new stage of life comes into existence that
new form has within it certain possible characteristics which have never been expressed
before. Out of that range of possibilities the only ones which will ever actually be
expressed are those which can exist given the limits of the environment.
TINNY: After a new stage of life tries out all the different possibilities it settles down to
an increasingly successful and specialised relationship with the environment. The changes
which take place become smaller and less radical as stability is reached. At that point the
now stable stage of biological life becomes less able to accept new changes in its
environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happens then?
TINNY: Since there is purpose in the overall development of the physical universe an
increasing pressure arises to fulfill that purpose as the progressive development within
any particular stage slows down. It is that increasing pressure which eventually bursts
82
forth in a sudden quantum leap to a new and distinctive pattern of material organisation,
becoming a new stage of biological life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which, I suppose, then tries out all its new possibilities,
develops stable, successful new forms of life within which an increasing pressure
develops leading to another breakthrough to the next higher stage of material
development.
TINNY: There exist endless cycles of physical progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that physical progression still taking place or is the
human level of existence the end of that process?
TINNY: The process is still going on, but at the human level it is of a different nature.
Some time ago, perhaps about fifty thousand years, biological envolution changed its
basic character. Progression is no longer based on changes in the overall physical form,
but has become a process of changes in consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You mean changes within the human level of
development now occur as new stages of consciousness. Is that mental rather than
physical envolution?
TINNY: What I will be saying to you later is that mental and physical envolution are the
same process. The changes in consciousness are accompanied by physical change, but the
differences have little immediate effect on overall physical form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you say that envolution at the human level takes place
more in consciousness than in physical form, what is the mechanism by which that change
takes place? Are changes in consciousness genetically determined by the messages on
DNA molecules in the same way that changes in physical form were?
TINNY: The concept of genetic factors which determine the characteristics of any form
of life must be broadened. As long as development is mainly of physical form the genetic
influence is predominantly from the DNA molecule. When development becomes mainly
of consciousness the genetic influence is predominantly from social and cultural factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you proposing that social and cultural factors be
accepted as being genetic influences?
TINNY: Social and cultural factors are every bit as much a genetic influence as the DNA
molecule.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can they be? The DNA molecule is an internal
mechanism, but social and cultural influences are external?
TINNY: I could answer just by saying that in the correct understanding of reality there is
no difference between the internal and the external since all existence is a unified whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you'll give a better answer, won't you?
83
TINNY: I wouldn't call it a better answer, but I will describe the process a different way.
Human consciousness is a result of the particular complex organisation of physical
material which makes up the brain. It is the message in the human DNA molecule which
determines all the physical characteristics that make up the brain. The human brain has as
part of its function all the aspects of consciousness. The brain can perceive and store all
sorts of information. It can then use that information in an almost unlimited number of
ways. All of those qualities are determined by the messages on the human DNA molecule;
but all of those abilities, controlled by internal genetic factors, come to nothing by
themselves. To manifest human level consciousness it is necessary for the brain, by
means of the body, to interact with its external environment. It is the external influences,
particularly social and cultural factors, which predominantly determine the nature of any
individual human being's consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That all sounds quite reasonable, but why do you call
those social and cultural factors a genetic influence? They are the influences of the
interactions with the present environment, while the DNA molecule stores information
from past generations and uses that information to control the development of new
beings.
TINNY: What you just described as the genetic qualities of the DNA molecule are exactly
the qualities of social and cultural influences. The social and cultural aspects of human
existence are the way we store information from the past generations. It is those social
and cultural factors which utilise the wide range of information learned and stored from
past generations to influence the development of new beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose you'll go into that explanation in more detail
when we discuss at length the development of human consciousness.
TINNY: I will, but for now I'll go on with the explanation of the process of envolution.
Although I have been emphasising envolution at the higher levels of material existence it
is important to realise that envolution is a continuous process from the beginning of the
physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Everything of a material nature is part of that process of
envolution, isn't it?
TINNY: Absolutely all things in the physical universe are involved in that process. It is
not only material objects which are involved in that process. All things, even those which
are not clearly material, can be traced back along a direct line of development to the very
beginning of the physical universe; all the way back to that formative light, the initial
electromagnetic energy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is easy to see how you can say all forms of plant and
animal life can be traced in an unbroken line back to the beginning of the universe, you
explained that very well according to the theory of envolution; but since you say that
84
everything in the physical universe can be traced back to the beginning of the universe, it
is not so easy to understand how non-living things envolved. For example, would you say
the path of development of a chair could be traced back to the beginning of the physical
universe according to the theory of envolution?
TINNY: The envolution of a chair from the beginning of the universe can be seen just as
easily as the envolution of animal life. Basically the envolution of a chair goes back to the
beginning of the universe because the subatomic particles which make up the material of
any chair came into existence at the beginning of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So that is how you say all things can be traced back to the
beginning of physical existence.
TINNY: In the simple sense, yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain the process by which chairs envolved,
right from the beginning?
TINNY: The envolution of a chair is, up to a certain point, the same as the envolution of
all things. On our planet the potential of 'chairness' long existed as basic material, but
could only be manifested as a chair after human life came into existence. As with all
things which have envolved, it was necessary for certain environmental conditions to
come into existence for the characteristics of a chair to unfold.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What was the necessary environmental condition which
allowed the essential nature of a chair to progress from only existing in potential as raw
material, to physical expression as a chair?
TINNY: The environmental condition necessary for the chair to come into existence was
human life, with its particular bodily structure and a desire to sit. A very early step in the
envolution of the chair took place when primitive humans first sat on a rock or tree
stump. A next step may have been moving the rock or log to a more convenient place,
such as nearer the fire or into a cave. Next, perhaps, was the placing of an animal skin
over the rock to make it more comfortable, then putting several pieces of wood together
to form a stool; then adding a back, then adding arms; then adding cushioning and
ornamentation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So chairs existed as potential awaiting the right
environmental conditions which would allow their expression as a new physical form.
TINNY: It is critical to remember that just as biological life didn't begin with the first
one-celled organism, but began at the beginning of the physical universe, chairs didn't
begin with the first stone that a caveman sat on. Chairs in their essential nature also began
at the beginning of the universe. There is nothing in the physical existence, no material
thing and no idea, which has not envolved from the beginning of the universe. They all
envolved through the medium of subatomic particles organising into increasingly
complex arrangements.
85
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that ideas go through the same
envolutionary process as all material things?
TINNY: That's right, they do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But ideas aren't material things, are they?
TINNY: The different forms of physical existence from subatomic particles, to atoms, to
molecules, to biological life, to human beings all manifest some particular spectrum of
characteristics. At the level of material complexity attained by the human brain one of
those manifold characteristics is consciousness expressed in language. Ideas are the
expression of that conscious aspect of matter in language form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you say that ideas exist as potential from the
beginning of the universe, just as all other things, to be expressed when the right
environmental circumstances are met?
TINNY: The physical universe is an unceasingly dynamic process. At every moment,
whatever level of physical form has been achieved is involved in a dynamic interaction
with its total environment. All physical forms have an effect on the environment, while
the environment continually affects all physical forms. The different levels of material
existence are constantly changing the environment, while the environment is constantly
allowing changes in the material existence. The existence of certain physical forms is
required to allow certain environmental conditions to exist. Likewise, it requires the
existence of certain environmental conditions to allow certain physical forms to exist.
Before any particular physical form exists, more envolved environmental circumstances
exist only as potential; before any particular environmental circumstance exists, more
envolved physical forms exist only as potential. It is that progressive, reciprocal
relationship between the environment and physical form which allows all potential to be
expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is every possible idea waiting as potential to be expressed
when the right relationship of physical form and environmental circumstance is met?
TINNY: Exactly. Everything that comes to exist in the physical universe must undergo a
similar transition from potential to fully expressed form, expression being determined by
the interplay of already existing forms and environmental factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It has been said the dynamics of change come about
through the interplay of opposites arising from contradictions which are intrinsic to all
things. Is that what you mean?
TINNY: I can understand how such a belief could come to be held. That is a description
which would follow from a perception of change coming about by struggle. It is a very
similar view to that of evolution and suffers from the same flaws. Evolution viewed the
progressive development of all life as the survival of the fittest, believing it to be struggle
based on the most successful use of force and aggression. The new perception, that of
86
envolution, sees this progressive development as the natural unfolding of intrinsic
characteristics in a harmonious relationship with the environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would it be if I changed my last statement to reflect
that more correct view of the true nature of our existence? It could be said the dynamics
of change come about through the interplay of complementary aspects arising from a
basic harmony which is intrinsic to all things.
TINNY: That would be a much more accurate description of the process of change which
all things in the physical universe are constantly undergoing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the reality of our physical existence does not consist of
separate things struggling in never ending opposition to each other; but instead that reality
consists of the various aspects of one unified whole seeking to work in the most
harmonious relationship possible.
TINNY: As the material existence develops more fully, as its expression becomes a more
complex relationship of physical forms, any attempt to progress by struggle through force
is increasingly doomed to failure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any chance the human species may successfully
use struggle through force to express its fully realised potential?
TINNY: None at all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we would be foolish to try.
TINNY: It would be more than foolish; it would be insane to attempt to achieve the
fulfillment of human destiny by means of struggle through force.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So progress is not through the conflict of opposites. Is it
ever correct to see opposites in the physical existence?
TINNY: To answer that question I first have to explain why it is that we perceive
opposites as existing in the physical universe. In the physical universe all things exist on a
continuum. In that particular type of continuum the range stretches from one pole, along
the total realm of characteristics, to another pole. A continuum of that type is called
dichotomous, meaning it is divided into two sides. As one pole is viewed from the other,
or one side from the other, the differences between the characteristics expressed appear so
extreme as to be opposites. Even the two pole positions are not truly opposites since they
are actually two different points on one continuous line.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So there is a unity of all opposites.
TINNY: That's right. In fact, what is considered opposite is not fixed, but relative, since
the perception of what is opposite is determined by where on the continuous line one
stands as an observer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do opposites exist beyond the material plane?
87
TINNY: Since existence beyond the material plane consists only of the absolute and
nothing of the relative, there are no continuums at that level of existence; so therefore no
opposites. An observer at any position beyond the material plane will perceive only the
unified whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Actually then, opposites do not exist in either the physical
universe or beyond the material plane. It is only because of a misperception of the
physical universe, due to its relative nature, that opposites even appear to exist. It's
incredible how the new worldview can provide objective knowledge of existence never
before understood.
TINNY: All theories of phenomena, including the laws by which we perceive physical
forms to be affected, are creations of the human mind. The theory of envolution, which is
a particular vision of reality, is itself a creation of the human mind.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the conception of the process of envolution is a creation
of the human mind, can it be true?
TINNY: It is the most correct objective view of the true nature of reality the human mind
has yet created. The theory of envolution has existed as potential since the beginning of
the physical universe just like everything else. It required the physical structure of the
human brain to allow the theory of envolution to be expressed. It also required the social
and cultural structures of human history to allow its expression. It is the complementary
relationship of the physical structure of the human brain with the social and cultural
structures of human history that together form the environmental conditions which
determine the moment when the potential of the theory of envolution may first be
expressed in human consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that how you came to know of the theory of envolution?
TINNY: That's how. If all past ideas had not been thought, and if all past theories had not
been developed, it would not have been in my consciousness that the theory of envolution
was expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That further explains your nature as a channel allowing
the truth of the reality of existence to be expressed.
TINNY: Knowledge of the process of envolution is part of the process of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is a natural occurrence. On every planet where
consciousness develops to the level possessed by the human species there will exist a
being who acts as the channel for the knowledge of the process of envolution.
TINNY: Will all those beings understand the process of envolution in the same way?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you said yourself, it is a creation of the human mind.
So, of course, those beings on other planets having developed their consciousness in
88
different environmental circumstances with different social and cultural histories will
create different worldviews from their different perceptions of reality.
TINNY: Because the essential nature of existence is observed from different positions on
the continuum of the material plane, reality is perceived differently.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: From wherever one looks there are seen different aspects
of the unified whole. Each believes that aspect of the whole to be reality, but the unified
whole cannot be seen from the position of an observer within the physical universe.
TINNY: Even our perception of reality must be a balance between what appears to be and
what truly is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those two realities might be called the subjective and the
objective.
TINNY: When people live in harmony with all existence there is little difference between
the subjective and objective views of reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if people live in perfect harmony with all existence?
TINNY: As happens to all things which reach the perfected state, at that point all is one.
The subjective and objective view of reality will be identical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said our perception of reality must be a balance
between what appears to be, the subjective, and what truly is, the objective. Why should
we attempt a balance? Why not just seek the objective, since that is what truly is, and
ignore the subjective, since that is only what appears to be?
TINNY: Because of the limits on our ability to perceive reality at our present level of
conscious development, we cannot yet perfectly know the true nature of reality. If we rely
too heavily on the objective, which is beyond our perceptual grasp, we may very well
stray so far from the correct path that we could cease to exist as a species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what if we only concentrated on the subjective view
of reality?
TINNY: We could stray just as far and meet the same unhappy fate.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So harmony and balance between the subjective and
objective views of reality is necessary to ensure the survival of the human species.
TINNY: In all aspects of life the right path will invariably be a dynamic balance between
apparent opposites. What is always harmful is imbalance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is human society at present in a state of balance?
TINNY: The prevailing view of reality held by humanity at present is so out of balance
that it borders on insanity.
89
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that a bit of an overstatement?
TINNY: If anything it is an understatement. The present unbalanced view of reality has
brought the human species to the very brink of extinction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the imbalance on the subjective or objective side?
TINNY: I would like to now use slightly different terms than subjective or objective. The
subjective, in practice, might be better understood as being an intuitive or spiritual view
of reality; the objective might be better understood as being a rational or scientific view
of reality. In answer to your question using those terms; the present worldview which is
proving so insanely destructive is an overemphasis on the rational or scientific.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should we give up all human endeavour of a rational or
scientific nature?
TINNY: Not at all, it is necessary to strive through rational and scientific means for the
human race to reach its potential and to achieve its destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then, what should we do?
TINNY: Rather than giving up the rational and scientific we should seek to give greater
emphasis to the development of the intuitive and spiritual until the two are brought into
harmonious balance. Until the rational and scientific can be understood spiritually, and
the spiritual can be understood rationally and scientifically.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Has humanity always been unbalanced on the rational,
scientific side?
TINNY: No, through much of human history the imbalance has been due to an
overemphasis on the intuitive or spiritual view of reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why doesn't the generally accepted view of reality remain
in harmony?
TINNY: If human consciousness and perception of reality were allowed to develop
naturally they would remain in harmony. Unfortunately, the development of human
consciousness has not been allowed to take its natural course, but has been subject to
various forms of coercion and social pressure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would that be?
TINNY: The motives have ranged from well-intentioned to self-serving. For one reason
or another individuals and social institutions through the ages have taken it upon
themselves to determine what the correct worldview is, and have used whatever means
necessary to impose their view of reality on all who were under their power.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that always wrong to do?
TINNY: Always.
90
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might not the belief system imposed by the few on the
many be a worldview which is close to truth?
TINNY: It may be, but the good done by the more correct view of reality is never enough
to overcome the evil done by the use of force to impose that view of reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The view of reality you have been presenting is the most
correct up to this point in human development. It is so important that new worldview be
spread through all of society that if this knowledge is not widely disseminated the human
race may become extinct. Since the spread of this new worldview is so critically
important don't you ever feel you want to force everyone to accept it?
TINNY: I have to admit I sometimes feel so distressed when I see how much harm comes
from human ignorance that I have wanted to make everyone learn these truths; but I
would never force this knowledge upon anyone.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You would refuse to force this so necessary new
perception of reality on the world, just because you know it would be wrong to do so?
TINNY: I would never force this worldview upon people not just because it is wrong to
do so, but because it cannot successfully be done.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
TINNY: The use of force is so contradictory to the truths espoused by this new worldview
that if force could be successfully used to spread this knowledge it would be proof that
the truths contained in this new worldview were false.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you ever teach truth by the use of force?
TINNY: Some things can be taught by force, but only at high cost to the progression of
the human species. Other things just can't be taught by force.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem that the use of force and coercion as a
method of teaching anything would not be a very good idea.
TINNY: At our present level of conscious development any attempt to force ideas upon
society will meet with disastrous results. The higher the development of consciousness
the more harmful it is to use force to control ideas or behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean the use of force was less harmful in the
past?
TINNY: The less developed the level of consciousness, the less harmful and more
successful will be the use of force for control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this mean that thousands of years ago, when people
were more primitive, it was right to use force for control?
91
TINNY: I could never agree it is right to use force to control human beings. It constituted
a less serious violation of natural law when force was used in the far past than it does
today, although the use of force to control human behaviour has always been wrong. The
use of force against human beings is not in accord with the natural order; it is not right, it
has never been right, and it will never be right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So if it's natural to use force it's right; and if it's not
natural it's wrong?
TINNY: That's correct, at least from a relative point of view.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I hope what you say is true, that it is not natural for human
beings to use force on others; but I feel sure many people would disagree with you, at
least in some situations.
TINNY: I stand by my claim that the use of force at the human level is never natural, and
it is never right. The use of force only appears to be right due to the same errors in our
perception of reality which were responsible for all wrong beliefs contained in the old
worldview.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The use of force to teach truth cannot be successful, just
as force cannot be successfully used to further the envolution of the human race, is that
right?
TINNY: At the human level of consciousness the use of force must always work against
the success of any endeavour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The use of force seems to work sometimes, doesn't it?
TINNY: Force never does more than seem to work, the use of force cannot truly work.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If one has knowledge of a great truth, what is the most
that may be successfully done to offer that truth to humanity?
TINNY: Since the use of all force, even its subtle uses, is ruled out, this leaves only
positive influence. It is not always easy to be sure, when put into practice, where the
dividing line between the two is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If it is so difficult to know the right from the wrong means
of attaining human goals, how should one decide?
TINNY: It's only hard to tell where the dividing line between positive and negative means
is. While the dividing line may be difficult to determine, the two sides can be more easily
known. It is not nearly so hard, and is sometimes obvious, to know when the means used
to attain any goal are at some distance from that dividing line, either on the positive side
or negative side.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Getting back more directly to the process of envolution,
does the developmental process move along at a constant rate, or is it changing?
92
TINNY: The process of envolution is a constantly accelerating one. The natural unfolding
of physical form comes faster and faster as the higher developmental levels are reached.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Now that envolution is mainly of consciousness rather
than of physical form, will that affect the rate of progressive development?
TINNY: The progression of consciousness has gone on for as long as the progression of
physical form, but has always been so directly linked to the development of physical form
that the two were as one developmental process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the two no longer linked?
TINNY: They remain linked; but without becoming separate from physical form,
consciousness has reached a level of development where it may continue to progress
while the material aspect remains relatively unchanged, acting only as a necessary vessel
for consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It took perhaps eighteen billion years for the matter of the
physical universe to envolve sufficiently on this planet to allow consciousness to continue
its progressive development separate from, but still linked with, physical form. Can we
expect a similar period of time to pass during the now separate envolution of
consciousness?
TINNY: Since the process of envolution has been constantly accelerating from the
beginning of the physical universe to the present, it would seem the future development
of consciousness will be much quicker.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might not the envolution of consciousness, now separate
from the envolution of physical form, begin again at a slower rate?
TINNY: The further development of consciousness, through and beyond the human level,
is just the next step in a long line of steps. Since this is the first time consciousness will
be envolving more by free will, than in the past when progress was due more to external
causes, we may expect the rate of development to surpass any previous limits.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How fast could consciousness envolve now its
progression is not so limited by physical form?
TINNY: There are no limits?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you realise what you are saying when you say there are
no limits on how fast consciousness can now develop?
TINNY: I do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If there is no limit on how fast consciousness can develop,
then consciousness could reach the point where physical form is transcended at any
moment.
93
TINNY: It could.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that final break between consciousness and material
form likely to occur soon?
TINNY: Not as long as the present wrong system of beliefs about the nature of our
existence continues to prevail.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So breaking the bond between consciousness and material
form will require the knowledge of this new worldview?
TINNY: It will require this knowledge and much more.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where will that higher knowledge of truth come from?
TINNY: It will be a natural consequence of the new worldview being widely held by
humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think now would be a good time for you to tell me about
how consciousness has developed from the beginning of the physical universe.
TINNY: In describing the envolution of consciousness I'll outline the process starting at
human level consciousness, then work backwards to the beginning of the universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In describing the progressive development of other
aspects of the physical universe, such as life, you began at the beginning and worked
forward to the human level, why explain the development of consciousness in reverse
order?
TINNY: It is hard enough to see the relationship between the earliest physical forms and
human life. With a quality such as consciousness, which is not visible, the relationship
between the earliest manifestations of consciousness and human level consciousness may
not be obvious enough to be understood. So if I begin at the level of consciousness, the
human level, with which we are most familiar, the overall developmental process should
be easier to understand.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But perhaps still difficult to understand?
TINNY: Not only difficult to understand, but also hard to believe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: At the lower levels of physical form I will be describing as consciousness some
characteristics which have long been accepted as relating to factors other than
consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me a definition of consciousness?
TINNY: If I am to give a definition of consciousness which is to be meaningful at all
levels it must be in very simple terms, because the term consciousness has wider meaning
94
than just the human level of consciousness. Human level consciousness is a very complex
manifestation of that particular characteristic. At more simple levels of material
development the consciousness manifested is also more simple.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's fine, the definition must be one that includes all
levels of consciousness from the most simple to the most complex.
TINNY: An all inclusive definition of consciousness is, “the ability to perceive and react
appropriately to the environment”.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that simple definition include even human level
consciousness?
TINNY: On a very sophisticated level that is what human consciousness consists of, an
extremely complex manifestation of the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the
environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about memory, which doesn't seem to be either the
ability to perceive the environment or react appropriately to it?
TINNY: Memory is one of the mechanisms that enables consciousness to react
appropriately to the environment. At lower levels of consciousness different mechanisms
are used to enable appropriate reactions to the environment to occur.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those different mechanisms if not memory?
TINNY: Actually they may be considered memory at lower levels of development. They
are the various progressive steps on the way to the characteristic we know at the human
level as memory.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about the human qualities of emotion, are they just
part of the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the environment?
TINNY: Emotions remain as real and beautiful as ever, losing none of their importance
by being included in that simplified definition. At the human level emotions are
appropriate reactions to our perceptions of the environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The definition of consciousness you give is not to be seen
as limiting, but as a convenient way to describe inclusively the varied manifestations of
consciousness at all levels.
TINNY: It would not be correct to give a more complex definition because although it
might seem to explain more fully human level consciousness, it would become
meaningless at the simplest levels.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you define consciousness as the ability to perceive and
react appropriately to the environment, that is a description of the manifested
characteristics of consciousness, but says nothing about the physiological mechanisms of
consciousness.
95
TINNY: You are assuming that consciousness has physiological mechanisms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't it?
TINNY: Such a view is too narrow. Consciousness is one of the aspects of the essential
fabric of existence, just as material form is also.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure you'll get around to explaining that conception of
consciousness more fully.
TINNY: If we talk long enough I'm sure I will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we talk long enough you will tell me all truth.
TINNY: How long will that take?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It will take until the end of time.
TINNY: I won't live that long.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Yes you will.
TINNY: Will you also?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I already have.
TINNY: What do you mean?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Go ahead with your explanation of the envolution of
consciousness.
TINNY: Sometimes you don't answer very important questions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't I?
TINNY: All right. If we consider lower levels of biological life than the human level, we
would still probably not doubt that some consciousness exists. An animal such as a
chimpanzee has quite a high level of consciousness. They can learn and communicate.
Not nearly as well as we humans can, but quite well. Chimpanzees even express some
emotions in a way that is almost embarrassingly human.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why embarrassingly?
TINNY: Because we humans like to think of ourselves as special, separate from animal
characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A uniquely human quality.
TINNY: It is obvious that chimpanzees can perceive their environment quite well, and
react appropriately to that environment. For the same reasons we also know that dogs
have consciousness, that chickens have consciousness, and that fish have consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do we know they all possess consciousness?
96
TINNY: We know they do because we can observe them perceive their environment and
react appropriately. If you see a fish in the water near food, the fish will perceive that
food, swim to the food, and begin to eat. If you see a fish in the water and make a grab for
it, it will swim away. The fish perceives you and reacts accordingly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And is the same true of even lower levels of biological
life?
TINNY: It is. A mosquito has consciousness. If you see a mosquito flying around and
make a grab for it, it will take evasive maneuvers, so it perceives you and reacts
appropriately.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is quite amazing that a mosquito could be so effective at
evading a human being.
TINNY: Particularly when you think that a mosquito's head is so small it's hard to see,
then its brain must be so small as to be almost invisible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Although mosquitoes are tiny, there are many simpler
forms of animal life. What about their consciousness?
TINNY: Snails are an even more simple form of life and they have consciousness. If a
snail is poked it will retreat into its shell. It perceives being poked and reacts
appropriately. Even one-celled animal life, such as the amoeba, has consciousness. If you
were to place a drop of acid near an amoeba, the amoeba will perceive that acid and move
away from it. From observations of animal life we can see that all the many different
forms of animal life have consciousness because they are able to perceive and react
appropriately to their environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about plants, do they also have consciousness?
TINNY: It is not so easy to relate to the conscious abilities of plants because they are
further removed from us than even the simplest animals. We are not yet aware of all the
ways in which plant consciousness manifests itself.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To prove consciousness at any level we don't need to
know all the ways which consciousness shows itself, even one example is enough to
prove that consciousness exists.
TINNY: Plants at all levels are able to perceive light from the environment, and in many
different ways they react appropriately to the source of that light.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me a couple of examples of plant
consciousness?
TINNY: Some flowers turn through the day to keep facing the sun as its position in the
sky changes, and some flowers close up at night when the sun is not present, to reopen in
97
the morning when the sun is out again. Plants in a dark room will grow toward any source
of light.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That seems to be enough to establish plant consciousness.
At the different levels of animal and plant existence consciousness manifests itself in
many different ways, but all would be included in the definition of consciousness you
gave.
TINNY: What we see from those examples is that the ability to perceive and react
appropriately to the environment is becoming a more and more simple thing as we move
toward the lower levels of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Consciousness has reached a pretty simple level when
plants are considered. Isn't that about as simple as consciousness can get? Might we not
consider consciousness to begin at the plant level of material existence?
TINNY: Consciousness did not begin with the first animal life, nor did it begin with the
first plant life. Going back further than the early forms of plant life to the molecular level
we find consciousness present there also.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I always like to hear of examples.
TINNY: At the highest stage within the molecular level the DNA molecule shows the
attributes of consciousness. If one of the links of the DNA chain is broken, perhaps by
radiation, the DNA molecule will perceive that break and attempt to replace the break
with an identical combination of atoms as those which had been destroyed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say a DNA molecule can repair itself?
TINNY: It depends on how severe the damage is, but generally yes that is true. That's
why I say a DNA molecule has consciousness. It perceives and it reacts appropriately to
its environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I notice that as physical forms become less complex that
not only do the ways consciousness is expressed become more simple, but also the range
of conscious perception is reduced.
TINNY: Human beings can perceive their environment billions of light years away, while
a DNA molecule can't see much further than the links of its own chain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about the consciousness of the lower stages of
molecular development?
TINNY: All different stages of molecular development show the same characteristics of
consciousness as the DNA molecule. All molecules are able, to some degree, to perceive
that their structure has been disrupted and react appropriately by reorganising into their
original structure. Not only that, but they are able to identify various other molecules and
atoms in close proximity.
98
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does a molecule recognise other molecules or
atoms?
TINNY: It can perceive the unique concentrations and fluctuations of the energy fields
which make up each different molecule, atom, and subatomic particle.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do atoms and subatomic particles perceive the unique
concentrations and fluctuations of the energy fields also?
TINNY: They do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then why is their consciousness different from the
consciousness of the molecular level?
TINNY: While a molecule is able to perceive other molecules, atoms, and subatomic
particles it is not well equipped to perceive biological life forms. While an atom is able to
perceive other atoms and subatomic particles it is not very well equipped to perceive
biological life forms or molecules. And while a subatomic particle is able to perceive
other subatomic particles it is not very well equipped to perceive biological life forms,
molecules, or atoms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again we see the ability to perceive the environment
becoming more limited as physical form becomes more simple.
TINNY: Put the other way around, consciousness reaches higher levels as physical form
becomes more complex.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The definition of consciousness has two parts; the ability
to perceive the environment, and the ability to react appropriately to the environment. I
see how atoms and subatomic particles do actually perceive their environment, but how
do they respond appropriately?
TINNY: As atoms perceive the characteristics of other atoms in their vicinity they form
semi-permanent or permanent relationships with those with which they have an affinity,
and refuse to associate with those atoms with which their nature is antagonistic. Subatomic particles act the same way, but with other subatomic particles rather than with
atoms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all those levels of physical existence restricted from
perceiving and reacting appropriately with higher levels of physical form?
TINNY: It is important to remember that talking about different levels of existence is
only a convenience of human thinking and language. All those apparently different levels
are but manifestations of one essence, existing along one continuous path of progressive
development. Sub-atomic particles do, to a limited degree, perceive and react
appropriately with atoms. Atoms do, to a limited degree, perceive and react appropriately
with molecules. Molecules do, to a limited degree, perceive and react appropriately with
99
biological life forms. And biological life forms, the plants and animals, do to a limited
degree, perceive and react appropriately with human beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I assume, from what you have said, human beings
perceive and react appropriately with other human beings, biological life forms,
molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles.
TINNY: I certainly wouldn't say human beings always react appropriately with any of the
various levels of physical existence; we do, though, have the potential to react
appropriately with all aspects of our environment. It is the high degree of free-will we
possess, one of the characteristics of human consciousness, which is the reason we often
act inappropriately toward the various levels of physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I hope you'll say more about free-will later.
TINNY: I will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since all the other levels of physical existence do, to a
limited degree, perceive and react appropriately with the level higher than their own, can I
assume human beings do, to a limited degree, perceive and react appropriately with the
next higher level of existence?
TINNY: We do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is that next higher level after human existence?,
TINNY: It is always the higher levels of existence which each level perceives most
imperfectly. I can't tell you exactly what the next higher level of existence than the human
is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you tell me anything about the next higher level of
existence?
TINNY: Levels of existence higher than the human will have more free-will, will be able
to perceive the environment more completely, will be able to store and use more
knowledge, will be more peaceful and loving, will be less tightly bound to material form,
and will possess more fully expressed all positive human traits along with some new
qualities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You know quite a bit about the higher than human level of
existence.
TINNY: The next step in the progressive development of physical existence can be
predicted with some accuracy because we know quite a bit about the envolutionary
process covering the last eighteen billion years.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can we know the next higher level of existence better
than we presently do?
100
TINNY: Much better.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When people think of consciousness most animal life
forms are usually included, sometimes plants are included, but very seldom, if ever, are
molecules, atoms, or sub-atomic particles considered to possess consciousness.
TINNY: As we see over and over again with this new, more correct worldview, the true
nature of reality has seldom been realised. Things are as they are, not how they seem to
be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why didn't we realise the levels of physical existence
below the biological have consciousness?
TINNY: In the past we have not defined consciousness as an aspect of the early physical
processes because we needed to make the assumption that biological life was somehow
developmentally separate from the molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels of existence.
That assumption formed a basis for the belief that consciousness is an attribute of
biological life alone. The truth, though, was that there has been a continuous
envolutionary process by which consciousness developed from the beginning of the
physical universe, through a series of progressive small steps, leading to the human level
of consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even if that continuous progressive developmental
process was not realised, why couldn't people see consciousness manifested by the lower
physical levels of existence?
TINNY: The reason we didn't realise that consciousness existed at those lower levels of
physical existence was because the gap is so large. The difference between the
consciousness of a human being and the consciousness of a rock is so large that we
couldn't see across that gap.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that gap so large?
TINNY: We haven't always been able to bridge the gap between the consciousness of a
human being and the consciousness of an amoeba. The envolutionary distance between a
human being and an amoeba is less than the envolutionary distance between an amoeba
and a rock.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I must admit it is not easy to think of a rock as being
conscious.
TINNY: I know it isn't. That's because we know consciousness only from the intimate
knowledge of our own consciousness. The belief that the human expression of any
characteristic is so special that no other level of existence could possess any of it is not a
new flaw in human logic.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Human beings do sometimes seem to be overly
egocentric.
101
TINNY: That is one of the many negative characteristics we must give up to progress.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since it is hard to believe that a rock has consciousness, it
would be helpful if you would explain how the consciousness of a rock can be
understood.
TINNY: There are many ways in which the consciousness of a rock is expressed, but I
will give an example which would likely draw criticism. When the criticism is answered
it will better explain the nature of consciousness of lower physical forms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll try to argue against your example.
TINNY: A rock does perceive and react appropriately to its environment. For example, if
you were to kick a small rock it will move away from you. It must have perceived the
kick or it would not have moved. Given a certain amount of force and a certain direction,
that rock will go exactly where those forces tell it to go, therefore it reacts appropriately.
The most complex levels of physical existence, the higher biological life forms, have
envolved in such a way that they can perceive very complex stimuli from the
environment, and they have developed a very complex repertoire of appropriate reactions
to those stimuli. A rock at its very simple level of physical existence can only perceive a
few stimuli, and can only react in a few simple ways, but a rock does perceive stimuli and
it does react appropriately to them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think the most obvious argument to that explanation of
the expression of consciousness by a rock is to say that what you have described is merely
physics. It is only the forces of physics acting upon non-living matter. The rock didn't
know what the forces were, and it didn't know it was reacting to those forces. The rock
had no choice but to go flying away, however far, and in whatever direction the external
physical forces applied to it dictated.
TINNY: That is exactly the objection I would expect against the claim that a rock has
consciousness. It is a very important objection in that it points out some of the
misunderstandings of the nature of consciousness. I'll deal with the several different parts
of the objection separately. First, you say what the rock experienced was merely physics.
Physics is only one of the names we give to the way we see the material of the physical
universe acting in a lawful manner. All physical forms, at every level of development, act
in accord with this same essential nature. At the simplest level we describe those natural
actions and interactions as physics, when the actions and interactions of matter become a
bit more complex we call them chemistry, at the next higher level of complexity we call
that essential nature biology; but all those levels are expressions of the same basic
process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To perceive each of those realms of action and interaction
by different levels of physical form as a process separate from the others blinds us to the
truth that they are all aspects of the one process.
102
TINNY: Exactly right. It is not surprising that we have misunderstood reality for so long.
At each of the different envolutionary levels there is a quantum leap in the ability of
consciousness to manifest itself in the material universe. It was believed that the gap from
one level to the next meant a separation between one level and the next. Now we can
view those gaps between levels as large steps in a long sequence of steps of various sizes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about the relationship between the rock and the
external forces which determined the rock's actions?
TINNY: You say the rock didn't know it was reacting to those forces as if that has some
relevance as to whether or not a rock has consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't it?
TINNY: When we talk about the quality of knowing we are describing a characteristic of
consciousness at the human level. To know, in that case, refers to the realisation that we
are perceiving and the acknowledgment of that realisation in verbal thought concepts. To
know in that sense is an aspect of human level consciousness and does not exist at lower
levels of consciousness. So of course a rock doesn't know of the forces acting upon it in
the way a human being knows of the influences from the environment; but neither does a
chimpanzee, a dog, a duck, and so forth all the way down to the simplest levels of
physical existence. Each lower level of consciousness possesses less of the human quality
of knowing until at some point the transition has been so great that the concept of
knowing becomes meaningless. It is not knowing that is a prerequisite of consciousness,
but perceiving.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At all levels of physical existence the ability to perceive is
a necessary characteristic of consciousness. This is also true at the human level, but at that
level the ability to perceive includes the ability to know.
TINNY: The last part of your objection is that the rock had no choice but to act as the
external forces applied to it dictated.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's right, but I want to make sure you realise I'm only
arguing to bring out the points which might often stand in the way of understanding the
very difficult concepts you are explaining. I share your understanding of the true nature of
existence, and never doubt that your words are a valuable step towards truth.
TINNY: I thank you. As progressively lower levels of physical form interact with their
environment they are more determined and less free in their actions. That also is one of
the characteristics of the envolutionary process. Many characteristics, including free-will,
are more fully manifested as the physical forms develop into more complex organisations
of matter. The human level of development is the first point in that progressive
developmental process when the degree of free-will which could be manifested is greater
than the influence of deterministic factors.
103
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Just as a chimpanzee, a dog, a duck, and so forth all the
way down to the simplest levels of physical existence know less of the influences from
the environment, each lower level of physical form is less free to act of its own accord.
TINNY: All the way down through the levels of physical form to the subatomic particles
the expression of free-will is lessened until at that simplest level, the actions of subatomic
particles, which are the appropriate response to perceived stimuli, are virtually totally
determined by external environmental influences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That must be why you defined the process of envolution
as being ''from a simple deterministic beginning.''
TINNY: ''To a perfect transcendental culmination.''
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If in the beginning of material existence the simple
physical forms were virtually totally determined by external environmental influences,
does that mean as the expression of physical form becomes fully realised the most
complex physical forms will exercise virtually total free-will?
TINNY: That is how it is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see now how you can define consciousness as the ability
to perceive and react appropriately to the environment. Although at any given level the
expressed characteristics of consciousness may be more specifically defined than that,
there would seem to be no better definition which would encompass the expressed
characteristics of all levels of consciousness.
TINNY: In order to be able to understand the reality of existence as a unified whole it is
important to be able to perceive the developmental line of progression of each expressed
characteristic from the most simple to the most complex.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will consciousness develop far beyond the human level?
TINNY: All characteristics which are involved in the process of developmental
progression have the potential to be perfectly manifested.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Consciousness can then progress beyond the human level
of expression to become perfectly manifested.
TINNY: Consciousness is becoming more perfect; it will reach the perfect and absolute.
That is the purpose of physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How far must consciousness progress beyond the human
level to become perfect?
TINNY: The difference between the consciousness of an amoeba and human
consciousness may be much less than the difference between human consciousness and
the perfect, absolute manifestation of consciousness.
104
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What physical form will be associated with perfected
consciousness?
TINNY: When consciousness is perfectly manifested there will be no necessary physical
form. Absolute consciousness, perfectly manifested, is the essence of existence beyond
the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And relative consciousness,
manifested, is the essence of existence on the material plane.
less
than
perfectly
TINNY: The two are one; simultaneously one and different.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say the two are one. How would you describe the
relationship between absolute existence beyond the material plane and relative existence
bound to physical form?
TINNY: As parent and child.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that symbolically or do you really mean
that to be the true nature of existence?
TINNY: We are as the created offspring of perfected being. The absolute is as the parent
and we are as the created child.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: By using the term ‘created child’ do you mean physically
begotten, as in sexual reproduction?
TINNY: Not at all. I am referring to the social nature of the relationship, but others may
find it more comfortable to use other terms to describe this relationship.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we have been discussing consciousness I have been
wondering whether at the human level it is the brain which is the seat of consciousness?
TINNY: There is no part of the human body in which consciousness does not reside. The
brain is where the highest level of consciousness is manifested in the human body. Rather
than being the seat of consciousness the brain is the seat of mind.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't mind just another name for consciousness?
TINNY: Mind is the name given to particular aspects of consciousness such as the
processing of information, thinking, learning, and memory.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't those be the characteristics of consciousness at
the human level?
TINNY: Mind is a necessary and inevitable consequence of a certain level of material
complexity which begins long before organisms develop a brain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Didn't you just say the brain is the seat of mind?
105
TINNY: I did, but as with all characteristics which are expressed at any level of material
existence, their developmental line can be traced back to the beginning of the physical
universe. The potential exists and envolves before the characteristic is actually expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does mind have any special quality at the human level of
expression?
TINNY: The special quality of mind at the human level is the ability to use language.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is language different from what takes place in the
mind of animals?
TINNY: Language is the use of physical, verbal, and mental symbols to represent all
objects and concepts which exist. Language allows a much greater ability to process,
store, and retrieve information. It also allows communication with one's own mind and
communication with other minds.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't animals use language?
TINNY: Everything progresses from the simple to the complex, language is no exception.
Animals possess the last of the developmental steps of mind before language fully
acquires the use of abstract symbols. It is that new step which separates the human level
from the animal level.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have said that physical form and consciousness are
two complementary aspects of the essential nature of existence. How does mind fit into
that essential structure of existence?
TINNY: Just as physical form and consciousness are two complementary aspects of the
essential nature of existence, biological life and mind are two complementary aspects of
the progressive developmental dynamics of the relationship between physical form and
consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As physical form and consciousness develop into more
complex relationships certain major new characteristics appear, biological life and mind
being two of those.
TINNY: The process of envolution will always result in both biological life and mind if
the environmental circumstances allow that level of complexity of physical form and
consciousness to be expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Just as biological life is a natural outcome of the
progressive development of matter in the physical universe, so is mind.
TINNY: Considering the purpose, structure, function, and the self-organizing dynamics
of the entire cosmos, it would not be inappropriate to consider the physical universe itself
as mind.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does mind work?
106
TINNY: At the human level mind is most associated with symbolic thought. It is the
particular configuration of dynamic energy patterns occurring in the material structures of
the brain which constitute what we perceive as thought.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you be a bit more specific?
TINNY: The brain is made up of different groupings of cell structures; the individual
cells are called neurons. Each neuron, or nerve cell, consists of molecules in certain
relationships with other molecules. Every molecule is made up of a number of different
atoms in certain relationships with other atoms. Finally, every atom is made up of various
subatomic particles in certain relationships with other subatomic particles. All subatomic
particles are fluctuations and concentrations in the field of underlying fundamental
reality. It is the changes in the energy, organisation, and relationships of those subatomic
particles which allow the expression of the characteristic of thought.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we think any thought there are changes going on in
our brain at the level of subatomic particles.
TINNY: The subatomic particles which make up the brain change their energy levels,
their form, and their relationship with other subatomic particles as thought occurs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do the changes at the subatomic level show up at the
level of the neurons, the nerve cells?
TINNY: At the cellular level thought consists of patterns of neural firings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain how the neurons work in the brain.
TINNY: Neurons are nerve cells, and each one has many connections to other nerve cells
in the brain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those connections called and how many other
nerve cells is each neuron connected to?
TINNY: The fine connections which branch off of each neuron are called dendrites. Each
nerve cell would be connected with up to hundreds or thousands of other nerve cells.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And how many individual nerve cells would there be in
each brain?
TINNY: Many billions of neurons make up the structures of each brain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the neural firings in the brain during thought could be
observed, what would they look like?
TINNY: A thought occurs when a series of neurons fire in patterned succession.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does it mean for a neuron to fire?
107
TINNY: Each neuron, being made up of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles, has
what is called an electrochemical potential. The neuron acts somewhat like a chemical
battery. When certain chemical changes take place in one part of the nerve cell it sets in
motion reactions of signals at other parts of the neuron; the dendrites then transmit those
signals to surrounding connected neurons. The neurons which receive those signals may
themselves be sufficiently stimulated to fire and pass the signal along to other nerve cells,
which may or may not be connected to the original neuron that fired.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does a neuron always fire if it receives a signal from
another nerve cell which it is connected to?
TINNY: It is not just receiving any signal which causes a neuron to fire, the signal must
be an input of sufficient strength. In that case being a strong enough signal means
receiving enough certain chemicals transmitted from one neuron to another. Those
chemical transmissions occur through changes in the relationships of subatomic particles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That succession of neural firings is not necessarily a long
string of individual neurons firing, is it?
TINNY: No, it isn't. What would usually occur is a pattern of neural firings forming a
dynamic chain with side chains. Some of those paths become the main branches of neural
firings as others fail to reach threshold and fade out. That process might appear as a
flashing spider web of light activity traveling through the neuronal structure of the brain,
leaving a wake of changes in the organisation of subatomic particles along its path.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That description helps me visualise the process of thought
as it transpires in the brain. Would all the different functions of mind in the physical
structure of the brain appear in a similar manner?
TINNY: All different functions, such as thinking, learning, feeling, processing
information, memory, and controlling the workings of the body take place through the
same general process. It is the particular configuration of dynamic energy patterns, and in
which part of the brain they occur, that determines which functions of mind are fulfilled.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You explained quite well how thought occurs, but where
does it come from?
TINNY: Some questions are very difficult to answer. I have been describing mind as
made up of the interrelated parts of the brain which express the mental characteristics.
That description is true, but all of those so-called parts are aspects of one unified whole.
Mind is not to be truly known by any of its parts. Mind is a holistic system which links the
physical structures of the brain with the essential consciousness of existence. That
essential consciousness has a transcendental quality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does it mean to have a transcendental quality?
108
TINNY: Transcendental refers to those aspects of existence beyond the material plane.
They have no physical form, no separate parts, and are not bound by the limits of space or
time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying about
mind.
TINNY: The nature of mind is to exist both within the physical universe and outside all
material limits. Mind links the two realms of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which are not really separate anyway.
TINNY: Physical existence and existence beyond the material plane only appear separate
to those whose perception is limited by being observers within the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you speak of mind being the link between physical
form and the non-material existence, I remember you described light as also being a link
between physical existence and that which transcends the material plane. Is there any
connection between light and mind?
TINNY: There is indeed. All of the changes in the organisation of subatomic particles
which make up the brain are mediated by light.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does light change the organisation of subatomic
particles in the brain?
TINNY: I think I said something earlier about all information exchanged in the physical
universe being done through the medium of light; actually that occurs by an exchange of
photons, the little quantum packages of electromagnetic energy of which light consists.
To be really correct I should say all information is carried by light except in the nucleus
of the atom; but that is only a technical point, not too important in this discussion of mind.
Anyway it is light, by means of photon exchanges, which lets the different levels of
organisation in the brain know what the subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, the
whole body, and the entire external environment are doing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems you are saying that mind and light are very
closely related.
TINNY: They are inseparable; they are one.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Explain how light is the means by which all information is
transmitted. I'd like to hear that explanation in relation to some everyday situation. How
about explaining how light transmits all the information when one person is talking to
another person?
TINNY: I can do that. I can even relate that situation to the workings of the mind by
giving an example where one person is teaching some new fact to another person as they
speak.
109
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm looking forward to hearing that.
TINNY: Let's pretend I'm going to teach you the definition of a word you don't know. I
don't know yet what word I'm going to teach you so now that I have made the decision to
teach you a word I have to decide which word to teach you. l search through my memory
looking for a word which is not particularly well known so you are unlikely to know it
already. Lots of words suddenly go running through my thoughts, some of them I
consider too easy, some of them I'm not quite sure what they mean myself. All of a
sudden l think of one that seems likely to fit the needs of the situation. I choose the word
'miasma', which is the name of a poisonous mist. Now that I have chosen a word, my
mind sends a message along the nerves from the speech area of my brain telling my vocal
cords to say the word 'miasma' and to give its definition. My vocal cords vibrate at the
particular frequencies which cause sound waves to be generated in my throat and be
transmitted through the air to your ears. The sound waves which reach your ears cause
your eardrums to vibrate at the same frequencies as those sound waves. The vibrations of
the eardrum create movement of small bones in the middle ear which transmit the
vibrations from the eardrum to the cochlea in the inner ear. The cochlea changes the
mechanical vibrations of sound to electrochemical signals which are transmitted along the
auditory nerve from the cochlea to the brain. Your brain receives those signals and
interprets them as the same words I spoke; the word 'miasma', and its definition. That new
word and its definition are now stored in your memory. If all goes well in the future and
you ever come across that word, 'miasma', you will know what it means.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That explains very well the process by which information
gets from one mind to another; but what is light's part in this transmission of information?
TINNY: At every stage in that process it is light which is responsible for the transmission
of information by an exchange of photons between subatomic particles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could he go through your example step by step so I could
see more clearly how light does this?
TINNY: That's fine, where did you want me to start?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's start with the decision as to which word you were
going to teach me.
TINNY: The memory of all words I know is stored in my brain as neural patterns, certain
relationships of subatomic particles. The search process to find a word appropriate to
teach you occurs by other subatomic particles, those which make up the neurons involved
in the search, examining the neural patterns making up those certain configurations of
subatomic particles stored in memory. One subatomic particle, or any groups of particles,
can know the position and energy states of other single or grouped subatomic particles by
an exchange of photons. The unique quality of mind in human consciousness is the
alteration of dynamic energy configurations by which mind can store information
110
symbolically and later read those stored dynamic energy configurations to retrieve the
information from memory. Both the initial storage and the retrieval of stored information
occur by exchanges of photons; which in one case tells the subatomic particles how to
order themselves to create any stored symbol, and in the case of retrieval allows the mind
to read the stored symbolic information.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we go on I need to ask another, related question.
What made you decide to teach me a word as an example, why not something else?
TINNY: I could say that in my mind I went through a similar search process to choose
between a number of alternatives, just as I chose between a number of words before
deciding on the word 'miasma'. While true, I don't think that would get at the essence of
your question, it would just go back a step further in the chain of mental events. The
difficulty is not only in the answer, but also in the question. Because we are material
beings existing as part of the physical universe we see all things, including mental events,
as occurring in a time sequence. Since mental events are linked with and have an aspect
existing beyond the material plane, they exist with a holistic nature not bound by the
limits of time. All consciousness is manifested not only in the physical universe, but also
beyond the material plane. Mind also has an aspect manifested beyond the material plane.
Mind in that unbound state does not include sequential mental processes; all mental
processes, which appear as sequential in the physical plane of existence, are
simultaneously manifested in a non-sequential manner beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If I understand you correctly you are saying that mind not
only exists in the brain, but also exists in a state where there is no physical form and time
does not flow. In that condition mind is holistic in nature, with what we as physical
beings might consider past mental events and future mental events all present at once.
TINNY: You understand me correctly. It is for that reason I find it difficult to tell you
why I decided to do any certain thing or to think any certain thought because such a
question implies a sequence of events, but the mental events of mind exist only as a
unified present moment beyond the material plane, where consciousness is unchanging.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Now you say consciousness is unchanging, how can that
be?
TINNY: From the relative perspective consciousness is constantly changing; from the
absolute perspective consciousness is unchanging. Once again, simultaneously one and
different.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You know, these ideas you are expressing are very
difficult to understand.
TINNY: As are many other aspects of this new, more correct understanding of the true
nature of existence. We cannot deny truth just because it is unexpected. Truth has been
hidden from view for so long that we have become blind to it. Historically the incorrect
111
worldview has built an almost insurmountable edifice which stands between us as
observers of reality and the realisation of the true expression of that reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could we go on with your explanation of how light
transmits all information? Hopefully those difficult truths will become clearer as more of
the sum total of knowledge becomes known.
TINNY: After I have chosen the word 'miasma', I send a message from my brain to my
vocal cords to create the sound vibrations necessary to transmit that word through the air
to your ears. The message is transmitted from the brain to the vocal cords by a series of
nerve cells. Each of those nerve cells transmits information to the next cell in line by an
exchange of photons, light energy, between their subatomic particles. Those messages tell
the muscles to contract and relax in the correct sequence, causing the vocal cords to
vibrate at the required frequencies. The messages at each of those steps including the
muscles, are transmitted by an exchange of photons between the subatomic particles
making up the neurons, muscles, and vocal cords.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All those stages of the transmitted message so far are
within the structures of the body. How does light transmit the message from your vocal
cords to my ears? Isn't the message transmitted through the air by sound waves, not light?
TINNY: The vocal cords are made up, at the most basic level, of subatomic particles. As
the vocal cords vibrate they bump against the molecules of the air. The air molecules
perceive the vibrating vocal cords by an exchange of photons between the subatomic
particles at the surface of the vocal cords and the subatomic particles making up the
molecules of air which are adjacent to the surface of the vocal cords. The vibrating vocal
cords cause the air molecules to vibrate at the same frequency as the vocal cords.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it that when the vibrating vocal cords exchange
photons with the air molecules they begin to vibrate at the same frequency as the vocal
cords?
TINNY: One of the things that happens when photons are exchanged is a transfer of light
energy. The energy from the vibrating vocal cords is transferred to the adjacent air
molecules by an exchange of photons.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do the photons carry the energy which is transferred?
TINNY: The photons are the energy which is transferred.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose that is the reason the sound wave travels
through the air. Each atom bumps into adjacent atoms transmitting the information as
energy through an exchange of photons at the subatomic level.
TINNY: That's what happens all the way to the eardrum. The process from the atoms in
the air to the eardrum is the reverse of the manner in which the vocal chords imparted the
information to the atoms in the air.
112
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And the same process occurs from the eardrum to the
bones in the middle ear. All transfer their energy and information by an exchange of
photons from the subatomic particles of one stage in the sequence to the sub-atomic
particles of the next stage in the sequence.
TINNY: When the mechanical vibrations of the bones in the middle ear reach the cochlea
the energy is changed from mechanical energy back to electrochemical energy, which is
then transmitted along the neurons of the auditory nerve by an exchange of photons of the
subatomic particles which make up those neurons. The message is interpreted by
specialised neurons in the brain whose subatomic particles exchange photons with the
neurons carrying the incoming message, converting them to a symbolic representation.
That symbolic representation is converted to a unique configuration of subatomic
particles within the structure of the brain by a further exchange of photons. At which
point that new configuration of subatomic particles, which is representative of the word
‘miasma’ and its meaning, remains as memory, available for future retrieval. A dynamic
interplay of photon exchanges between subatomic particles in my brain results in the
creation of a new organisation of subatomic particles in your brain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Quite amazing. The groupings of subatomic particles
which make up one brain can alter the groupings of subatomic particles which make up
other brains.
TINNY: That is the way in which we, being different centres of energy field
concentrations and fluctuations, communicate among ourselves. It is amazing isn't it?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is no wonder that human consciousness, as expressed in
mind, is what separates us as a new envolutionary level beyond that of the animal.
TINNY: Mind at the human level is a way of relating the experiences of consciousness to
language symbols and words.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the human level mind became aware of its own
existence.
TINNY: Mind at the human level progresses beyond being aware of its own existence.
Mind becomes aware of the true nature of its existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is really happening when mind becomes aware of its
own true nature?
TINNY: It is a funny feeling at first. We grow up thinking the word 'I' refers to our body.
Then we come to believe that 'I' refers more to our consciousness than our body. Finally
we realise that our material form and consciousness are a manifestation of some essential
fabric of existence which is not physical and is beyond the limits of space and time. The
'I' becomes one with existence.
113
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Realisation must envolve just like all other characteristics
expressed on the material plane.
TINNY: At this present level of realisation I can know myself as a particular complex
organisation of subatomic particles. I am the way by which the basic fabric of material
existence comes to know its own nature. Not only do I come to know myself as a
grouping of subatomic particles, but I am able to perceive other groupings of subatomic
particles throughout the known universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since mind is the means by which material existence
becomes aware of its own nature, what comes next?
TINNY: Mind will become more aware of self, more aware of the true nature of
existence, and more aware of other minds, which at the material level appear to be
separate from each other.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happens when mind becomes more aware of other
minds?
TINNY: It is already happening. There is a collective or social mind developing. This
collective mind of humanity is in itself a holistic entity, and as are all holistic systems, it
is greater than the sum of its parts.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the future development of consciousness the movement
from the individual to the social?
TINNY: Future development of consciousness will be collective, but not to the exclusion
of individual development. Both shall progress together in a complementary relationship.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the nature of consciousness, when perfected, be
individual or collective?
TINNY: The two will be one. There will be a perfect integration between the individual
and the collective. Individual consciousness will become perfected. Collective
consciousness shall also become perfected.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How could consciousness be perfected both individually
and collectively at the same time?
TINNY: Perfected consciousness would perfectly manifest every characteristic of
consciousness. One of the characteristics of consciousness is communication. Perfected
consciousness would manifest perfect communication. A network of perfect
communication among beings of perfected individual consciousness would create a
holistic system of consciousness which is collective in nature. That perfected collective
consciousness will be greater than the sum of the individual parts.
114
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think that should be enough discussion of consciousness
and mind right now. It was such a difficult subject, I'm hesitant to ask another hard
question right away.
TINNY: What subject is it which you want to discuss next?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I wanted to ask questions about free-will and determinism.
TINNY: If we discuss free-will and determinism we will also have to consider
predestination.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we begin that discussion, let me ask a few general
and probably easier questions.
TINNY: Sure, go ahead.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many would be surprised to find that you can know so
much, particularly since you are still a child. Was it hard for you to learn so much, so
young?
TINNY: It wasn't hard at all. Knowledge has come to me naturally as I lived my life.
Since I have enjoyed virtually every moment of my life I have enjoyed all the learning I
have done.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you tell me how it is you know how the mind works?
TINNY: Well, no one ever told me how the mind works, and I've never read a good
explanation of how it works. I remember when I first came to know how the mind works,
at least in the way I described it to you. I came to that realisation while I was observing
my own mind.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you observe your own mind?
TINNY: I would describe the process as being somewhere between introspection and
meditation. It's a way of observing one's own mental states.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a specific technique you use to do this? Could
anyone learn it?
TINNY: At different times I become aware of mental states in different ways. There is no
specific technique. Anyone could learn to do it, but they would have to develop their own
techniques just as I did. I think true knowledge of one's own mind is a very personal
thing; just as every person is different, each would require a different way to observe their
own mental state.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many who are searching for the way to know truth from
within have spent a lifetime attempting to perfect such techniques. Methods by which the
inner self can be known have been handed down by great masters of wisdom.
115
TINNY: The methods handed down would have benefited the masters more than the
students. The greatest teachers would free their students from the shackles of their
teachings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you be described as cynical about teachers?
TINNY: I could be; but I don't think I should be. I believe myself to be realistic. I know
that nothing is more important in learning than freedom. I also know that those who teach
are seldom willing to allow that needed freedom to be fully realised.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could a teacher ever allow too much freedom?
TINNY: There is no such thing as too much freedom. This is not to say, though, that
freedom may not be misused. Often freedom is taken to mean license.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the difference between freedom and license?
TINNY: Freedom within any level of material development is granted naturally in accord
with existing conditions. As such, freedom is not unlimited but, has certain inherent
limitations. License is a social process best described as permission. Therefore license is
not bound by any natural restrictions and may well go beyond the natural limits.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the natural limits so very important?
TINNY: The natural limits which are in effect at every level of material development are
a matter of life and death. While it is possible to transgress the natural boundaries to some
small degree major incursions place survival at jeopardy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that true just for the individual, or is it also true at the
species level?
TINNY: It is equally true for both the individual and groups of all sizes. In fact for harm
to be caused it is not necessary for all members of the species to go beyond the natural
limits. If a sufficient number of individual members of any group stray from the right path
they can bring destruction upon the whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If what you say is true then no individual could ever
demand the right to act in any manner they choose by claiming they are only hurting
themselves. Even if a person or group appears to harm no one but themselves they
actually harm every member of society.
TINNY: Although the proverb, ''no man is an island'' was not meant to express that great
social truth, it could well do so. That saying could even be another way of expressing the
essential unity of all existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Everything we speak of seems to express that basic unity.
TINNY: It is for that reason this body of knowledge is called the unified theory of
existence.
116
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps now would be the right moment to begin the
discussion of free-will and determinism.
TINNY: And predestination.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Yes, of course. Would you begin by defining those words
for me?
TINNY: Don't you know what they mean?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know what I think they mean, but to best understand
what you will be telling me I need to know what those concepts mean to you.
TINNY: I'll start with free-will. This term means, at the human level, that we are able to
choose and act according to the dictates of our own will, free from external forces.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kind of external forces are referred to in that
definition?
TINNY: Mainly physical forces, social pressures, or divine influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't physical forces, social pressures, and divine
influence affect people?
TINNY: Sure they do; but to have free-will means to be able to make the conscious
decision whether or not to act in the manner dictated by those external forces.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is divine influence external or is it internal?
TINNY: You complicate every question. You don't often let me get away with giving
simple answers.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are few simple questions.
TINNY: Since we are of divine essence then we have the divine within; but since the
whole is greater than and has characteristics other than the individual parts, then the
divine is also external to our being. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble expressing this answer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes the difficulty inherent in expression is part of
the answer.
TINNY: I need to use language and concepts from two different frames of reference
simultaneously, and since we are bound by the limits of material existence true statements
may appear to be contradictions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Accept the reality of those limitations and say things as
best you can. As consciousness is raised such conflicts shall disappear.
TINNY: I'll go on to an explanation of determinism. Determinism is a concept which
considers all choice and action to be the result of the influence of previous events.
117
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Indicating all choices and actions are caused, not freely
decided upon by the individual.
TINNY: All choices and actions would then be determined by past events.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which is the truth? Do we have free-will or are our
choices and actions determined?
TINNY: We have free-will and at the same time our choices and actions are determined
by past events. There is a unity of free-will and determinism, the two are one.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The question of free-will versus determinism has been
debated for thousands of years. During that time both sides of the question have received
vigorous support. Neither side of the argument has ever fully prevailed over the other.
Now you assert that both sides here correct.
TINNY: That's probably why the question has never been resolved. If either side of the
debate is supported to the exclusion of the other it could never provide a satisfactory
answer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You also wanted to include predestination in this
discussion.
TINNY: Predestination takes the concept of determinism even further. With
predestination the concept goes beyond the idea that all things are caused by past events
to say that all things are preordained. That a certain future is destined to come about.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would that mean everything which happens could be
known beforehand? That it would be possible to know the future?
TINNY: The future is as knowable as the past.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Who decides how things are to be if everything is
preordained?
TINNY: The concept of predestination is usually used to describe the relationship God
has with the material universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everything was predestined by God we would have
even less free-will than if everything was caused by past events, as in deterministic
thinking. I'm sure that you will find some way to show me how we must have free-will,
while all things are determined by past events, and God knows all that will occur in the
future.
TINNY: I hope to; but you're moving too fast.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is another word I want to be sure I understand. You
have used the common word 'cause' several times when discussing determinism. It would
help me to understand determinism if you would define the concept of causality.
118
TINNY: Something is caused when there is a relationship between two events such that
the first event brings about the second.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the original event have to bring about the second
event directly?
TINNY: No, the initiating event can set in motion a series of linked events which result in
the final action and still be considered as causative.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How far back can that chain of events go?
TINNY: As with all things, causal events are links in a direct chain which goes back to
the beginning of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would this mean that not only are all material forms in the
physical universe inextricably linked, but all events in the physical universe are also
inextricably linked?
TINNY: Unity is complete. Everything which exists, objects, words, concepts, events,
and dimensions are all aspects of one basic essence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which is God?
TINNY: The word God seems too limited to represent the totality of that which exists.
We have for so long associated God with all sorts of human characteristics, that those
characteristics now circumscribe the fullest meaning of the word.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have a better word?
TINNY: No, I don't. Actually, I often use the word God in my thoughts to represent all
that exists and all of the various manifestations of that infinite quality. God is a good
word if we don't come to believe we know all that word really means.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Hopefully we will speak more of God later. I don't want to
get too far from free-will and determinism.
TINNY: I find I can skip around from topic to topic and from idea to idea with ease. I
think it's because I see the unified nature of all existence. No matter what I'm thinking or
talking about, it's all part of the same thing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's fine for your own thoughts; but when you're talking
to others they may not yet have come to the same realisation of the unity of all things.
You could make it difficult for others to understand what you are trying to say.
TINNY: What you say is true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Please go back to the longstanding debate concerning
determinism versus free-will.
119
TINNY: As I have said, that is a question which has been discussed and argued by
philosophers and theologians for thousands of years. Are we beings whose actions are
determined, or are we free to choose for ourselves what our actions shall be?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A question which has never been satisfactorily answered
to all parties involved in the debate.
TINNY: There is a very direct and quite correct answer to the determinism versus freewill controversy. The reason that an answer is available now is because of the new
understanding of the origin of life and consciousness, and the understanding of the
process of the envolution which takes place throughout the universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you describe determinism and free-will in relation
to the process of envolution?
TINNY: In the beginning of the physical universe there was a condition of virtual total
determinism. Every subatomic particle which existed did as it must do based on the
elementary laws of physics. There was no free-will or choice involved. It was a universe
of almost total determinism. The actions of existing matter were due to external forces,
those of physics; which could also be thought of as the imposition of will by force, if we
use the word 'will' rather broadly. Whatever will or force which was in effect determined
the actions of the matter of the universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Things did not remain in such a totally determined
condition though, did they?
TINNY: As matter organised into more complex levels those new organisations gained
greater facility to act with increased freedom. The initial subatomic particles had no
choice but to do exactly as required by the elementary laws of physics. The basic atoms,
while still governed by the elementary laws of physics, possessed a greater range of
action than did subatomic particles. It could be said they had a greater degree of freedom.
Once atoms came into existence they could participate in a greater range of relationships
with other matter than could subatomic particles. Molecules, while also still largely
determined by the elementary laws of physics, are able to relate to each other in such a
complex way that we call this new degree of freedom, chemistry. Plant and animal life,
the next higher level of organisation of matter, has the ability to interact in their
environment far beyond that of the original subatomic particles, atoms, or molecules.
While still by no means totally free, plants and animals possess many more degrees of
freedom than the previous levels of material existence. We call this new degree of
freedom, biology.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what does that tell us?
TINNY: We see from this progressive development toward greater freedom of action that
just as all other things envolve, free-will also envolves. Free-will does not come into
existence all of a sudden, just as life does not come into existence all of a sudden, and
120
consciousness does not come into existence all of a sudden. Each of those aspects of
existence is manifested through a series of successive small steps into more complex
forms of expression as the organisation of matter becomes more complex.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happens after the level of plant development is
reached?
TINNY: Within the biological range, once we go beyond the level of plant life to the
animal level of existence, the characteristic of inner-directed mobility is manifested. This
is a major new step in the progression toward free-will. Instead of the fixed or externally
controlled nature of plant motion, an animal can move at will in its environment. Animal
life thereby possesses many more degrees of freedom of action than had ever previously
existed in the lower levels.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That covers all the levels of envolutionary progression up
to the human level of existence. The human level seems so very different in the degree of
freedom which can be expressed. Human freedom is far beyond that of the animal level,
isn't it?
TINNY: Human existence is the first stage where there is a predominance of free-will
over the deterministic aspect. All previous levels of existence, the subatomic particles,
atoms, molecules, plants, and animals have their actions more subject to causal factors
than they are allowed free choice. An animal does not have the potential, even with all its
many degrees of freedom, to actually make a free choice. Human beings with their selfreflective consciousness are the highest level of organisation of matter that we know of,
and have many more degrees of freedom than any of the previous levels of material
existence. The human level is the turning point where the manifestation of free-will
becomes greater than the deterministic aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the major effect of that shift from a predominance
of determinism to a predominance of free-will?
TINNY: Humanity is the first of the envolutionary stages which has the ability to control
its own destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is quite a responsibility.
TINNY: It is both a great blessing and a great burden.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is it which allows the human species to control its
own destiny while the previous levels of material existence cannot?
TINNY: That ability occurs because human beings have developed the capacity to
override the external determinants of their behaviour by inner speech. Inner speech arises
from humanity's self-reflective level of consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What exactly is inner speech?
121
TINNY: Inner speech is the ability to communicate with ourselves. Because we can use
language to describe the reality external to ourselves, and our relationship with that
reality, we are no longer bound to acquiesce to the external influences of the environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You don't mean we are totally free of all environmental
influences do you?
TINNY: We are far from being entirely free of those external influences, particularly the
physical forces; but, even while we are under the influences of those forces we can alter
their effect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then is really the answer to the conflict between
free-will and determinism.
TINNY: The answer to the free-will versus determinism controversy is not that the
actions of human beings are determined, nor that human beings are free. The truth is that
human beings are somewhere on the continuum between total determinism and total freewill.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The determinism/free-will
dichotomously variable continuum, isn't it?
continuum
is
another
TINNY: That's true. As with all dichotomous continuums there appear to be two opposing
sides, the extremes on either end being the total opposites of each other. And every
continuum of that type has a point on the continuum where the characteristic which had
been dominant gives way to the opposite characteristic which then takes over dominance.
The opposing characteristics on that particular dichotomous continuum are determinism
and its opposite, free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All dichotomous continuums naturally possess a turning
point where the predominant characteristic becomes the subordinate characteristic; the
human level of development is at that turning point. At the beginning of the physical
universe the subatomic particles were at one extreme of the dichotomous continuum.
They were at the deterministic extreme.
TINNY: Right, and as matter developed into more complex forms determinism, while
remaining dominant, began to give way to free-will. As the human level was approached
by the higher animals, free-will was becoming a strong contender against determinism. As
humanity developed with its self-reflective consciousness the turning point was broached,
and free-will became the dominant characteristic.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We are only just past the turning point where free-will
predominates over determinism.
TINNY: That's true, human existence is only slightly weighted toward the predominance
of free-will. It is for that reason we have such a battle ahead of us. While it is now up to
us to choose our destiny, we are still heavily influenced by the deterministic side of the
122
continuum, and will be susceptible to that influence until we progress a good distance
from the turning point, from that point where free-will and determinism vie almost
equally for control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does the knowledge that free-will now predominates,
by however little over determinism, affect our lives?
TINNY: It is most important to realise that the turning point has been reached. Rather
than having our lives determined mainly by external factors, human beings now have the
potential to mainly exercise control from within.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we did not realise the nature of our freedom wouldn't
we still have it?
TINNY: It would exist as potential, but unless the nature of our freedom is realised we
would not be able to fully manifest that freedom.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again; 'the truth shall set you free'.
TINNY: One of the things that bothers me is the blindness which exists to our true nature.
It is often taught, and even believed, that human beings are the highest form of animal;
but we are not animals. We have envolved from the animals, but we have passed beyond
animal characteristics to a new level of material existence, the human level.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even if we aren't animals, what would be the harm in
believing we were?
TINNY: At each level of material existence there is an essential nature. That nature is
expressed in a total relationship with the environment. Actions in accord with that natural
order constitute the right path for each level of material existence. What is the right path
for one level of material existence will not be the right path for another level. What is
natural for animals is the right path for them, and to stray from that path would cause a
disharmony. If the disharmony was too great then the animals would fail to survive. What
is natural for animals is not the right path for human beings. Human beings must act in
accord with their own true nature. If human beings attempt to live in a manner which is
natural for animals a disharmony is caused. The human race is presently in danger of that
disharmony being fatal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To believe we are animals would harm us because we
would then act in accord with the animal nature; but if we were to understand we are not
animals we would act in accord with our human nature.
TINNY: It is particularly hard to win in a struggle with an unknown enemy. We are in a
constant struggle with the animal nature, and if we do not know our own true nature it is a
struggle we have scant chance of winning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say that human beings could not exist as
animals?
123
TINNY: Not for long.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you were to ask most people if their actions were of
their own choosing they would say yes. Most people believe they are free. Most, even if
they believe human beings are animals, would not say they act like animals.
TINNY: As has been pointed out a number of times in this talk, the way we perceive
things has little relation to the reality of our existence. Many human actions are
conditioned by external influences and as such are not acts of free-will. It is the animal
nature expressed in human beings which is causing the manifold social problems that are
destroying our society and have pushed us to the very brink of extinction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does that mean for the future of the human race?
TINNY: If we choose to survive, we must give up actions in accord with animal nature
and live in accord with human nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people believe human nature to have a number of
bad qualities.
TINNY: Human nature has no bad qualities. What is objected to in human nature is
actually our failure to transcend the animal nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say human nature has no bad
qualities?
TINNY: Human nature is basically good. All we have to do is allow our true nature to be
expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't we all trying to do that?
TINNY: Some are, but they are few. Instead of fighting against the animal nature and
struggling to live in accord with human nature, most are fighting against human nature as
they struggle to live in accord with the animal nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are people consciously doing that?
TINNY: That is an example of when ignorance of the truth becomes so harmful. Many
well intentioned people, as well as those who are ill intentioned, do not realise the error of
their ways and therefore follow the wrong path.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do the misguided ones include the world's religious,
political, and business leaders?
TINNY: Some of the most misguided of all are among those who have risen to power.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would that be?
TINNY: Often the very beliefs and qualities which it takes to rise to positions of power
and influence are those which most strongly bind us to the animal nature,
124
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Getting back to free-will and determinism; how do those
concepts relate to the right path of behaviour at the human level of existence?
TINNY: By looking at that dichotomous continuum, which began in total determinism
and is moving toward total free-will, we can begin to understand the purpose of
envolution in the universe. The purpose of the physical universe is to allow matter to
organise into increasingly complex levels. Those more complex levels of existence
manifest certain new characteristics which allow an ever increasing freedom of
interaction within the environment,
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you know the material universe is moving toward
total free-will?
TINNY: Since the universe began in complete determinism and has for billions of years
progressed toward an increasing expression of free-will, reaching at the human level a
predominance of free-will over determinism, we must logically assume we are heading
towards the goal of total free-will. Total free-will is one of the culminating characteristics
that the envolution of matter in the universe is progressing toward.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it only the logical progression from the beginning
deterministic universe to the present human turning point, where free-will becomes
stronger than determinism, which allows us to know that the universe will culminate in
total free-will?
TINNY: The more important evidence is that a physical universe which is moving toward
an expression of total free-will is consistent with so much of the other knowledge which
makes up the unified theory of existence. The fact that so many different lines of evidence
point to one truth is indeed a powerful indicator of the correctness of the overall theory.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It took eighteen billion years or so for the material
universe to progress from the beginning subatomic particles to human life. Since human
beings are at the turning point on the continuum from total determinism to total free-will,
are we at the middle of that continuum? Can we expect another similar period of time
until the final goal is reached?
TINNY: We spoke briefly about this earlier. In general, it is important to realise that the
turning point on any dichotomous continuum does not have to fall on the midpoint of that
continuum. It may fall anywhere between the two extremes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could the turning point be very close to one of the end
points on the continuum?
TINNY: There is no limit to how close the turning point, where the initial major
characteristic becomes the minor characteristic, can be to either extreme on the
continuum. The only limit is that the turning point cannot actually be fully at either of the
extreme ends on the continuum.
125
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So where does the turning point, the human level of
existence, fall on the continuum of determinism and free-will?
TINNY: I can't say exactly, but it is much closer to the free-will end than the
deterministic end.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: It is because the process of envolution is constantly accelerating. As the
organisation of matter becomes more complex the progressive development takes less
time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the process of envolution is moving faster now than it
has during the early life of the physical universe?
TINNY: It is moving many times as fast and is constantly speeding up.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Compared to the time which has passed from the creation
of the physical universe until human existence was manifested, how long will it be until
we are freed from all deterministic influence? Would it be about one billion more years?
TINNY: It will be much less than that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps only one million years?
TINNY: Probably much less than that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maybe only one thousand years?
TINNY: That also is possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could it be less than one thousand years?
TINNY: It could be much less than one thousand years. It could be tomorrow.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you know exactly how long it will be until total freewill is achieved?
TINNY: No, I don't. I only know it is within the potential of our development. It is up to
us to achieve our destiny. It is up to us to choose how long it shall be until we pass
beyond determinism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will it take for us to transcend determinism?
TINNY: All physical existence, all material form, is inextricably linked to some degree of
determinism. To exist beyond determinism requires a progression beyond the physical
nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As long as existence is bound to physical form it cannot
be totally free, and will to some degree have its actions determined.
TINNY: That is how it is.
126
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why must existence be freed from physical form before
total free-will can be manifested?
TINNY: Inherent within the nature of physical existence is causality. As long as there is
physical form there will be some degree of external causation. To be completely free
requires choice to be governed only by internal factors with no possibility of outside
influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And can that state of complete freedom only be reached
when physical form is transcended?
TINNY: That is so. To be bound to physical form means to be susceptible to external
forces,
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will existence be like when perfect free-will is
achieved?
(NOTE: Due to the critical nature of the subject coming into discussion, now and in
future parts of this written work, I felt I must make a few things clear. I believe at
the time I originally wrote these words I did not sufficiently understand the
relationship of God to the spiritual and physical existence. Specifically I did not
differentiate correctly between the spiritual existence and God. I am now faced with
two choices; rewrite extensively or leave the words of the original text. Since I have
in recent times spoken extensively on these matters from a much more sophisticated
understanding achieved after many years of study, I have decided on the latter
course, but I must ask the reader to understand that no matter how you interpret
these original words I am in no way saying or implying that we are God, that we are
becoming God, or that we will someday be part of God. The last thing I would ever
want to do is mislead anyone about this most important of all issues. For those who
want to know what I now have to say on this subject please refer to my recent
works. Muhammad al’Mahdi, 2004)
TINNY: We don't have words or concepts to adequately describe that perfected state of
existence. There will be no material form; perfected existence will be beyond the limits of
space and time. Free-will is not the only characteristic which shall be perfectly
manifested. In addition to perfect free-will there shall be perfect knowledge, perfect
goodness, an eternal nature, and an infinite number of other perfectly manifested
characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there nothing which can influence free-will at that
perfect level of existence?
TINNY: Nothing but the ultimate self. The concept of determinism primarily relates to
external influence, whereas free-will refers to internal influence unaffected by external
factors. Perfected existence manifests perfect free-will because there is nothing external
127
to that level of existence. All influence is then internal influence because all existence is
encompassed in that perfected state.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That perfect state of existence which you refer to, are you
saying that is a living being?
TINNY: Yes, a living being perfect in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A being perfect in every aspect sounds very much like the
definition of God.
TINNY: As long as calling perfect existence God does not impose any limits then God
seems like a good word to describe that living being, perfect in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would perfected being be eternal, omnipresent,
omniscient, and all good?
TINNY: All that and more. That absolute level of existence, manifesting perfectly all
positive characteristics, encompasses everything.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is perfected being eternal?
TINNY: Since perfect existence transcends time, absolute being does not exist within the
flow of time. At the perfect expression of being, all time is now. All time, as perceived
from the physical plane of existence, becomes an eternal now at the level of perfected
existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is perfected being omnipresent?
TINNY: The word omnipresent refers to being simultaneously everywhere. It is a word
related to physical existence. All physical existence is of the essential nature of perfect
existence. Perfect existence encompasses all of physical existence while remaining
infinitely more than physical existence. Physical existence, while seeming infinitely large
to us, takes up no amount of space in the perfect existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is perfected being omniscient?
TINNY: The word omniscient means all knowing. In relation to physical existence, all
information is maintained and transmitted through light, which has a transcendental
quality. Light is of the essential nature of perfected existence. All that is known is an
integral part of perfected existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is then true that perfected existence manifests all
characteristics perfectly because this perfect being is all existence?
TINNY: True, there is nothing which exists but the various aspects of perfected being.
These being differentiated aspects from the relative perspective, but a unity from the
absolute perspective. There is nothing outside that perfect existence, so in all conceivable
expressed characteristics their fullest expression exists at that absolute level.
128
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since perfected existence is omniscient or all knowing, is
that why you say our future is known?
TINNY: From the perspective beyond the material plane our future is fully known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean every action, every word, and, indeed,
every thought which we will ever do, say, or think is known beforehand?
TINNY: Yes it does.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems impossible that every aspect of the future can
already be known.
TINNY: Regardless, absolutely everything that is to be our future is already known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that is true it would seem to deny free-will. If our future
is known then what is to be has already been determined.
TINNY: That would seem to be an obvious conclusion, but it is not the truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Being more specific, does for example the fact that our
future is known mean the exact words of your next answer are already known?
TINNY: It does; all that takes place on the material plane is known in the absolute
existence before it happens?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And was it known what your next answer would be before
I asked the question?
TINNY: It was.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did you know what your answer would be before I asked
the question?
TINNY: No, I didn't.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you have decided to answer the question with
different words?
TINNY: Yes I could.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you were free to choose what your answer would be?
TINNY: I was.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you say the exact words of your answer were known
before you said them, even before you knew what they would be. It seems impossible that
you were free to choose your answer while at the same time your answer was known
before you decided what it would be.
TINNY: That is another of the many paradoxes which occur as we probe more deeply
into the true nature of existence.
129
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If our words and actions are known before they occur,
even before we choose them, it would seem that our lives must be predestined.
TINNY: That is the concept of predestination which goes even further than determinism
in seeming to refute the reality of our free-will. I say that I can both have a free choice
and have my choice known before I have made it. That my choice would have also been
known a billion years ago. In fact it would have been known at the moment of creation of
the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't keep me in suspense any longer. Tell me the answer
to that apparent contradiction, although from past answers you have given I think I could
predict what your answer will be.
TINNY: The long standing difficulty in understanding the concept of predestination is
due mainly to a limited perception of existence. The concept of predestination is usually
linked to God's relationship with humanity, where human action is considered
preordained or controlled by God. The flaw in that understanding is first the assumption
that God is constrained to the same time flow in which we material beings are involved;
and second, the assumption that there is control over our actions just because those
actions are known before they occur. God, perhaps better called perfected being, exists
beyond and unlimited by the flow of time. While we on the material plane must relate to
time before action and time after action, there is no such reality beyond physical
existence. From the perspective of an observer outside the flow of time, all time is now.
Although our words and concepts don't directly relate to that non-material plane we might
say all perfected existence is at the present moment. In that case, where there is no time
before any action takes place, all action, past, present, and future within the material
existence would be considered of the present moment from the perspective of absolute
existence. The perspective from beyond the material plane would allow all actions to be
viewed simultaneously. That is why perfected being can know our actions before they
occur. It is not that perfected being controls our behaviour, but that perfected being can
see what we consider our past and what we consider our future all in the present.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And does that allow us freedom of action although our
actions are known beforehand?
TINNY: It does.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But if our actions are already set down, even if only
beyond the material plane, how can we truly be free to choose?
TINNY: In the physical level of reality, the relative existence, our actions are not set
down or known before they occur. Our future is open to any changes we decide upon. We
can be free in our choice of actions while at the same time, beyond the material plane, our
freely chosen actions are already known.
130
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That isn't easy to grasp. From our point of view, as
material beings, our actions are not knowable beforehand and we are free to choose. From
the point of view of an observer beyond the material plane all actions past and future are
known as one present moment. And you say the fact that our actions are known
beforehand by perfected being does not limit our free-will.
TINNY: It doesn't limit our freedom to choose because this prior knowledge of our
actions only exists beyond the material plane. If that prior knowledge of our actions were
known in the physical existence then we would not have freedom to choose, but what is
known beyond the material plane does not affect our freedom to choose.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you explain why it doesn't affect: us, rather than just
saying that knowledge of our actions from beyond the material plane doesn't affect our
freedom of choice?
TINNY: There is a fairly simple answer. That which occurs beyond physical existence is
not involved in causality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does that mean?
TINNY: Causality can only be a factor of existence when events follow other events in a
flow of time. Beyond the material plane there is no flow of time, hence no causality. That
is why prior knowledge of our actions, from beyond the material plane, does not limit our
freedom of choice. Things are not caused from beyond physical existence merely because
knowledge of the things exists there. We remain literally untouched by knowledge which
exists only beyond the physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is an interesting way to understand the concept of
predestination. I see how it is possible for us to make free choices, unaffected by any
influence from beyond the material plane, while our actions can truly be considered
predestined.
TINNY: It is the different essential nature of the two planes of existence, the physical and
the non-material, which make free-will and predestination compatible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think you have covered fairly clearly the concepts of
free-will and determinism. Everything fits very well with all other parts of this unified
theory of existence. There are just a couple of questions I want to ask.
TINNY: Go ahead.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since in the beginning the universe is totally
deterministic, can you tell me where free-will comes from? I know you said that free-will
is a characteristic which becomes increasingly manifested as the organisation of matter
becomes more complex, but you didn't say what it is that free-will comes from.
TINNY: I don't think I know the answer to that question.
131
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me give you a hint. Free-will in the physical existence
is related to quantum uncertainty.
TINNY: I had no idea that free-will was linked to quantum uncertainty.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you now give me an answer to the question of
where free-will comes from?
TINNY: I think I can. Quantum uncertainty refers to the fact that certain knowledge about
matter in its most basic state, subatomic particles, cannot be known. That knowledge,
which is not available, includes such essential information as whether or not the
subatomic particle even exists at any given moment, and if it does, where it is and what is
it doing. The information regarding those basic units of matter is not knowable because
matter at that level is directly linked with existence beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Right so far.
TINNY: Even in the deterministic universe there are still some actions of matter not
dictated by causal factors, That is because there are some aspects of matter which exist
beyond the material plane and are therefore not subject to causality. Those aspects which
are manifested in the physical existence, though, are under the influence of causal factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's correct, but how does that fact relate to free-will at
the human level?
TINNY: As subatomic particles organise into increasingly greater complexity there is a
progressive manifestation of all characteristics. So as those more complex organisations
of matter envolve, there is an increasing component which is linked to the non-material
plane. At the human level, the brain being the most complex organisation of matter to
envolve on our planet, that increasingly complex link of matter with existence beyond the
material plane manifests as self-reflective or human level consciousness. That
consciousness, linked with existence beyond the physical plane, has a major component
not subject to causality. It is that nature, beyond the bounds of determinism, which allows
the expression of the great degree of free-will possessed by human beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well spoken my child.
TINNY: I'm a bit surprised myself I was able to give a decent answer to that question, as
when you first asked I had no idea of the answer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It was a very small hint that I gave. Where do you suppose
your answer came from?
TINNY: From my consciousness. The answer must have always been available to me, I
just had to be in the right mental state to realise it.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where does knowledge you are not yet aware of reside
while waiting for you to make use of its availability?
132
TINNY: All knowledge must exist in a timeless state beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The relationship between our perceived existence, which
is relative reality, and the true nature of existence, which is absolute reality, is quite
amazing isn't it?
TINNY: Almost beyond belief.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since we have just dealt with one of the most difficult,
long-standing debates in the historical quest for truth, that being the free-will versus
determinism controversy, perhaps we could now discuss another equally long-standing
and difficult question.
TINNY: And what is that question?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the true nature of good and evil?
TINNY: I should be able to answer that question as well as I was able to answer the
question regarding free-will and determinism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are rightfully confident.
TINNY: Well, where do we start?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think it would be helpful to begin with simple definitions
of good and evil.
TINNY: Do you mean definitions of what good and evil truly are?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not yet, just tell me what the words good and evil
commonly mean to people.
TINNY: Good means that which is morally correct, right, agreeable, pleasurable, nice,
and appealing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about evil?
TINNY: Evil means that which is morally wrong, bad, wicked, and harmful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Both those definitions sound quite simple. Why is the
question regarding the true nature of good and evil such a difficult question to answer?
TINNY: If you will notice the words commonly used to describe the meaning of both
good and evil you will see that they are themselves all very subjective words. I think it
would be extremely difficult to get agreement as to exactly what any of those words really
mean.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
133
TINNY: Because each person comes to a personal definition of the concepts of good and
evil. That happens because there has never been an accepted objective standard by which
to measure good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that the reason for the continuing debate as to the
meaning of good and evil?
TINNY: It is. The debate includes the question as to whether or not good and evil are
absolutes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are they?
TINNY: I can't answer that question with a yes or no.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people consider good and evil to only have relative
meaning.
TINNY: That is the most common modern view of good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you tell me if it is correct to believe good and evil
only have relative meaning?
TINNY: That I can answer. That is a wrong belief.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it wrong?
TINNY: It would be easier to give definite answers if you would ask questions about
good and evil separately.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All right. Is evil absolute?
TINNY: No.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is good absolute?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is evil relative?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is good relative?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are telling me that evil is relative but not absolute,
while good is both relative and absolute.
TINNY: That's right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You'll have to tell me a lot more than that to explain the
true nature of good and evil.
TINNY: I know.
134
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the common definitions of good and evil you gave
very close to the true nature of good and evil?
TINNY: Considering how far from the truth most commonly held beliefs we have
discussed are from the true nature of existence, the present widely held understanding of
good and evil is amazingly accurate.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean good and evil are well enough understood
in human society?
TINNY: Not at all. Although the commonly held definitions of good and evil are quite
accurate, the meaning of those truths is quite misunderstood.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why don't people understand good and evil if the common
definitions are so accurate?
TINNY: The definitions are general and abstract. So long as they remain unrelated to
specifics those definitions are acceptable; but, as soon as anyone tries to go from the
general understanding of good and evil to any specific instance of good and evil it
becomes a matter of personal beliefs. It is for that reason modern philosophers generally
claim good and evil are determined by the circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we talk about good and evil would it be acceptable to
sometimes use the words right and wrong?
TINNY: Those words are essentially interchangeable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is right is good, what is good is right. What is wrong
is evil, what is evil is wrong.
TINNY: True.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But everyone has a different idea of what is right and
wrong. Since each individual has different beliefs about right and wrong isn't that
sufficient reason to say they are relative concepts?
TINNY: Reality exists as it is, regardless of whether anyone understands that reality. It
makes no difference how many different beliefs exist about what is right and what is
wrong, beyond those varied beliefs exists an essential truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose you could determine whether any particular
thing was truly good or evil, or if any particular belief was truly right or wrong.
TINNY: My understanding of good and evil is not perfect. I could not be sure my beliefs
about right or wrong in any specific instance would be any better than anyone else's. I am
sure, though, that it is not my place to impose my personal beliefs about good and evil on
anyone else.
135
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If I were to ask you to tell me if any specific example was
right or wrong, could you give me a definite answer?
TINNY: In some cases I could and in some cases I couldn't.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the difficulty?
TINNY: The language we use and our concept of reality stands in the way of simple
answers being given. It is once again the need to express truths that exist beyond the
material plane which make it such a difficult task to discuss the nature of good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think if you try you could tell me some things about
good and evil which will clarify that problem.
TINNY: The terms good and evil as we commonly use them apply to this world of
apparent opposites, the physical existence. In the material plane good and evil are relative
to each individual's stage of development. No thought, word, or deed on the material
plane is either totally good or totally evil but must combine some aspects of each.
Absolute good only exists beyond the world of opposites, beyond the material plane. And
there is no evil, neither relative nor absolute beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Very good. Now we have a more definite starting point
for our discussion of good and evil. From what you have just said it seems that the
currently held belief of the relative nature of good and evil is correct. You did say good
and evil are, on the material plane, determined by each individual's level of progression.
TINNY: For any individual good and evil are relative, but that relative nature is
determined by factors relating to the natural order. Usually, though, when it is said good
and evil are relative, that is a reference to their being relative as determined by the
perception of the individual.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean the fact that people believe different things
to be good and evil, or right and wrong, is what makes those concepts relative?
TINNY: That is what the relative nature of good and evil is usually understood to mean,
but that is a grievous misunderstanding of good and evil. What each person believes to be
good or evil may have little relationship to what is truly good or evil. Additionally, one's
personal beliefs about what is good or evil may have little to do with what is truly right or
wrong for that person. While it is correct to say, to us good and evil are relative that only
means we each have a different place on the continuum of material development. We may
or may not correctly perceive our position on that continuum, but whether we do realise
our position or not does not change what is truly good or evil in reference to that point on
the continuum.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me be sure I understand. There may have been an
ambiguity in one of your statements. When you say good and evil are relative to each
136
individual, I believe you mean that for each person a different, but specific, good and evil
exists.
TINNY: That's what I mean.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So in respect to any one person good and evil are
definitely determined for them, but are different from that which is good and evil for any
other person.
TINNY: Perhaps it would have been better if I had said that good and evil is relative
between individuals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But absolutely determined for each individual.
TINNY: That's right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Earlier you said that while good in the non-material plane
of existence is absolute, that evil can never be absolute, neither in the material nor nonmaterial plane of existence.
TINNY: When I say evil is absolutely determined for each individual that does not mean
evil itself is absolute. To say evil is absolute would mean it was perfectly manifested, and
evil can never be perfectly manifested. What I mean by saying evil is absolutely
determined for each individual is that what constitutes evil or wrong for any individual is
definite, not relative.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say that evil could not be absolute?
TINNY: As matter envolves it manifests more perfectly the characteristics of existence.
Not all characteristics will be manifested perfectly, only positive characteristics. The
movement towards perfection only involves positive characteristics. A being, perfect in
ever aspect, will not manifest both perfect good and perfect evil, but only perfect
goodness. The ultimate characteristics will be those which can be manifested perfectly.
Evil is a characteristic which cannot be manifested perfectly. The perfect manifestation of
evil would be an infinitely evil act; and an infinitely evil act would be infinitely
destructive. An infinitely destructive act would destroy all existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we began discussing good and evil you said there
had never an accepted objective definition of those terms. Isn't it true, though, that there
have been accepted subjective definitions of good and evil?
TINNY: Through almost all of human history there have been generally accepted
subjective interpretations of the nature of good and evil. Those have often been
determined by the prevailing religious or political belief systems, and have unfortunately
been forced upon others through the exercise of power.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was that always bad?
137
TINNY: As with all things on the material plane there were good and bad aspects. As
human society progresses it becomes less good and more evil to attempt the continued
imposition of any particular beliefs about right and wrong through the use of force.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why does it become worse to try and impose a value
system now than it was thousands of years ago?
TINNY: Because the nature of good and evil changes as envolutionary progression takes
place. As the human species moves further along the path to fulfillment it is critical that
our freedom from external control becomes greater.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think our discussion is finally approaching the objective
nature of good evil. It seems you are saying there is some link between good and evil, and
free-will and determinism.
TINNY: The progressive development of matter in the physical universe moves from a
beginning of determinism to a destiny of free-will. It is the natural order of physical
existence that this envolutionary process should take place. That which binds us to
determinism works against this progression and is opposed to the natural order. That
which opposes the natural order is evil. That which enhances our freedom aids this
progression and is in accord with the natural order. That which is in accord with the
natural order is good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have just given me an objective definition of good
and evil. That which aids our developmental progression is good, and that which hinders
our developmental progression is evil.
TINNY: That is true for every level of material existence. It is for that reason good and
evil are determined by the degree of development of the different levels of material form.
There is a specific set of rights and wrongs for human beings which is different from the
specific set of rights and wrongs for dogs, ducks, frogs, amoebas, molecules, atoms, and
subatomic particles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that the concept of good and evil applies to
all those varied material forms?
TINNY: To those and every other material form which can exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is hard to conceive of good and evil in relation to say,
an atom.
TINNY: This is why an objective definition of good and evil is so necessary. Remember
when we discussed consciousness, it took a simple objective definition to allow the
understanding of the true nature of consciousness to be realised at very simple levels of
physical form, such as the atom. We normally only think of good and evil in relation to
the human level, therefore blinding ourselves to the more pervasive nature of that aspect
of existence.
138
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me an example of what is good or evil at
the atomic level of development?
TINNY: Before I answer that question I want to further clarify the objective definitions I
gave of the nature of good and evil. Since the purpose of the physical universe is
encompassed in the totality of the process of envolution we can define good and evil by
the effect on material form. At every level of physical existence anything which occurs to
any particular material form will have some effect on the future of that material form. If
the effect is to cause material form to move backwards on the continuum of
developmental progression, toward the beginning characteristics of physical existence,
that is evil. If the effect is to allow material form to move forward on the continuum of
developmental progression, toward the final destiny of the physical existence, that is
good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That explanation follows from your earlier statement
which defines good as that which follows the natural order, and aids our progression
toward greater exercise of free-will; and which defines evil as that which opposes the
natural order, and further binds us to determinism.
TINNY: Exactly. Now I can answer your question about good and evil as it relates to an
atom. If an atom were to meet with environmental circumstances which broke the atomic
structure apart into its basic particles, the protons and electrons, that would be evil. It
would be evil because the physical form of subatomic particles is at a less developed level
on the continuum of envolutionary progression. If, though, an atom were to meet with
environmental circumstances which brought about the merging with another atom to form
a molecule, that would be good. It would be good because the physical form of the
molecule is at a more developed level on the continuum of envolutionary progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a very clear explanation of how good and evil
relate to an atom. I can also see the necessity of having an objective definition of good
and evil. If the same processes, which the atom underwent in your example, were to be
judged from the commonly held subjective understanding of good and evil it would
appear what happened to the atom was not included in the meaning of good and evil.
TINNY: And anytime we fail to perceive the true nature of existence that ignorance
further threatens our future progression and even our chance of survival.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is very important to know good and evil objectively.
TINNY: To know objectively the reality of good and evil is to know right action. We
must know right from wrong in our actions to be able to live in accord with the natural
order. Any level of material form which acts other than in accord with the natural order
can not forever continue to exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The very future of the human species is then dependent on
a realisation of the true nature of good and evil.
139
TINNY: Actually we must do more than know the true nature of good and evil. We must
as a unified social whole make the conscious decision to act in accord with that
knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The subjective understanding of good and evil would
appear to be too limited to be successful in allowing a determination of right and wrong.
TINNY: The subjective understanding of good and evil is not only too limited, it is
sometimes actually incorrect. At times what has been considered good and evil has had no
relationship with the true nature of good and evil, and has been no more than a selfserving device of those desiring to impose their will on others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Has the subjective understanding of good and evil been at
all beneficial to the progression of the human species?
TINNY: Subjective beliefs as to what was good and evil have been of great benefit to the
development of human society. Those subjective beliefs have often been expressed as
moral values; and although we still have much further to go in that area, we have
progressed far beyond the primitive understanding of right and wrong behaviour which
existed during the period of barbarism predating human civilisation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Human beings are still sometimes pretty barbaric.
TINNY: Certainly some are, we all have within us still the potential for barbaric
behaviour. That does not mean the values held in general by society have not progressed.
In general our actions are more in line with the values of civilisation than with those of
barbarism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the human species necessarily continue that
progression toward a more perfect understanding of right and wrong?
TINNY: There is no guarantee at this point in the development of the human race whether
we will continue to progress or not. We could fall backwards, which would likely mean
the extinction of our species. We are presently struggling, during this transitional period,
to find our way as many of the old value systems have broken down. The general level of
human knowledge has progressed to a point which has made obvious the many flaws
existing in the prevailing subjective beliefs about the nature of good and evil. As the old
systems of moral values are being discarded much of what was good and right was
thrown out with that which was incorrect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the human race is presently left floundering without
direction.
TINNY: To be left without direction is the most dangerous thing which could happen at
this point in human development. If we as a species do not soon find our way back to an
existence in accord with the natural order it will be too late, and we will cease to exist as a
species.
140
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would appear to be impossible to survive without a
definite value system. To believe there is no definite good and evil could lead to a
situation where no standards of right and wrong action are accepted.
TINNY: That is the danger in believing good and evil to be relative. While we must have
freedom, we must also resist license.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we need an understanding of good and evil that is
neither relative to the beliefs of each individual, nor absolute according to socially
accepted moral values which have in the past tended to be subjective rather than
objective.
TINNY: That is the reason I have attempted to give an objective definition of good and
evil. Good and evil must be free of subjective influence. They need to be understood in
relation to the natural order of physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we were talking about free-will and determinism
you said the human level of existence was the turning point where for the first time freewill could prevail over determinism. Is it also true that the human level of existence is the
turning point where good prevails over evil?
TINNY: The answer to that question depends on whether one's perspective is from the
material plane of existence or from perfected existence beyond the material plane.
Answered from a perspective within the material universe, good and evil are relative to
each level of material progression. In that case good and evil are determined by the
degree of harmony with the natural order experienced by that particular level of material
progression. By that standard the human species does not fare well. Most less advanced
forms of material existence have a much more harmonious relationship with the natural
order than does the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where does the human species stand in relation to good
and evil when viewed from beyond the material plane?
TINNY: From that perspective the whole of the material plane can be judged objectively.
In that instance all good and evil on the material plane are judged against the standard of
perfect good which is the essence of existence beyond the material plane. In coming to an
objective understanding of good and evil, as viewed from beyond the material plane of
existence, there would be no better explanation than to equate good and evil, respectively,
with free-will and determinism. If one uses those terms, good can then be defined as the
exercise of free-will, and evil can be defined as the imposition of will. When good and
evil are considered as equivalent terms to free-will and determinism then it follows that
the human level of existence is at the turning point where for the first time good may
prevail over evil without external causation. It is important to realise that although the
turning point has been reached it is not necessarily the case that free-will must prevail
over determinism, nor is it the case that good must prevail over evil. That the human
141
species has reached the turning point only means free-will has the potential to prevail
over determinism, and good has the potential to prevail over evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What determines which influences, good or evil, shall
prevail?
TINNY: We must choose. A future of freedom and goodness is ours for the taking; but,
we must choose to accept that beautiful future, it will not be forced upon us.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which exists in the greatest abundance in the world today,
good or evil?
TINNY: The two are very nearly equal, with the balance probably weighted toward a
predominance of evil. At this point in human development, to be in harmony with the
natural order, the balance should be tipped far toward a predominance of good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will goodness in the world increase and tip the balance
back, away from evil?
TINNY: I should say that has not yet been decided.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why should you say that?
TINNY: From existence on the material plane it is not possible to know the future.
Human society has not yet committed to the decision which will determine whether we
slip further into evil and cease to survive as a species, or move onward to goodness and
fulfill the potential of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't understand; if that is the reality of our present
circumstance why not just say so? Why do you say that is what you should say? Do you
want to give a different answer?
TINNY: I want to dearly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Go ahead then, do so.
TINNY: The answer is that goodness shall prevail. We have a future where all shall be
good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You just said the answer could not yet be known on the
material plane of existence, so where did that answer come from?
TINNY: I think it came from beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you know for sure where you got that answer from?
TINNY: No, I don't. I once had what seemed to be a religious or perhaps mystical
experience. During that experience I was promised a future where all shall be good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you believe that is to be the future of the human race?
142
TINNY: I do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should others believe that is to be their future because of
your experience?
TINNY: No. That's why I hesitated to give such an answer. I have no proof that what I
experienced was real. I have always questioned it myself, even though I was the one to
experience it.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is the nature of the mystical experience. It cannot be
verified even by those who undergo the experience.
TINNY: I remain open to the truth of that experience, just as I do to all other perceptions
of reality. I try never to be dogmatic about anything, even the nature of my own
experiences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So what should we do with that information promising a
future where all shall be good?
TINNY: Hope it's true, I suppose.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should we live our lives as if that is truly to be our future?
TINNY: I think it would be better to act as if there were no guarantees that we will have a
future where all shall be good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: Just in case I was somehow mistaken. I'm not going to idly wait around for that
beautiful future to become a reality. I intend to work my whole life to help bring about
that future of goodness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think that sounds a very realistic approach to life. Since
we cannot, as material beings, know absolute truth even when we come across it, we must
accept all things as only probabilities of truth.
TINNY: I'm glad I told you about that experience, but I want to keep our discussion to an
objective, empirical level of science and philosophy which can be verified.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You make many wise decisions.
TINNY: I think this is a very exciting time to be alive. Mine is the generation which will
truly take human destiny into our own hands. We shall complete the turn from
determinism to free-will and from evil to goodness. We shall go beyond potential to full
expression of all positive characteristics of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you have defined evil, it is the imposition of will.
What does that mean?
143
TINNY: That it is evil when the behaviour of material form is externally rather than
internally determined.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me a couple of examples?
TINNY: Before I do, remember that evil can be considered from both an absolute
perspective and a relative perspective. From the absolute perspective evil can be seen in
relation to all levels of progressively developed material existence. From the relative
perspective evil is seen differently from each level of progressively developed material
existence. With that said I'll give you an example of evil at the level of subatomic
particles. Early in the development of the physical universe, when all was expanding and
cooling so quickly, the environmental circumstances suddenly became such that the
strong nuclear force acted upon the free protons and neutrons, binding them together into
atomic nuclei. The subatomic particles, the protons and neutrons, had no choice but to act
as dictated by the strong nuclear force. From the absolute perspective that was evil, as it
was a clear case of the imposition of will by force; but from the relative perspective the
progressive development from free particles to atomic nuclei was a further step, away
from the simple deterministic beginning, toward the final goal of a perfect transcendental
existence. That was good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It was evil in that change came about by force; but the
outcome, being a step in the progressive development of matter, was good. Is that
correct?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So good can come from evil.
TINNY: Undoubtedly, that is the essential nature of physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the beginning of the physical universe virtually
everything which occurred was due to the affect of external forces. Would you say that
means the universe began as total evil?
TINNY: That's what it means, at least from the absolute perspective.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you know how hard it is to conceive of the actions of
physical forces early in the development of the universe as evil?
TINNY: I realise those actions seem to have nothing to do with good and evil as the terms
have been commonly used.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might it not be better to create a new word rather than evil
to describe the actions of those early physical forces?
TINNY: I don't think it would. It is only our limited and subjective understanding of
words such as good and evil which precludes us from realising the imposition of will by
force as being evil.
144
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Still, at present some people will misunderstand.
TINNY: The true nature of reality remains unchanged whether understood or not. The
term, 'it is' describes that reality. Each person will come to know that which is, in their
own way, and in their own time. The truth must not be held back from those who are not
yet ready. To be freely exposed to truth may for some be the way to know the true nature
of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The way you define good and evil certainly removes the
moral dilemma which has in the past proved so difficult. It is not the province of
individuals or society to decide good and evil or right and wrong.
TINNY: Right and wrong are decided for all by the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When that objective definition of good and evil is applied
to human social behaviour will there be much similarity to the way good and evil have
been previously understood?
TINNY: When we talk about specific actions, most that is now considered evil will
remain so. Actually the new understanding of good and evil will probably change more of
what has been so traditionally considered good than what in the past has been considered
evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean people generally misunderstand good
more often evil?
TINNY: Yes, we do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: Most of what we consider evil is fairly obvious. Our understanding of evil is
largely determined by our perception of what brings harm or pain to ourselves or to
others. It is most often the case that what we subjectively perceive as evil would also be
evil by objective standards.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't that also the case with our perceptions of good?
TINNY: : Our understanding of good is largely determined by our perception of what
brings pleasure to ourselves and to others. For that reason our understanding of good is so
poor. It is not pleasure which should be the criterion of goodness, but instead the criterion
should be the achieving of life's purpose. The avoidance of pain and the seeking of
pleasure are both evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can't let you get away with saying that unless you have a
very good reason. To say that avoiding pain and seeking pleasure are both evil is perhaps
the most unbelievable thing you have said so far. It is not clear why avoiding pain may be
considered evil, nor is it clear how could seeking pleasure could possibly be associated
with evil?
145
TINNY: Pain and pleasure usually serve the same purpose, which is to cause certain
behaviour to take place. Pain controls our behaviour by causing us to avoid it, and
pleasure controls our behaviour by causing us to seek it. Both are the way by which our
actions are determined by external factors rather than allowing the exercise of free-will,
uninfluenced by external factors. Since the purpose of existence on the material plane is
to progress from a beginning in determinism to a destiny in free-will, both the avoidance
of pain and the seeking of pleasure hold us from that goal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do I understand correctly, you are saying that it is wrong
to seek pleasure because it reduces free-will?
TINNY: I am saying that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see. Well, as you have defined evil, l must agree that to
seek pleasure is evil. It seems a shame, though, that we must give up pleasure as we
continue our envolutionary progression.
TINNY: There is no reason to give up pleasure as we progress. There is more pleasure
available in our future than has ever been experienced.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you just said it was wrong to seek pleasure.
TINNY: I said it was wrong to seek pleasure, I didn't say it was wrong to experience
pleasure. If we act to seek pleasure that is wrong; but if we act to further the purpose of
physical existence and pleasure comes unsought, then that is not evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is alright to accept pleasure, but not to seek it.
TINNY: That's right. It is true because when pleasure comes unsought we are not acting
due to external control. To exercise free-will we must stand beyond the need to avoid pain
or to seek pleasure. While we have a great deal of control over whether or not we avoid
pain or seek pleasure, we have little control over whether or not we experience pain or
pleasure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are subtle differences. Should we just be passive
receivers of pain and pleasure? By this I mean should we quit acting in a manner which
ends pain or which brings pleasure?
TINNY: Actually the difference is even more subtle than indicated by our discussion so
far. It is the reason behind our actions which is critical to our progression. It is possible to
act in a manner which avoids pain or which brings pleasure as long as the purpose of that
action is neither to avoid pain nor to seek pleasure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would be the reasons for those actions if they were
not to avoid pain or seek pleasure?
TINNY: To further the purpose of physical existence; to progress toward perfection in
every aspect.
146
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean it is right to do anything as long as the
purpose of that action is to further the progression toward perfection?
TINNY: Anything that truly aids the process of envolution is right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't one then do anything and say it was to aid
developmental progression, thereby making any behaviour a right behaviour?
TINNY: The purpose of any action is not determined by what is said or even believed
about it. It is natural law and nothing else which determines right action.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can we best know what actions are of benefit in
achieving the purpose of physical existence?
TINNY: The best way to know right action is to understand most fully the true nature of
existence. The knowledge of truth is the greatest aid, at the human level of existence, in
allowing the exercise of free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it human beings must know truth to continue the
line of progressive development? None of the previous levels of material existence knew
the true nature of reality; and they all, from the simplest subatomic particle to the most
highly developed animal, were able to keep the continuous line of progression going for
billions of years.
TINNY: The less developed the form of physical existence the less that form can perceive
of the true nature of existence. The less known of truth the more the actions of that level
of physical form must be caused by external forces. It is for that reason the point on the
continuum where free-will becomes greater than determinism is the point where good
must also become greater than evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain that further?
TINNY: Evil can be thought of as control by external forces, and good can be thought of
as inner control by the exercise of free-will. A subatomic particle has virtually no
knowledge of the nature of existence so therefore must be virtually totally controlled by
external forces to act in a manner which will further its progression toward perfection. A
chimpanzee has a sufficiently high understanding of the nature of existence so that many
of its actions no longer need to be externally controlled. To that degree the chimpanzee
exercises free-will. Although free-will at that high level of animal existence is quite
extensive, the degree of understanding of the true nature of existence at that level is not
sufficient to allow free-will more influence than the external, deterministic factors. At the
human level we have the potential to perceive the true nature of existence well enough to
allow inner control through the exercise of free-will to take over from the previously
necessary external control of determinism. The human level, due to the new characteristic
of self-reflective consciousness, is at the turning point where the external control of
determinism gives way to the exercise of free-will. The control of determinism is through
the imposition of will by force, which is evil. External control gives way to the inner147
directed exercise of free-will which influences rather than controls. The influence of freewill manifests as the actions of peace and love as opposed to the earlier deterministic
control through force and aggression. It is to allow that level of free-will to be manifested
which requires truth to be known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As determinism gives way to free-will, evil gives way to
good; and force and aggression give way to peace and love.
TINNY: That is physical existence in accord with natural law. Free-will shall supersede
determinism. Good shall supersede evil. Peace and love shall supersede force and
aggression. It can be no other way.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say it can be no other way, but as l look at human
society it appears that force and aggression have not given way to peace and love.
TINNY: That constitutes a great danger, since it is against natural law. When any level of
physical existence goes against natural law this can bring about the end to its line of
progression. When I said there is no other way but for peace and love to supersede force
and aggression, I meant there is no other way to continue to exist at the human level than
for peace and love to supersede force and aggression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Please be more direct on this most important matter. What
will happen to the human race if we continue our present use of force and aggression?
TINNY: The human race will become extinct. If we are to have a future it must be a
future of peace and love. To continue the path of force and aggression will mean the end
of the human race. There is no alternative, that is the natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't it have been much nicer if there was no evil, if
the physical existence could have been created perfectly good?
TINNY: The idea sounds idyllic, but has no basis in reality. Perfect good can only exist
beyond the material plane; and action externally caused is necessary so that simple matter
may become complex matter. Free-will cannot be granted, it must be earned. The way
free-will is earned is through the progressive development of material form in the
physical universe. Such is the purpose of envolution, to create existence perfected in
every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This perfect good you speak about, is it the same notion of
good as we know on the material plane?
TINNY: In the physical existence good is that which is in apparent conflict with evil.
Good is the progressive movement in accord with the purpose of physical existence,
moving toward the perfect manifestation of all positive characteristics. At the level of
absolute existence, good is the perfected manifestation of all those characteristics. Perfect
good may also be understood as perfect love, since true love is the manifestation of all
right action.
148
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That explanation now seems to make good, love, right,
and free-will all one.
TINNY: Existence perfectly and absolutely manifested is the ultimate expression of
oneness. It is helpful for us to know the true oneness of the concepts of good, love, right,
and free-will while we exist on the material plane where such concepts remain separate.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that helpful?
TINNY: It allows us to strive to achieve the one perfect goal. If we were to see each
aspect of perfection as separate we would dissipate our energies as we worked toward
what we perceived as different goals. The unity of focus is of great importance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the human level how can we best do what is good?
TINNY: In every thought, word, and deed we should attempt to progress toward our
perfect destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the human level how can we best show love?
TINNY: In every thought, word, and deed we should do what is right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the human level how can we best know what is right?
TINNY: Every thought, word, and deed should be in accord with natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And at the human level how can we best exercise freewill.
TINNY: Every thought, word, and deed should be inner-directed, free from external
influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No person can do all those things.
TINNY: That's true; but each at their own level can do all those things better in the future.
It is our nature to do so. Anyone who does not progress is fighting against the natural
order, and that is a battle which cannot be won.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you have explained, any action at the human level falls
on the continuum of good and evil, therefore having a component of both. How can we
then ever do good without doing evil?
TINNY: We cannot, that is our nature. Every action expresses both good and evil. What
we should then do in every action is seek to maximise good and minimise evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it easy to know good and evil in relation to any specific
action?
TINNY: It is extremely difficult to know good and evil in relation to specific actions,
made much more so by the complexity of the interrelated nature of all things. It is that
149
difficulty which is one of the many causes of our blindness to the true nature of good and
evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't circumstances sometimes change wrong to right?
TINNY: How do you mean?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me give an extreme example. A parent holding a gun
is standing on one side of an uncrossable river, on the other side stands their beloved
child. The parent sees another person start to attack their child with a knife. The parent
shoots and kills the attacker, thus saving their child's life. Under normal circumstances it
is thought wrong to kill; but in this case, since there was no other way to save their child's
life, the parent would be seen as right in killing the attacker.
TINNY: That's quite a horrible example.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In a world as we have at present, atrocities such as that are
an unfortunate reality. What is your answer? Do the extreme circumstances, as in that
example, change the accepted wrongness of killing to a right act, in that it saves the
child's life?
TINNY: No circumstance can change wrong to right. It was wrong for the parent to kill
the attacker of the child.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't think many would agree with you.
TINNY: As we see over and over, agreement and truth are not necessarily connected.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can you say the parent should not take the life of an
attacker who would otherwise kill their child?
TINNY: I never said they shouldn't. What I said was that it was wrong to do so. It is
always wrong to take a life. At the same time it is always right for a parent to save the life
of their child. We have here an example, which while extreme, points out a subtle but
common flaw in logic. The example you gave is a variation of the type of example
modern philosophers often use to prove the relative nature of good and evil. Because
most people who heard such an example would agree that in this case the otherwise
wrong act of killing becomes right, this is taken to be proof of the argument of relativism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't it?
TINNY: Not only isn't it proof that circumstances may change wrong to right, it is a
harmful belief in that it holds back our further progression. To exercise our free-will we
must accept responsibility for our actions. It was wrong to kill the attacker, it was right to
save the life of the child. It is important to realise that in the example given the parent
made a choice to perform a horribly wrong act to have something they dearly wanted, the
life of their child. It was a conscious choice where the goodness of saving their child's life
was considered to be more important than the evil of killing the attacker. It is important to
150
our moral progression to accept responsibility for both our decisions and our actions. As
long as we hide behind the supposed necessity of circumstances we give up our free-will.
I believe it is the need to protect ourselves from that responsibility which causes the
widespread belief that circumstances can change wrong acts to right acts. At times great
effort is taken to ensure that belief is accepted. In wars, those who kill many people
considered to be 'the enemy' are awarded medals in elaborate ceremonies and called
heroes. That makes it almost impossible for the soldier who has killed to believe he has
done anything but that which is good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be better if he were to think it was a wrong thing
he did in killing the enemy?
TINNY: It would. Even if the killing still took place it is greatly important to realise
killing remains wrong. In the example of the parent who killed to save their child's life,
this realisation of wrong is important. It would be fine for the parent to feel good that
their child's life had been saved, but at the same time it would be correct to feel sadness
about the necessity of taking the attacker's life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you also say the soldier should feel sorrow for
enemy soldiers killed?
TINNY: It is most important that soldiers should feel that sorrow. As long as it is thought
good to harm the enemy we will continue to have wars. The greater the sorrow for the
plight of the enemy the greater the chance for peace.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I want to know more about the example of the parent
saving their child. If the parent realises they committed a wrong act by taking a life
wouldn't they feel guilty? Might not the parent believe having killed their child's attacker
makes them a bad person?
TINNY: They might think their actions made them a bad person, but if they did they
would be wrong. They would better think of themselves as someone who made a
necessary and reasonable decision in very difficult circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is then acceptable to commit an evil act?
TINNY: We all commit many evil acts each day. When we perform wrong actions in
circumstances where there is no viable alternative, then we must do what we must do. It
does not make the action right, but there is also no need to consider ourselves bad for
committing those wrong acts. It is a higher level of mental maturity to be able to
objectively acknowledge the responsibility for choosing to commit wrong acts. When
there is no viable alternative, rather than continuing with the self-serving belief that the
circumstances change wrong to right, it is a progressive step in our moral development to
objectively acknowledge the wrongness of our actions, and accept the responsibility for
our actions.
151
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you were the parent in the example, what would you
do? Would you have killed the attacker to save your child's life?
TINNY: I'm not sure what I would do. I have never harmed another person, I'm not sure if
I could no matter what the consequences; but I also don't think I could resist the desire to
save my child. I pray my life will be spent in a loving and peaceful world where I shall
never be required to make such a choice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is my hope also, dear child.
TINNY: Could we quit talking about such sad things?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: For now we can, but you know the path to a better world
is not yet free from those tragic realities.
TINNY: I know.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since evil has no absolute expression and exists only on
the material plane of existence, does that make all actions in the physical universe evil?
TINNY: It does from the perspective beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: While all actions on the material plane are evil from the
absolute perspective, the effects of those actions can be both good and evil. Is that
correct?
TINNY: Yes, all actions on the material plane are evil in that their nature is inextricably
linked with the deterministic characteristic of matter, causality. Depending on whether the
effect of the action supports or opposes the natural order, the outcome is good or evil.
There are, though, no purely good or purely evil outcomes from actions. Each act brings
about many effects, some good and some evil. In the relative sense an action which brings
about noticeably more good than evil has a good effect, although as I have just said, from
the absolute perspective all actions within the material existence are evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could it be evil to eat, to drink, or to breathe?
TINNY: All those are evil acts, from the perspective beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can they be? If we didn't eat, drink, or breathe we
would die.
TINNY: Then we should eat, drink, and breathe. If those actions sustain and continue our
lives the outcome is good relative to our position on the continuum of progressive
development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Eating, drinking, and breathing are evil in the absolute
sense but good in the relative sense?
TINNY: That is essentially true.
152
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a simple explanation of why such common and
necessary human acts as eating, drinking, and breathing are evil from the absolute
perspective?
TINNY: Simply put they are evil because they continue to bind us to the physical
existence. To fulfill our final destiny we must become free from all material connections.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying we will eventually give up eating,
drinking, and breathing.
TINNY: We must if we are to reach our natural goal, which is perfection in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will we be as we are now when that final goal is reached?
TINNY: We will not be restricted by physical form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see, and without physical form there would be no need to
eat, drink, or breathe.
TINNY: That is true. That is our future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With such common human acts as eating, drinking, and
breathing being in the absolute sense evil, should we feel at all bad or wrong when we do
those things?
TINNY: Acts such as those show how we may accept the objective reality of our actions
without emotional harm. Of course we should not feel guilt because we do any of the
things necessary for survival at our level of developmental progression. It is because good
and evil have so long been considered moral issues, judged only from a subjective
perspective, that we link being bad with the performance of evil acts. From an objective
understanding of good and evil we can see that it is not the act so much as the
circumstances, effects, and intentions of the act which determine good or evil on the
material plane of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is that objective understanding of good and evil
necessary to our continued developmental progression?
TINNY: At whatever point on the continuum of developmental progression we have
reached we must be able to know good and evil in order to make right decisions as to how
we should behave.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we truly know good from evil and right from wrong
will we then be able to act in perfect accord with that knowledge?
TINNY: I wish it could be that easy. To know the true nature of good and evil is a
necessary step toward right action. It is a step that must be taken before right action can
occur through the exercise of free-will. If we know good from evil the connection
between the mind and body will result in our behaviour changing in a direction which
would be more in harmony with the natural order.
153
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be a sudden shift in behaviour toward that
which is known to be right?
TINNY: The speed of the shift in behaviour will vary between individuals from the
almost instantaneous to the imperceptibly slow; but, it will always occur.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What determines the rate of change by which behaviour is
brought into line with the knowledge of good and evil?
TINNY: There are many factors which affect that rate of change. Some of those are: the
degree of surety as to the truth of the knowledge; the consequences of wrong action; how
integral a part of life the wrong behaviours were; how rewarding the wrong behaviours
were perceived to be; and perhaps the most influential factor, the degree to which the
correct knowledge of good and evil is commonly held by the other members of society,
particularly those others who have greatest personal significance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if all of human society were to hold a
common, objectively true understanding of good and evil?
TINNY: There would be a virtually instantaneous transformation of human society. We
would rush toward the path of right action. This change would result in the end of all
present social problems facing humanity. We would have a world that was so good it
would be a veritable utopia compared to the way things are in the world at present. We
would make a quantum leap to a higher order of developmental progression on the path to
perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And that great change would happen just because all
human society held the same objective knowledge about the true nature of good and evil?
TINNY: Exactly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everyone was in agreement as to the true objective
nature of good and evil wouldn't we have total conformity, a world where everyone acted
the same way?
TINNY: The opposite would be the case. We would have greater diversity in human
society than ever before.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would that be?
TINNY: There has always been a need to place limits on human behaviour to protect
individuals and society from the effects of wrong actions. Those limits have been
enforced through law, custom, and social mores. In a world freed from the constant threat
of wrong action we would no longer have that pressing need to constrain the realm of
human behaviour. We would have a freedom of action never before available. Freedom
within the range of right behaviour would allow a far wider expression of human action
than could exist within the relatively narrow range of acceptable behaviour which
included both good and evil.
154
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it the range of good is larger than the range of
good and evil combined?
TINNY: Good alone stands unlimited, while when good and evil are combined, fears of
evil result in the placing of constraints which affect both good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we won't have conformity when the world is basically
good?
TINNY: No, we won't have conformity. It would be boring if everyone were exactly the
same. Besides, if everyone were the same it would limit the progression of the human
species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would human progression then be limited?
TINNY: We must explore many paths to reach our destined goal, perfection in every
aspect. In that new world of goodness we will be freed from the constraints of evil, and
new paths never before possible will be open to us. I don't think we can yet realise how
great that freedom shall be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think that new degree of freedom will come in
your lifetime?
TINNY: I know it can and I expect it will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I feel you were able to answer quite well the question as
to the true nature of good and evil. Before we go on to another topic I would just like to
clarify several points.
TINNY: Sure, go ahead.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since free-will is our goal and is to be considered good,
what happens if someone uses their free-will to choose to do evil?
TINNY: It is impossible to choose to do evil through the exercise of free-will. Evil acts
are always brought about by circumstances which are linked with our deterministic
nature. We are controlled by the causal links with our physical nature. We are caused to
do evil. If we were entirely free of external causation we would only ever choose right
actions, actions in accord with natural law. Since we are only partially free, and remain
partially linked to the causal physical nature, we sometimes act because of those external
influences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we can only do good by the exercise of our free-will,
and evil cannot be done through the exercise of free-will but only through the influence of
external causes, do we have responsibility for our evil acts?
TINNY: We have responsibility for all our actions, good and evil. When we commit evil
acts, even though they are brought about by external causes, we still own responsibility
since we could have exercised greater free-will in that situation, but did not. It is that
155
relationship between action and causal factors, mediated by human consciousness, which
sets us apart from all less developed levels of material form. It is for that reason human
consciousness is at the turning point where free-will first has the potential to take
precedence over determinism. It is that responsibility for our actions which resulted in a
special word being created to describe evil at the human level. While both animals and
humans can commit evil acts, evil is called sin when done by a human being. The concept
of sin is recognition of conscious responsibility for wrong actions at the human level.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In your explanation of good and evil you have separated
the act from the result. Would it be right to also separate intention from both the act and
the result?
TINNY: It would. All acts by their essential nature are evil. All resulting effects from
actions will have a combined good and bad outcome. When the good outweighs the evil
the outcome is considered good, and when the evil outweighs the good the outcome is
considered evil. If the intention is wrong the intention remains evil regardless of the
outcome; and, if the intention is right the intention remains good regardless of the
outcome.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In all those instances when you refer to good and right or
evil and wrong, you are referring to the objective definitions, is that correct?
TINNY: Yes. What I am saying is only true when using the objective definitions, where
good and evil are determined by the natural order of physical existence. If what I have
been saying about good and evil was evaluated according to the common or subjective
definitions of good and evil, then what I have been saying would not be true, it wouldn't
even make sense.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I am fairly astounded that the act, the outcome, and the
intention are so loosely linked. Tell me if I have understood correctly. All acts, because
they bind us to the material plane through causality, are essentially evil. From any point
on the continuum of developmental progression we may judge relative good and relative
evil by the effects of the act. All actions will have some good outcomes and some bad
outcomes; those being considered good when they aid the developmental progression of
material form, and being considered evil when they oppose the developmental
progression of material form. When the combined effects of an act predominantly aid the
progression they may be considered good; and when the combined effects of an act
predominantly oppose the progression they may be considered evil. If an act is committed
with the honest intention of aiding the developmental progression that intention is good;
and when an act is committed with the intention of opposing the developmental
progression that intention is evil. It is possible to have good intentions and commit an act
which has predominantly evil results; and, it is possible to have evil intentions and
commit an act which has predominantly good results.
TINNY: What you have just said was pretty complicated.
156
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was it accurate?
TINNY: I think so. When a statement becomes too complex it gets hard to be sure
whether it is true or not.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have covered quite a lot about good and evil. We
could go on much longer as there is still much to be said, but perhaps for now it would be
best to go on to other subjects. Before we do, let me ask just a couple more hopefully
simple questions.
TINNY: Fine with me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since evil from any personal point of development is
relative, does that mean what is right and wrong for various people will be very different?
TINNY: Oh no, I didn't mean that. Although good and evil are relative to position on the
continuum of developing physical form, that doesn't mean that the differences are very
great for any specific level of physical form, such as human beings, which share a very
small range on the continuum. When a very small part of the continuum is considered, the
relative good and evil for individuals sharing that small part would be very similar.
Human beings might share as much as 99% of relative good and evil in common with
each other, perhaps even more. That allows the knowledge of good and evil to be
commonly shared throughout the human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One last question about good and evil before we go on. In
the progression of human values, what is the next step?
TINNY: The next step in the progressive development of humanity is to truly understand
right and wrong, even if circumstances don't yet allow a change of behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The thought before the action.
TINNY: That is how it must be at the human level. If it were otherwise we would not be
exercising our free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Something else I would like to discuss which is related to
subjective and objective views of reality are the meanings of faith, belief, knowledge, and
truth.
TINNY: Would you like me to begin by giving what I think to be the definition of each of
those terms?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be a good start. Do you think those four terms
fall naturally into some order?
TINNY: I think the order you said them in is the natural order for those terms: faith,
belief, knowledge, and truth. Faith, belief, and knowledge are all directed to truth. Faith
being less than belief, belief being less than knowledge, and knowledge being less than
truth.
157
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Faith has for thousands of years been considered one of
the most beautiful and important of human attributes and you call it the least of the three
approaches to truth.
TINNY: I mean to take nothing from that beauty. Faith is more than beautiful, it is
necessary to the progression of humanity. Perhaps I could define the terms first before we
discuss them further.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Go ahead.
TINNY: I'll begin with faith. Faith is a particular type of belief. It is belief based on trust
rather than proof. A belief is that which is accepted as truth. Non-conclusive evidence is
sufficient to account for belief. It requires less evidence for belief than it does for
knowledge. Knowledge is that which appears to be true based on factual evidence.
Knowledge is the possession of truths and principles with reasonable certainty of fact.
Truth is indisputable fact, agreement with reality, that which is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So faith is less likely to be true than belief, belief is less
likely to be true than knowledge, and knowledge is less than its object, truth.
TINNY: Actually it is very hard to separate one from the other because although those
different aspects of human consciousness have different names they are all represented on
the one continuum. There is no fixed point where faith becomes belief or where belief
becomes knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is it that faith is necessary for the progression of
humanity?
TINNY: Actually, faith, belief, and knowledge are all necessary for the progression of
humanity. One of the characteristics of consciousness as it develops is the understanding
of the true nature of existence. When self-reflective consciousness appears at the human
level that search for truth becomes inner-directed rather than externally directed. Human
beings go beyond the external experience of physical reality to the creation of mental
processes to understand that reality. In the beginning many important questions appeared
to be beyond the realm of available evidence. Wise thinkers in those early times were able
to come to incredibly accurate conclusions about the true nature of existence, considering
they did so with little or no objective evidence. Those whose lives encompassed tasks
other than thinking about such difficult human questions accepted the words of the wise
teachers as truth. That acceptance of certain basic truths on faith, for thousands of years
directed humanity from its barbarous origins to the beginnings of civilisation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those wise teachers you speak of, how did they come to
possess truth?
TINNY: Much of their knowledge of truth came from within.
158
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As the stories are passed down from those early times it is
claimed that many of those basic truths were gifts from God.
TINNY: I wouldn't deny that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were those real experiences or mystical experiences?
TINNY: All experiences are real. It is the interpretation of the experience which
sometimes varies from reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those messages from God, they would be revelation. Do
you accept that revelation truly occurs?
TINNY: Without a doubt. Revelation means that truth is revealed. The very nature of our
being, in relation to the physical existence, is to accept revealed truths. Everywhere we
look truth is revealed to us, ours is to correctly interpret the information we receive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds like a very natural type of revelation, which
comes to us from every aspect of the physical existence. What about supernatural
revelation?
TINNY: Nothing that exists is supernatural, although often that which we have yet to
understand has been labeled supernatural.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm finding it hard to get the answer l want from you. I'll
be more to the point. Does any form of revelation come from God?
TINNY: You'll probably still think my answer evasive. All revelation comes from God.
As I have described God there is nothing that exists which is not from God. There is no
difference in saying revelation comes from our perception of existence, or saying that it
comes directly from God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maybe this will be direct enough to get to the question I
really want you to answer. Does God appear in some form, or send messengers either
physical or spiritual, to certain individuals and tell them of truths to be passed on to the
rest of humanity?
TINNY: I remain fully open to that possibility
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people take on faith that such appearances by God
have occurred.
TINNY: As I said earlier, I think faith is very beautiful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you take appearances by God on faith?
TINNY: I take nothing on faith.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
159
TINNY: Because of the progression of human consciousness we have been discussing.
Early, when there was not much evidence for the great truths, faith was their guardian.
We then went through a period, which has not yet ended, when there was a growing
amount of evidence to support those truths. Faith blended with belief; faith became belief.
We now stand at the brink of a new era when human consciousness shall take a giant
leap, beyond faith and belief to knowledge. The human race is finally able to know,
through factual certainty, those great truths which previously could only be partially
known through faith and belief. When truth is known, to accept on faith alone is a step
backward in our progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is knowledge beautiful like faith was?
TINNY: Oh, knowledge is beautiful, but different than faith. I love knowledge because it
brings me so close to truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can knowledge bring you closer to truth than faith?
TINNY: Yes, it can.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if the truth gained by faith is identical with the truth
gained through knowledge?
TINNY: Perfect truth is one aspect of perfected existence. As that perfection is
approached by envolving material forms, direction progresses from external causation to
inner guidance. When truth is held by faith, it is often related to trust in another's words
and perceptions, an external source. When truth is held through knowledge it is the inner
experience of the evidence which brings realisation. When one comes to personal
acquisition of truth, rather than acceptance of truth acquired by another, a point is reached
on the envolutionary continuum closer to the goal of perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So progression is not only by possession of truth, but also
includes the means by which truth is gained.
TINNY: That is how things are. No aspect of our progression exists unconnected with all
other aspects.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where do such things as scientific theories fit into that
search for truth?
TINNY: Science has envolved as have all things. Early scientific theories were based on
little objective evidence, many being held by faith. I would say that presently, scientific
theories generally fall somewhere between belief and knowledge. I try never to forget that
even the most accepted scientific facts are at this point still only theories.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?
TINNY: That no so-called scientific fact is so perfectly known that it can be considered
an absolute truth. What we call scientific facts are really statements of fact that have been
160
established at extremely high probability. While those facts may be true, because of our
limitations, we can only know them less than perfectly. For that reason it is important to
question all we think to be true. Those things we most want to be true should be held up
to the strictest scrutiny. The search for truth is no simple matter, and to take a simplistic
approach to that difficult task is sure to lead one astray. We humans can be most subtly
devious beings when it comes to protecting our cherished beliefs. To truly experience our
free-will we must move beyond that weakness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You seem to be remarkably free in your thinking, open to
all possibilities.
TINNY: I try always to remain free from dogma.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does dogma mean?
TINNY: I consider dogma to mean holding on to a set of beliefs which are closed to new
information, interpretation, and change.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If someone was dogmatic they could hardly be open to all
truth could they?
TINNY: Not unless they happened to be possessors of the perfect and absolute truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many who are dogmatic would say that they do possess
perfect and absolute truth.
TINNY: It matters not what people say or believe, the reality is that no human being
possesses perfect and absolute truth. I find it most amazing that people holding such
diverse ideas can all be so sure their truth is perfect and absolute, while believing the
ideas held by others are false and even foolish. I think it is in such areas that human
thought can be seen at its most naive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true to say that people who think their beliefs
are right and the beliefs of others are wrong, and refuse to accept any alternative to truth
but their own beliefs are dogmatic?
TINNY: That covers it.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kinds of people are dogmatic?
TINNY: All kinds of people are dogmatic. I think everyone is dogmatic to some degree
about some beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any belief systems which seem to be most
connected with the holding of dogmatic ideas?
TINNY: Religious beliefs and political systems have been historically notorious for the
dogmatism which they incur in their supporters. If a person is a Christian, Hindu, Jew,
Buddhist, or even a Muslim they will to some degree hold dogmatically to their beliefs.
161
Likewise, if a person believes in democracy, communism, capitalism, socialism, or
anarchy they will be bound by dogma to some degree.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Talking like that you will probably offend just about
everyone.
TINNY: Perhaps I will, but that is only because they may see me as threatening their
cherished beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you threatening their beliefs?
TINNY: The truths I speak will support some, perhaps much, in each of the belief
systems I have just named, but those same truths will also conflict with some of that
which is accepted by those belief systems. Even where my words support many times
more than they oppose, to a truly dogmatic mind the support is as nothing and the
opposition of even one word can not be tolerated.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just those systems of belief you mentioned which are
the main havens of dogmatism?
TINNY: Not at all, I just named the well known religions and political ideologies. I say
they are most connected with dogmatism because the various religious and political
ideologies have such great importance in the lives and thoughts of so many. It is hardly
surprising that those are areas of significant dogmatism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since you named major conflicting religious and political
views mustn't some be right and some wrong?
TINNY: They are perhaps all more right than they are wrong, although some are more
right than others. But within the beliefs held and the truths propounded by each of those
religious and political ideologies is something of value to the future of humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But much of the tension and struggle in the world today is
due to those competing belief systems.
TINNY: Then they should stop competing and start cooperating. Share that which is right
and true; correct that which is in error.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many would say such a thing could never happen. The
adherents of some of those ideologies are convinced others are totally wrong, even evil.
TINNY: Such beliefs are the necessity of dogma. As I look at those varied religious
beliefs and political systems I am overwhelmed by all they share in common.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have an unusual perception of the world.
TINNY: Do you mean I'm wrong to see things as I do, to see the common thread shared
by the great belief systems of the world.
162
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are right, not wrong. Yours is the vision of the future.
I only called your perception unusual because it is not presently shared by many.
TINNY: There will be more soon.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many more, very soon.
TINNY: I'm glad you said I was right in how I see the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not perfectly right, you understand.
TINNY: Oh, I know. I'm sure I have dogmas in my thinking also. The nature of dogma
affects not only major religious and political belief systems, but also personal beliefs. The
restriction of dogma is one of the hurdles that maturing consciousness must overcome.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you follow any of the religions or support any political
systems?
Tinny: Yes, but some might think I follow all religions and none, that I support all
political systems and none.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?
TINNY: As I live my life, some things I do and some things I believe might label me as a
follower of various religions and a supporter of various political systems. I study them all,
learn from them all, and value some aspects of them all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you see some of them causing harm in the world?
TINNY: I can see the harm that is caused by those who follow the various religions or
political ideologies. I also can see the good brought by those who follow the varied
religions or political ideologies. I reject the evil done but not the ideologies. I will work to
bring the good aspects of all to greater expression throughout the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have no ill feeling toward those religious or
political systems, since evil has come about under their influence?
TINNY: I have no ill feeling toward any ideology, institution, or individual. Often the
wrongs done were accomplished during attempts to further goodness. I appreciate right
motivation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can you have no ill feelings towards those who do
wrong?
TINNY: If I have ill feelings toward any ideology, institution, or individual I then
perpetuate the negative character. I feel compassion for all who do wrong. No wrong can
be done without also harming those who do the wrong. Wrong is done through ignorance.
In a world of more positive influence, less wrong would be done. Any person who
harbours ill feelings slows the progression toward perfection of all, including themselves.
163
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you say it is true that all wrong action results in a
general increase of wrong action in the world and all right action results in a general
increase of right action in the world?
TINNY: That is truth
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you truly feel love for those who do wrong?
TINNY: I can feel nothing but love for all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are pure of heart.
TINNY: I try to live in accord with natural law. At the human level love of all is in accord
with the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does it take to become so loving? You say it is
natural at the human level to experience such loving feelings, but this fullness of love is
not common in our world.
TINNY: This expression of love is available to all, since the potential to love exists
within the consciousness of every person. To allow that natural attribute of consciousness
to be manifested requires growth in an environment which does not punish loving
expression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying we can learn to love?
TINNY: We can learn not to hate. If we do not learn to hate our natural love will be
expressed, not suppressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it that we do not have a world which nurtures love
in its fullness?
TINNY: The reason is ignorance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then truth shall free humanity from the influence of evil.
TINNY: You are slowly showing me how all this seemingly unrelated knowledge we
have been discussing can be the path to a world free from the present social ills and
threatened destruction of our species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are showing yourself that truth through selfrealisation.
TINNY: I expected a very different answer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What did you think would be the solution to the problems
faced by humanity?
TINNY: I didn't really have any idea.
164
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That has been a great difficulty as attempts are made to
bring the increasing social problems facing today's world under control. It is generally
believed those problems cannot be solved. Attempts are made to solve those problems,
but success is not honestly expected. The true nature of the problems is not understood,
and the attempted solutions are usually stereotyped and traditional. The attempts
themselves are often as harmful as the problems they are purported to remedy.
TINNY: I believe those attempting to solve the world's problems, while impotent, are
truly well meaning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How shall we move from the way things are in human
society at present to the knowledge and actions which can really have an affect on the
many and varied problems facing humanity?
TINNY: Most would be surprised at how close humanity is to the solution. There are
throughout the world a growing number of groups and individuals who have seen through
the veil of ignorance to view the common reality of existence. Those beings of emergent
consciousness are the social pioneers who will open new paths so that many others may
have an easier journey. As these islands of new consciousness emerge from the stagnant
sea of old ideas they will join together to launch humanity into a higher level of existence.
The new ideas will overwhelm the wrong contained within the old not by power or force,
but by positive influence and attractiveness. To beings whose essential nature is good
there is an inherent attractiveness in all that is true and right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are one of those islands of new consciousness. What
are you going to do to help put an end to the passing era of force and aggression, and
bring about the new age of peace and love?
TINNY: In general I will do two things. First I will try to live my life in true accord with
natural law, and second I will share my knowledge with as many others as possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In general that sounds good, but what will you do
specifically?
TINNY: I don't know yet. As I come to a more full understanding of truth I will gain
inner-direction, which I shall follow faithfully. Is there anything you could advise me to
do.?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Continue your search for truth. Only then will you fulfill
your destiny.
TINNY: I want nothing but to be of benefit to humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have been.
TINNY: I have done nothing yet.
165
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have thought great truths. In doing so you have
provided the energy which shall result in the expansion of the envelope of consciousness
which encircles our planet; that sphere of consciousness, in a great quantum leap, shall
transcend all terrestrial boundaries becoming one with the universe.
TINNY: Will that be the end of human progression?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even that sublime state of consciousness is only the
beginning.
TINNY: When does the progression of consciousness end?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is no end, progression is forever.
TINNY: If the purpose of physical existence is to become perfected in every aspect, must
not all goals be attained?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The purpose is not so much to attain the goals but to make
the journey,
TINNY: Even so, perfection in every aspect does exist. Perfect and absolute
consciousness exists.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are right. Although perfection is a goal to be forever
approached but never reached, it does exist.
TINNY: All truth is paradoxical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Only when observed from the material plane.
TINNY: That's right, there are no paradoxes beyond that which is physical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: While we are discussing truth there are a few questions I
would like to ask about that subject. With virtually every topic we discuss there seems to
be different answers depending on whether we are speaking from the perspective of the
material plane, or from beyond the material plane. In each case you assert that both views
are the truth, but the two views often seem to contradict each other. You say that is
because truth on the material plane is paradoxical. When I hear something called truth I
want to be able to depend on that truth. How can I resolve that dilemma?
TINNY: Truth is the way we may know reality. The difficulty in understanding comes
about because we are involved with reality at two levels. Our physical form and our
physical senses interact with the material plane of existence. On the material plane
everything is relative. It is the essential nature of the material plane to be expressed in a
relative manner. Reality on the material plane is relative. To beings who perceive and
exist on the material plane that relative reality is truth, it really exists and is no illusion.
Truth within that relative reality is in accord with the essential nature of the material
plane.
166
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that relative reality is no illusion, but
philosophers for thousands of years have claimed that it is illusion.
TINNY: This is where the seeming paradoxes come into every question. Philosophers
who claimed our material existence is an illusion are correct, but they are only correct
from the perspective beyond the material plane. While it has been known that there is
existence beyond the material plane, it has not often been realised that language and
concepts developed on the material plane cannot fully or correctly express the essential
nature of existence beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should different words be used?
TINNY: The difficulty is not in the words, but exists in the thought symbols connected
with those words. It will aid our understanding of the true nature of all existence to
continue using words from the material plane to describe that which is non-material until
we have new words and concepts which can more accurately describe reality beyond the
material plane of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were you saying physical existence is real and true, not
illusion, according to the nature of the material plane? Is it right for us as material beings
to accept the truth of our reality, even though it is relative?
TINNY: That's it exactly. Nothing is taken away from the reality of our material existence
because it is relative. All being relative means is that physical existence is changing and
temporary; to be relative does not mean to be less real.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what of absolute reality?
TINNY: Our relative reality is an aspect of the absolute reality. Absolute reality is
existence perfected in every aspect. It is the perfect and absolute manifestation of all that
is good. It is unchanging and permanent. If we were to describe the absolute reality with
words and concepts from the material plane we would say absolute existence has always
been and will always be; but, since there is no direct correlation between those words and
the essential nature of absolute reality even such a description is bound to mislead.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is absolute reality more real than relative reality?
TINNY: They are equally real.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say they are equally real even though relative reality
is temporary and absolute reality is forever.
TINNY: The two realities are of a different essential nature. To ask such a question is
similar to asking which is more real, a snowflake or a mountain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it possible to know the true nature of absolute reality?
TINNY: Not while existing bound to the material plane. One must be of the absolute
reality to perfectly know the absolute reality.
167
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it possible to know the true nature of relative reality?
TINNY: Not from existence on the material plane, only from beyond the material plane.
We on the material plane may only know the true nature of relative reality as probability,
not surety.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any way to know, however imperfectly, absolute
reality from the material plane?
TINNY: The more perfectly the true nature of relative reality is known the closer one is to
knowing the true nature of absolute reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the true nature of relative reality was perfectly known
would the true nature of absolute reality be perfectly known?
TINNY: Yes, but be careful that answer doesn't mislead you.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In every communication it is important to know what the
words really mean, not what they appear to mean.
TINNY: Just like any observation of the physical existence, the true message is always
present but not always perceived.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say relative reality can only be known as a
probability, not as a certainty. What does that mean?
TINNY: It is the nature of existence on the material plane to be restricted from the perfect
expression of any characteristic. One of the characteristics of existence on the material
plane is knowledge. Perfect knowledge cannot exist on the material plane. Since the
characteristic of knowledge is manifested, but constrained to expression less than perfect,
our progression takes the path of knowledge increasingly approaching but never reaching
perfection. The concept of probability is related to the degree of likelihood of anything
being manifested. A probability of one (1.0) indicates absolute likelihood, which does not
occur on the material plane, but likelihood as indicated by probability can approach the
perfect likelihood of one (1.0), with no limits.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the probability of anything becomes immeasurably
close to one (1.0) might not we treat that likelihood as if it was perfectly likely?
TINNY: We had better if we want to survive on the material plane. When perfect
knowledge is not available we must often treat the best knowledge available as if it were
absolutely true. If we had no knowledge of the nature of existence we would have no idea
of right action, and would blunder into all sorts of trouble. It is probably the critical
importance of that strategy as life envolves which has resulted in us, at our present level
of conscious development, so often believing that which is highly probably to be
absolutely true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have an example?
168
TINNY: I think most people would claim it was absolutely true that a lead weight
released from the top of a high building would fall to the ground.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying it wouldn't fall to the ground?
TINNY: I'm saying that even something which seems as certain as the effect of gravity on
a lead weight can only be known as a probability. It is less than absolutely true that a lead
weight will fall to the ground.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I assume there are no tricks to the meaning of your
statement. There is no hypothetical string attached to the lead weight.
TINNY: No tricks at all. It is not a certainty that a lead weight when released will fall to
the ground.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know of no instance where a lead weight, given those
circumstances, has done anything but fall to the ground.
TINNY: Obviously a lead weight is very likely to fall to the ground. In fact the
probability would be so close to one (1.0), meaning it is so close to a certainty, that if a
billion people each dropped a lead weight a billion times a year for a billion years there
would be virtually no chance of observing the lead weight do anything but fall.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that just a theoretical idea or is there some imaginable
situation which could result in a lead weight doing something besides falling?
TINNY: There is a very real possibility of extremely slight probability.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me what it is?
TINNY: It has to do with the quantum nature of the subatomic particles which make up
the lead atoms. Our past discussions have touched on how it could happen, but the details
aren't important to this part of our discussion. What is more important is that due to the
quantum effect there is a basic uncertainty inherent in all aspects of physical existence.
Because of that uncertainty the most unlikely thing could happen, and the most likely
thing may not happen.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should we then remain uncertain about everything?
TINNY: We should. It would be intellectually dishonest to be certain when the evidence
tells us that is something we can never truly be. I should emphasise, though, that this
uncertainty is often to remain philosophical rather than practical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?
TINNY: While it is always good to realise that our knowledge of anything is uncertain,
we still have to live in the material world. To succeed in everyday life we must act as if
many of the things we know really are certain, even if we know in truth they are not. We
must act in accord with that which is of highest probability.
169
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: An example of what you are saying would help.
TINNY: I will give you another example about gravity. If I was standing on the edge of a
high cliff I might think about the time I said a lead weight when released is not certain to
fall to the ground. If it is true for a lead weight it should be true for me also, and it is.
There is a possibility that if I were to step off the cliff I wouldn't fall. If I were to act on
that possibility I would be a fool. Although it is true there is a possibility I won't fall, the
probability is so great that I will fall that the only reasonable thing I can do is act as if that
high probability is a certainty. If I didn't treat high probability as certainty I might die.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would that generally be a good way for us to view our
interaction with the environment?
TINNY: Until our knowledge of the true nature of reality is much better than at present it
is the only way which can allow us to survive. In many cases right action would not be so
obvious as when deciding whether or not to step off a high cliff. Since it is necessary for
our continued progression to act in accord with the natural order, and we can only know
right action as probability, it is important for us to learn to distinguish well and accurately
that which is most likely to be truth. If we make one too large error we may cease to
survive. If we make too many small errors we may also cease to survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think most people are able to judge probabilities
well enough?
TINNY: No I don't. At present the human race as a whole is so close to species suicide
that it is clear that far too many wrong judgments are being made.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You seem to be stressing the importance of probabilities
over possibilities. Does the concept of possibilities have importance to us also?
TINNY: In the physical universe, with the exception of quantum limitations, just as
nothing is absolutely certain to be, nothing is absolutely certain not to be. All that exists is
on a continuum of relative expression. It would be correct to say that within the scope of
physical existence virtually everything is possible; therefore, the concept of possibility
becomes meaningless on the material plane. In the absolute existence, just as all positive
characteristics are perfectly and absolutely expressed, any characteristic which is not
positive is not expressed, is indeed not possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What exceptions arise from quantum factors?
TINNY: Earlier we discussed the quantum limitations on the expression of material form.
At all levels of material form the progressive development takes place not continuously,
but through fixed units of change. A simple example was shown by the fact that as atoms
become progressively more complex they increase by proton sized units. The hydrogen
atom has one proton; the helium atom has two protons and so on. There can be no atoms
with any number of protons which is more than one and less than two. The number of
physical forms which can be manifested is immense, but the number of physical forms
170
that cannot be manifested is greater. Those physical forms which can be manifested are
then possible, while those physical forms which cannot be manifested are not possible.
The concept of probability includes only those aspects of physical existence which are
consistent with quantum limitations. From our point of view all existence on the material
plane is subject to the concept of probability.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any harm if possibilities are considered in addition
to the assessing of probability?
TINNY: The danger is in being blinded to the true nature of existence. While
probabilities give some direction to our search for truth, possibilities, being most often
meaningless, can be harmful if we attribute meaning to them. I have heard in arguments,
where two competing points of view were being proposed, the holder of the position of
much lower probability say, apparently thinking this somehow settles the argument, ''well,
isn't what I say possible?''; to which the holder of the position of higher probability must
answer ''yes it is'', since virtually all things are possible. It is a false reliance on possibility
to use it to add weight to an argument when in fact it adds no new information. It is
merely a trick of human thought and communication to protect a position held. Put
directly into words, what is really being said is logically false and very obviously so. It is
saying that since all things are possible all things are equally probable. No one using that
device would want to own up to using such faulty logic, but that is the essence of the
tactic.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would anyone resort to such a foolish tactic?
TINNY: To win an argument, to avoid being beaten in a contest of ideas, to protect their
views against the incursions of objective information. For lots of reasons, but none of
them good ones. They all stand in the way of the search for truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes the human race seems quite foolish.
TINNY: We humans as a species are like a child growing up; we make mistakes,
sometimes suffer from those mistakes, but hopefully go on to progress beyond them to a
successful, happy maturity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you have anything bad to say about humanity?
TINNY: Nothing at all. I am not unaware of the wrongs in human society, but I look at
those wrongs objectively, without ill feeling toward those who do wrong, although I may
hate the wrong acts. I love the human species, we are beautiful. We deserve to be
nurtured with tenderness and cherished.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Shouldn't those who do evil be punished?
TINNY: There are good arguments why no one should ever be punished. Punishment is a
barbaric act, one which by its very nature must bring more evil than good.
171
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a remarkable thing to say. You will have to explain
more about that idea later.
TINNY: Good, because I have a lot to say about the matter.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure you do. Let's finish talking about possibilities and
probabilities right now.
TINNY: Well, what I've been trying to say is that possibilities have often been considered
to be more important than probabilities, and that has been hindering our search for truth
and standing in the way of the further progression of the human species. We must learn
how to more accurately assess and better use probabilities to successfully achieve our
ultimate destiny. All of science is really about discovering probabilities. The methods of
science would be a good addition to the everyday tactics we each develop to come to
know the world around us. What has been called science should not be the exclusive
domain of a few scientists, but should be available to and used by us all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean we should all become scientists?
TINNY: It does, just as we all should become philosophers. To best achieve success in
our search for truth we should seek to express all different aspects of our human potential.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it help to express even our artistic potential in this
search for truth?
TINNY: The artist in each of us has much to offer. Unfortunately just as we are so often
blind to the reality of that which exists outside ourselves, we are also often blind to the
potential locked away within ourselves.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does each of us have within ourselves the potential to be
a scientist, a philosopher, and an artist?
TINNY: There is no human being without that potential.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds as if all our efforts should be directed toward the
search for truth.
TINNY: In all that we do there exists the potential to better know truth. We do not
necessarily have to direct our actions to the quest, but only to accept the knowledge of
existence which comes freely available as a natural part of all human action and thought.
The search for truth can become an integral part of our every endeavour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might not it become quite a burden to make so exhaustive
a search for truth?
TINNY: I believe it could become more exciting and more fulfilling than any previous
way of life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you do that in your own life?
172
TINNY: I have since I can first remember.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you ever get tired of searching for truth?
TINNY: I never have. Each day I seem to become more motivated to find truth. I treasure
each new fact I discern from viewing the world around me or from insights within. I
enjoy learning most fully.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you find some things you learn more interesting
than others?
TINNY: Of course I do. Even so I desire to know even the least interesting of new
information.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: The reason gets back to the unity of all things. Every bit of information is linked
in some way to every other bit of information. Even the most seemingly meaningless fact
may provide the link needed to travel to new heights of knowledge. Sometimes I have
been studying in one field of knowledge and all of a sudden I have an insight in what
appears to be a totally unrelated area.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you say it was true that the more you learn about
any one subject the more you will know about all other subjects?
TINNY: I have always found it that way. For instance I have noticed that if I read a book
on physics, next read a book on biology, then read the same book on physics again I
understand things in the physics book I didn't understand the first time. The
interconnection between physics and biology, due to their inherent unity, allows me to
better understand both subjects.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a name for that process of learning where
knowledge of any one subject provides information which allows better knowledge of all
other subjects?
TINNY: This method of learning is based on a system called multi-dimensional logic.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give a brief explanation of multi-dimensional
logic?
TINNY: The system of thinking based on multi-dimensional logic derives its
effectiveness from the unified nature of all existence. In describing that logic system I
will be using a three dimensional model. I must do that for the same reason I had to
describe the shape of the physical universe as a three dimensional torus, a doughnut
shape. The essential nature of existence, the toroidal shape of the universe, and this new
system of thinking all have higher dimensional aspects beyond the three dimensional
world. Unfortunately, with a language which does not yet contain words and concepts to
173
adequately describe that which transcends the three dimensions, I can not give true
descriptions of the fullness of multi-dimensional reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Your efforts to provide descriptions of multi-dimensional
reality in words and concepts of three dimensional existence have been most helpful. We
must always accept our limitations. Those limitations are only temporary. Please go ahead
with the explanation of multi-dimensional logic.
TINNY: In three dimensional terms this new logic system can be fairly easily described.
Thinking has envolved just as all other things have envolved. The simplest logical system
of thinking we use to acquire knowledge can be thought of as having no dimensions. If
we see a familiar object we do not require a sequence of thoughts to identify the object.
The fact that it is perceived gives it identity. The next and more widely used logical
system of thinking can be thought of as having one dimension. This could be called linear
logic. In that system of thinking we progress to knowledge by a sequential series of bits of
information, facts which form a line leading to a conclusion. Linear logic works fine if
the all points on the line, representing necessary facts are available, but if there is
information missing the sequential series is broken and a conclusion cannot be reached. A
further logical system of thinking can be thought of as having two dimensions. In this
system of thinking we progress to knowledge across a plane. In that case no particular
missing bit of information along a line bars us from reaching a conclusion. As we
approach knowledge along any line we may move to the side, across the plane, if it
becomes necessary to bypass any empty space on the original line of logical progression.
The plane, though, being limited to two dimensions does not contain all knowledge, only
that knowledge contained within a particular subject. An even higher logical system can
be thought of as having three dimensions. In that system of thinking we progress to
knowledge through the body of a sphere. In this case all facts are contained within the
sphere, as bits of information, each occupying a different point among the infinitude of
points which make up the body of the sphere. As we think within the system of threedimensional logic we have access to the necessary information to reach any conclusion.
The path may be winding, even wildly divergent, but from any point within the sphere it
is possible to reach any other point. Gaps along any sequential series, line, or plane
present no obstacle. Information lacking on any plane is freely available on other planes.
A sphere contains not only an infinitude of points, but also an infinite number of lines and
an infinite number of planes. When using three-dimensional logic to attain knowledge
there are an infinite number of paths leading to every conclusion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there no limits at all to what knowledge is available
when using three-dimensional logic?
TINNY: Three-dimensional logic makes available all knowledge contained within the
material plane of existence. To go beyond the material plane a new system of thinking
must be used. That new system of thought is hyper-dimensional logic, which has no limits
174
and has available all knowledge. Through hyper-dimensional logic knowledge of perfect
and absolute truth can be achieved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We humans are three-dimensional beings existing on the
material plane. How can we utilise a system of thinking which reaches beyond the
physical existence?
TINNY: At the human level of consciousness our minds are constantly linked to existence
beyond the material plane. Each of us has the potential to open the door of our mind,
allowing access to perfect and absolute truth. Multi-dimensional logic, when fully
expressed, does not lead to conclusions along lines, across planes, or through spheres;
instead all knowledge is simultaneously and perfectly within the awareness of
consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Our minds work in marvelous ways.
TINNY: We humans are very lucky to be able to know our minds in a way no other living
thing on this planet can.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We still have far to go in the progression toward our
ultimate destiny. And you my child radiate as a beacon in the darkness. Your thoughts on
the true nature of our existence have reached the pinnacle of human knowledge, a high
peak never before scaled.
TINNY: I sound like a mountain climber.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In a way you are. Soon others will make the same climb.
Some will climb faster and some will climb higher. A path once opened becomes
available to all. It won't be long until small children find your long journey into truth a
simple stroll around the local neighbourhood.
TINNY: I can almost feel them pressing against my back.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some will be beyond you the minute they hear your
words.
TINNY: Sounds good to me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have no desire to remain first?
TINNY: My only desire is to express my potential to its fullest. I hope everyone else will
be able to do the same. My measure of success is within myself, not in competition with
anyone else.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Very good.
TINNY: Where do we go next in our discussion?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have explained much about the nature of our
existence. Much of what you say has a very high probability of being truth. I think the
175
question which must now be answered is what does it all mean? If existence is as you
describe it, what does that tell us which is important in our daily lives, to human society,
and to the future of the human race?
TINNY: That is no small question.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Our discussion is far from over. First, tell me again, what
is the purpose of life?
TINNY: To become perfect in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why?
TINNY: Such is the purpose of the whole physical existence. The universe exists so that
matter may form increasingly complex arrangements, moving from a simple deterministic
beginning to a perfect transcendental culmination.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That answer sounds like you are repeating what you read
in a book.
TINNY: It does, doesn't it? I'm not sure why I say it that way; I never have read that
answer anywhere.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is a correct answer, but its very objectivity takes away
much of its emotional impact.
TINNY: I feel embarrassed to give the answer in more personal terms. The answer in
terms of greater emotion and humanity is almost too incredible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you hide it behind scientific objectivity.
TINNY: Perhaps I did.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is nothing you cannot say to me. You may speak
anyway you choose with complete acceptance.
(NOTE: Be very careful reading these next few paragraphs, I would not, of course,
describe the process in the same words now. Muhammad al’Mahdi, 2004)
TINNY: I know what I want to say but it is not easy. The absolute reality, that which is
beyond the material plane of existence, is perfectly manifested consciousness. One of the
many aspects manifested by perfect and absolute existence is the expression of its own
essential nature. The physical universe is that process of expression. The progressive
development of matter is the process by which physical existence approaches the
perfection of the absolute. The creation of the physical universe is like the moment of
conception when new being begins. The period of material development from the moment
of creation to the expression of self-reflective, human level consciousness, is like the
period of gestation. The expression of self-reflective consciousness in the created human
being is like the moment of birth.
176
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Absolute existence is the creative parent of material form.
The physical universe is like the womb.
TINNY: We are the created offspring of perfected being. We are the created children of
God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we are the created children of God what will we be
when we reach adulthood?
TINNY: We will be perfect in every aspect. We will be as gods.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean we will be God?
TINNY: No, I mean we will exhibit many of the characteristics of God; we will be
godlike in our nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can understand why you were hesitant to say those
words. Those are perhaps the most significant words ever to be spoken.
TINNY: It humbles me even to think such words.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you positive those words are true?
TINNY: As I explained, we can never at our present level of development perfectly know
truth. We must assess probabilities as our best means to know truth. When I say we are
the created children of God and that we shall be as gods I am expressing the truth of
highest probability. This great truth was derived from an assessment of the knowledge
available about the true nature of physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I must clarify some issues of this understanding you
present as to our relationship to God. It almost sounds like you are talking about a form of
polytheism when you say we will become as gods.
TINNY: Oh no; I never meant anything like that at all. There is only one God. We are
created in the image of God to carry out the Will of God. If we choose, through our freewill to fulfill our God given destiny, we have the potential to progress infinitely close to
the full and perfect expression of the characteristics of God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we came infinitely close to expressing the
characteristics of God wouldn't we then be virtually identical with God?
TINNY: That is true; in fact, from our present perspective we would then be virtually
indistinguishable from God. Having said that I must also say that infinity is a very tricky
concept. While we have been granted the potential to become infinitely close to the
perfect expression of the characteristics of God, God at the same time always remains
infinitely greater than us.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is hard to comprehend.
TINNY: Yes, it is.
177
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The other main issue I wanted to clarify is about God
being our parent.
TINNY: I believe I used the term 'creative parent' which can be understood somewhat
differently. We are God's creation. We are created in the image of God. If, in our
maturity, we fulfill our divinely granted potential we will become perfected as God is
perfect. The relationship God has with us after our creation is loving, caring, and
nurturing. This, in its fullness, is exactly the relationship of parent to child. It is a
beautiful way to understand our relationship with God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To say we are the created children of God approaching a
godlike existence is a remarkable claim. How do you know that to be the most probable
truth of our existence?
TINNY: I didn't base the claim that we are the created offspring of perfected existence on
any one fact, but on information from a number of different areas. The fact that
information from each area leads to the same conclusion adds greatly to the assumption
that this is truth of the highest probability.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the strongest evidence which tells you we are the
created children of perfected existence?
TINNY: The evidence which I find most influential covers billions of years. It is the
process of envolution itself. Matter has made continuous progression since the creation of
the physical universe, and that developmental progression has gone from the simple
subatomic particles to the human species. The direction of that progression has been
constantly manifesting certain characteristics more and more perfectly. Because that trend
has continued for so long it allows one to extrapolate, from the present, well into the
future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does it mean to extrapolate?
TINNY: Extrapolate means to predict what is to come from what is already known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that a very reliable method?
TINNY: If you know enough the predictions are highly reliable. For example, if I were to
ask you to tell me which number comes next in the series after 2,4,6,8, you would most
likely say the next number would be 10. When you make that prediction you have just
used extrapolation to arrive at the answer. Based on the evidence given you could give no
other reasonable answer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you can't be sure that is the correct answer.
TINNY: I agree, you can't, but from the available evidence you can say without, a doubt
that it is the most probable answer.
178
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you are using the same logical process, extrapolation,
to arrive at your conclusion that perfected existence is our creative parent. Given billions
of years of progressive material development, directed toward the more perfect
expression of the characteristics of existence, we are logically obliged to assume that
process will continue; and given enough time envolving physical form will achieve the
perfected and absolute expression of all characteristics. We can't be positive such a
conclusion is true; but we can be sure, given our present knowledge of the true nature of
reality, that is the most probable conclusion.
TINNY: That is correct, but was only part of my reason for arriving at the conclusion I
did. The more full reason is described by an old concept from biology; 'ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny.'
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It has a nice sound. What does it mean?
TINNY: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is a way of saying that the development of the
individual goes through all the stages as did the development of the species. The
development of the human embryo goes somewhat through all the stages of development
as animal life did. The human embryo to some degree progresses from a one-celled
beginning and goes through the multi-celled, fish, amphibian, reptile, and mammal stages
before emerging as a fully developed human being.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that as the human embryo develops it is at
one point a fish, and at another point it is a reptile?
TINNY: The human embryo is never actually a fish, a reptile, or any of the other stages of
animal development, but during the process of development the embryo shows
similarities of structure to all the different stages of animal development. The idea that
ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is most useful if understood generally, not specifically.
If that concept is expanded from the human level of development to the level of perfected
existence the totality of developmental progression, from light to subatomic particles, to
atoms, to molecules, to biological life, to human life, recapitulates the stages of
development of perfected being in the development of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does this tell you that we are the created children of
God?
TINNY: I find that easier to discuss if instead of the word God we use the term absolute
or perfected existence. Anyway if we look at how the progressive development of matter
has unfolded we would not be surprised that the process has resulted in the existence of
the human species. The human species is the next logical step of progression after the
highest animal forms. Not only does the development of the individual allow the stages of
the biological progression to be observed, but the stages of biological progression allow
us to know the nature of the fully developed individual. At any level of development the
characteristics of future levels could be predicted by extrapolation. As we already
179
discussed, the most probable extrapolation from the human level is that the progressive
development will continue until all characteristics of existence are perfectly manifested.
One of the characteristics which every level of existence expresses is the ability to
reproduce its own kind. This is done by repeating, recapitulating, all previous stages. It
would be most probable that perfected existence also reproduces its own nature, and that
this process involves a developmental progression including all previous stages. Those
previous stages would progress from a simple deterministic beginning through to a
perfect transcendental existence. The stages of the reproductive cycle of the nature of
perfected existence would be expected to be identical with the stages of material
development within the physical universe. It is this fact which I find to be the most
compelling evidence that perfected existence is the creative parent of developing
conscious existence within the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I must agree with you. I see no other more reasonable
explanation to explain the nature of physical existence. Since the developmental process
during reproduction is common to all previous levels of conscious existence we can only
expect the same process will exist at all higher levels.
TINNY: Even if I had no more evidence than that one logical argument it would be
sufficient to allow me to say we are the created offspring of perfected existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That one line of logical argument includes information
from many fields of inquiry.
TINNY: Actually once the unified theory of existence is understood you come to see all
evidence leads either directly or indirectly to that same conclusion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think it would be of any value to explain how that
same truth can be known by evidence from other areas of knowledge?
TINNY: All knowledge is valuable but I think there would be more value right now in
considering the implications of that conclusion. If we are truly the created offspring of
God the implications of that most essential truth will reach every aspect of human life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel knowing you are an infant godlike
being?
TINNY: It feels very natural since it is the most basic process of physical existence. To
see myself as a godlike being in formation does, though, give me a great feeling of
responsibility, and of urgency.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why the urgency?
TINNY: Since the world is on the brink of destruction, and the human species on the
brink of extinction, the urgency I feel is to ensure we do not destroy ourselves, and to help
ensure that our grand destiny be fulfilled.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Things you say bring forth many questions.
180
TINNY: I'll try and answer them all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If God is our creative parent would we be allowed to
destroy ourselves?
TINNY: The development of any organism requires that a path in harmony with natural
order be followed. During the early stages of physical development material existence has
little choice but to follow the natural order. Since material existence is destined to
perfectly and absolutely manifest all positive characteristics, and one of those
characteristics is free-will, we must successfully nurture that aspect of our nature. That is
the great hurdle which developing consciousness must conquer, not only on this planet
but in the innumerable other places throughout the physical universe where high order
consciousness has developed, is developing, and shall develop. At the stage of material
development when self-reflective consciousness becomes manifested progress along the
path to perfection is no longer mainly externally determined, but must be directed from
within. We must use our newfound predominance of free-will over determinism to
achieve perfect free-will. We cannot be forced to do so. Those who succeed in that quest
must do so on their own. Those who do not succeed must be allowed to fail.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that perfected existence would allow its
created offspring to fail to reach maturity?
TINNY: Developing consciousness cannot reach maturity as perfected being without
doing so by choice through the exercise of free-will. If the choice to progress is not
consciously made and acted upon by the developing human line the species will be
allowed to become extinct. That is the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't perfected existence be able to reproduce its own
nature without allowing some lines of developing consciousness to fail?
TINNY: No.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't one of the characteristics of perfect and absolute
existence omnipotence, meaning to be all powerful?
TINNY: That's true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then why couldn't perfected being reproduce its own
nature in a manner such that every developing material form would succeed in perfectly
manifesting all positive characteristics? Can't God do all things?
TINNY: To be omnipotent or all powerful has been misunderstood. It does not refer to
the ability to do anything, but only to do all things which can be done. It is for that reason
only positive characteristics can be manifested in the absolute existence. The negative
cannot be manifested. Perfect and absolute existence could not commit the ultimately evil
act and destroy itself. There is natural law at every level of existence, which must be
adhered to. At the most simple physical level of existence, force is the reason natural law
181
is followed. At the most perfect level of existence, choice by free-will is the reason
natural law is followed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that is so, couldn't perfected existence choose to violate
natural law?
TINNY: Perfected existence cannot make such a choice and be perfect. Perfected
existence follows natural law perfectly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where does that natural law come from? If perfected
existence is absolute how can it be subject to natural law?
TINNY: Natural law is inherent in perfected existence. It is part of perfected existence. It
is internal, since nothing is external to that which is absolute. Perfect and absolute
existence is subject to nothing but its own essential nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean perfected existence makes natural law?
TINNY: It would be better to say that perfected existence is natural law. Natural law at
the absolute level of existence cannot be changed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about at the physical level of existence?
TINNY: Existence on the material plane is an aspect of perfected existence. At the
physical level natural law is also determined by the essential nature of perfected
existence. Because the physical level of existence is relative rather than absolute, natural
law is relative rather than absolute.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this mean that natural law can change in the physical
universe?
TINNY: I don't think so.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't you sure?
TINNY: Unfortunately I can't answer all your questions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's probably because you are less than perfect.
TINNY: Far less than perfect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps not so far from perfect as you might think.
TINNY: Even if I can't say for sure whether or not natural law can change in the physical
universe, I can say with a great deal of certainty that natural law will be followed less
than perfectly at the material level of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are limits to how far we may vary from natural law,
aren't there?
182
TINNY: The further we are from natural law the greater the risk we will fail to survive.
Any developing line of material form will cease to exist if it strays too far from the
natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many forms of life which once existed are no longer
around. Did they all stray too far from natural law?
TINNY: Perhaps we should use a different word than 'stray', because that word seems to
put the responsibility for moving away from natural law on the particular form of material
existence. Sometimes the material forms don't alter their ways at all, but remain
unchanged as the environment alters. The effect is the same regardless of what causes the
divergence. A sufficient degree of harmony must exist between the material form and
natural law to allow continued existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maintaining that harmony seems to be very difficult for
the human species. Why is that?
TINNY: Much of the difficulty is a result of the advanced level of development the
human species has achieved. It is not easy to suddenly be the first required to choose by
free-will to continue envolving. Another related problem is caused by the amount of
power at the disposal of the human race. Never before on this planet has any life form had
so great an ability to alter the environment. That power is so great we now have the ability
to bring total destruction to our planet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The exercise of power is one of the characteristics which
has been progressively developing, isn't it?
TINNY: That appears to be true. It is for that reason perfected existence is expected to be
omnipotent. The greater the ability to exercise power, the greater the responsibility to use
that power in a right manner.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you think humanity has come to possess that amount of
power too quickly?
TINNY: Either that or we have been too slow to rise to the necessary level of
responsibility.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We will have to do something soon or we won't even be
around to discuss such matters.
TINNY: That is the urgency and responsibility I said I felt.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is for that reason I have come to you. Because of your
understanding of the true nature of existence you realise how much there is to lose. The
things we have been discussing, while mainly scientific and philosophical, have
implications which reach every aspect of human life. Knowledge creates in the human
mind a worldview. We relate to our world in ways which are largely determined by our
worldview. As we have seen, the current worldview is incorrect in many respects. It is
183
that wrong worldview which is responsible for the many social problems plaguing the
human race. It is also the reason the human race has come to the very brink of species
suicide. There is no solution to the problems facing humanity other than to gain an
understanding of the true nature of reality. The spread of a more correct worldview will
result in pervasive positive changes in our daily lives, in all aspects of human society, and
in the future of the human race.
TINNY: I think I see where our discussion is heading at this point.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where?
TINNY: It would be helpful to see how the current incorrect worldview is linked to the
social problems we face in every aspect of human life. We could then contrast how the
world is with how the world would be if all was in harmony with the natural order. The
new more correct worldview provides a standard by which to know natural law and
determine the right course for social change. Once we understand more fully our place in
the natural order of material existence we will be better able to live in harmony with
natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That may be a very interesting part of our discussion.
TINNY: Considering the range of subjects we will have to cover it will probably be
controversial.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: Because many of the causes of the social problems facing human society are not
obvious. They are based on wrong beliefs held and sometimes cherished by great numbers
of people. It won't be easy to objectively accept right and wrong based on natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But we have to, don't we?
TINNY: We must to survive, but even that dire circumstance doesn't always seem to
make truth any easier to accept when our thinking has been wrong. Even my use of the
words right and wrong to describe human behaviour might cause some to find it difficult
to accept these truths.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't expect everyone to agree with everything
you say.
TINNY: I'm not that naive. Not only will some not agree with what I say, but probably
some will even oppose these ideas.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would anyone do that?
TINNY: The things I will be saying will challenge the right of people to act in opposition
to the natural order.
184
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't everyone want to act in accord with the natural
order?
TINNY: Some of the things the human race will be asked to forsake will not be easy to
give up. They are firmly entrenched in human society, and considered highly rewarding
by many.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If those aspects of human life are so desired by many, is it
really necessary for them to be given up?
TINNY: There is only one alternative to giving up those things which oppose natural law,
no matter how rewarding they may appear to be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's not a very pleasant alternative is it?
TINNY: It's a horrible alternative. If those beliefs and behaviours in opposition to the
natural order do not cease it will mean the extinction of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since extinction is the price which must be paid for
opposing the natural order it would be pretty selfish for anyone to continue acting in
opposition to natural law, no matter how personally pleasurable they might find those
actions.
TINNY: It would be incredibly selfish.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you expect some people to continue acting in
opposition to natural law after hearing the true nature of our existence?
TINNY: I'm sure some will. Hearing the truth is not enough to bring about change.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is needed to bring about that change?
TINNY: The true nature of our existence must be known, not just heard. By that I mean
the knowledge of truth must be assimilated fully into our consciousness. As those truths
permeate the collective consciousness of the human race, thoughts and behaviour will
move toward greater harmony with the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is that collective consciousness?
TINNY: The mind of every person on this planet is part of the collective consciousness.
The total consciousness of all those individual minds acts as the collective mind of the
human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean every person in the world must hear and
know the true nature of our existence to bring about a solution to the many social
problems facing human society?
TINNY: The more people who hear, know, and live in accord with those truths the
greater will be the movement toward harmony with the natural order, and the greater will
be the chance of survival for the human race.
185
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well, considering the urgency, I guess we should get
started. Say all that you think must be said. Don't hold back.
TINNY: Don't worry I won't hold back, there is too much at stake.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will you be talking about general problem areas in human
society or will you be specific?
TINNY: I'll occasionally be general, but mostly I'll be specific. A set of very specific
guidelines is needed to assist the human species achieve its destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you know your ideas on right and wrong are
correct?
TINNY: These are not opinions I'll be expressing. I will be basing the rightness or
wrongness of each area of human behaviour totally on the body of knowledge contained
in the unified theory of existence. In many cases I'll refer back to earlier parts of our
discussion to show clearly the reasons, based on objective facts, why anything is
considered right or wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any one area of behaviour which is mainly
responsible for the many problems facing human society?
TINNY: The cause of social problems seems fairly evenly distributed over all areas of
human thought and behaviour, all are a result of the failure to know and understand the
true nature of our existence. There is presently no area of human endeavour which could
truly be considered right. Every area manifests the same basic flaw, which is a failure to
be in harmony with the natural order. That failure is due to the lack of knowledge of truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you think we could best discuss those problem
areas?
TINNY: I think the best way would be to talk specifically about the major problem areas
of human society. There must be millions of areas of difficulty all together, but I'll try and
be brief. I probably won't talk about more than a few of the major problem areas.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I hope a few will be enough.
TINNY: It should only take a representative few examples to fully allow an
understanding of what this more correct worldview means to human society when put into
practice. Once the few problem areas discussed are well understood any person should be
able to make similar observations about any of the many other problems facing our world.
The influences from our past history and beliefs will be difficult to overcome at first. In
the beginning there will be resistance to both acceptance and change. As this new
worldview becomes more widely spread and strongly held that resistance will decrease
until, like floodgates opening, the world will be immersed in and saturated by this new
consciousness.
186
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And you say that is all which is necessary to bring about a
solution to the critical social problems facing the human race?
TINNY: It sounds simple and it is, as an idea, but very complicated in practice. It won't
be easy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we go on in our discussion and talk about how the
problems of the world can be understood on the basis of this new worldview, there is
something I would like you to do which will clarify all that we have so far spoken of and
make sure that you fully understand these truths.
TINNY: As I said at the beginning of our talk, I will do whatever it takes to ensure the
survival of the human race, and to help bring about a beautiful future of peace and love.
What do you want me to do?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I would like you to give a brief, clear, and simple
summary of the aspects of the unified theory of existence which we have discussed so far.
TINNY: That's not going to be an easy task.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps I can make the task a little less difficult. Your
summary can take the form of answers to some very direct questions I will ask covering
aspects of the unified theory of existence which we discussed in detail earlier. This time I
would like you to follow certain guidelines as you present your answers. As much as
possible you should present these truths in words and concepts of everyday language,
staying away from technical and scientific terminology. Do not feel the need to once
again present the logical process by which you arrived at these truths; do not feel the need
to present the scientific and philosophical proofs of the truth of this new worldview.
Express these truths in terms of generalities, not getting caught up in minor technical
points. Although we have acknowledged all truth, as seen from the material plane, is less
than perfectly known, you may present this new worldview as if it was established fact.
And finally, feel free to expand the scope of the implications of this new understanding of
the true nature of existence beyond the limits of our original discussion.
TINNY: I hope I can achieve all you ask. To present the truths of existence in a brief,
clear, and simple summary is a great challenge. I will do my best.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No one could do more.
TINNY'S SUMMARY
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How was the physical universe created?
TINNY: In the beginning, before the physical universe came into existence, there was
nothing. That absolute nothingness did not consist of empty space waiting to be filled by
the creation of the physical universe. Before the creation of the physical universe there
187
was no space, no time, and no matter. Suddenly light appeared; light beyond any intensity
we can presently imagine. That original light was the beginning of the physical universe.
From that creative light came all the matter which now fills the immensity of our physical
universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did that original light create all the matter which
now fills our universe?
TINNY: As soon as the creative light came into existence that incredible multitude of
light energy began to bump into each other because it was crowded into such a tiny space.
As those light rays collided they began to form the basic material of the physical universe.
Those colliding light rays, called photons, changed form becoming subatomic particles;
the most commonly known subatomic particles being electrons, protons, and neutrons.
From those original particles of matter came all the different expressions of physical form
in our universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did the original subatomic particles create all the
more complex physical forms which now fill our universe?
TINNY: During the earliest times the physical universe was very tiny compared to its size
today. The subatomic particles were at those early moments squashed tightly together,
very hot and very dense. The universe was then, and still is, expanding. As the universe
expanded it got cooler and less dense. When the universe was very hot and dense the
subatomic particles all existed separately, but when the universe expanded and cooled
sufficiently some subatomic particles began to combine with other particles. When
electrons, protons, and neutrons join together they form atoms. The first and simplest
groupings of those subatomic particles formed the two most common elements, hydrogen,
and helium gas. More complex combinations of those same three basic particles later
formed all of the other elements which now exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At that point the early universe was filled with hydrogen
and helium gas. Where did the stars and galaxies come from?
TINNY: The universe at that stage of development could be thought of as one gigantic
cloud of hydrogen and helium gas. Since the universe was still extremely dense the effect
of gravity was very powerful. That gravitational effect broke up the one gigantic mass of
gas into many billion large clouds of hydrogen and helium. Those billions of large gas
clouds which formed became the galaxies now existing throughout the universe. Within
those galaxies gravity caused the hydrogen and helium gas to break up even further into
many billion much smaller clouds. Those billions of small gas clouds which formed
became the first stars which were spread throughout the universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If billions of galaxies formed, each containing billions of
stars, the total number of stars must be enormous. How many stars are there throughout
our universe?
188
TINNY: The total number of stars existing in our universe at any one time now would be
perhaps ten thousand billion billion. That number, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is so
large as to be beyond our present ability to comprehend. Some of that number of stars are
presently ceasing to exist while others are only now beginning to form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were the first stars which formed like the presently
existing stars?
TINNY: The earliest stars which formed were made up entirely of hydrogen and helium
gas; they were called first generation stars. The second and subsequent generations of
stars, while still consisting mainly of hydrogen and helium gas, also contain all of the one
hundred or so other elements which make up the matter of our universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You explained that the original hydrogen and helium gas
formed from the basic subatomic particles created by the primal light. Where did all the
other elements come from?
TINNY: When the first generation stars formed, made only from hydrogen and helium,
many of them were so huge that they collapsed in on themselves. That collapse put the
hydrogen and helium atoms under such great pressure that they fused together in
combinations never before possible. Those new combinations became larger, more
complex atoms, forming all the different elements which now exist throughout our
universe. Carbon, oxygen, lead, gold, silver, and uranium are but a few of those newly
formed elements. Those huge first generation stars could not continue to exist under the
strain of their own mass so they flew apart in great explosions, called supernovas. It was
those exploding stars which spread all the newly formed elements throughout our
universe. Those newly formed elements, mixed with the already existing hydrogen and
helium gas, creating a new mixture of elements from which the second and subsequent
generations of stars could form. Our sun is one of the stars formed during the later
generations, consisting mainly of hydrogen and helium but also containing varying
amounts of all the other elements.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do planets form?
TINNY: Planets form as a natural consequence of the birth of stars. As the gases and
other elements come together by gravitational forces they form spinning balls of hot
matter in the center of a revolving plane of less hot matter. It is that surrounding material
which forms smaller spheres on a plane out from the equator of the star. Those spheres
are the planets which surround stars. Stars similar to our sun will have small dense planets
traveling the inner orbits and large gaseous planets traveling the outer orbits.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the planets like when they first form?
TINNY: At first planets are made up of boiling gases and other elements. These gases and
heavier elements cool and change their characteristics. Our planet, Earth, was once a
molten ball of gases and heavier elements. The heavier elements like iron tended to sink
189
into the center while the gases and lighter elements rose to the surface and cooled. The
gases formed an atmosphere and the other lighter elements formed a crust floating on the
molten core. Although many more changes have taken place since then, our planet still
consists of an atmosphere of gases above a floating crust of lighter elements covering the
molten core of iron and other heavy elements.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did biological life form on our planet?
TINNY: After the atmosphere and surface crust formed, some of the elements which had
existed as individual atoms began combining with other elements. For example oxygen
atoms combined with hydrogen atoms to produce water. That water evaporated when it
came into contact with the still hot surface of the planet. That evaporating water forming
clouds, raining down, and once again evaporating in endless cycles for many millions of
years. Those rains scoured the surface of the planet, washing loose material containing all
the different elements down to the lower areas of the earth's surface, forming mighty seas.
In those seas the various elements continued to combine in an ever increasing complexity
of great variety. Those new combinations of various atoms are called molecules. Those
molecules which formed from the elements on the earth's surface included not only water,
but salts and acids. Molecules became increasingly complex, expressing many new
characteristics. Amino acids formed which allowed the creation of proteins. Proteins form
the structures of all biological life and perform the necessary functions of all living
organisms. At that level of molecular complexity DNA came into existence providing a
means by which all biological life can develop. Actually, those very complex
combinations of atoms form molecules so advanced that at their highest level they
become hard to distinguish from the simplest forms of biological life. It is at that point the
various combinations of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules did become the first
one-celled living organisms. This was the beginning of biological life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could that progression of matter have taken place in any
other way?
TINNY: The path that matter will take as it becomes progressively more complex is
fixed. That path is fixed by the characteristics imparted to matter by light.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The development of biological life on our planet can then
be traced back in an unbroken series of steps to the creative light at the beginning of the
physical universe. Those steps from that beginning were light, subatomic particles, atoms,
molecules, and finally biological life. Did biological life only develop on the planet Earth
or did it develop on other planets throughout the universe?
TINNY: The creation of biological life is a natural outcome of the development of the
physical universe. Biological life comes into existence in every place in the universe
where conditions allow that level of life to form. Biological life has been created times
without number throughout the physical universe.
190
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say it is part of the nature of the physical
universe that biological life must develop?
TINNY: The development of biological life is most basic to the natural progression of the
physical universe. The development of biological life is partial fulfillment of the purpose
of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the purpose of the physical universe?
TINNY: The essential purpose behind the existence of the physical universe is for matter
to attain perfection in every aspect. That purpose is achieved by simple matter progressing
through increasingly complex combinations toward the more perfect expression of all
positive characteristics of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a name for the developmental process which all
matter in the physical universe is undergoing?
TINNY: That developmental process, which is striving to attain perfection, is called
envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The word 'envolution' is very much like another word,
'evolution', which has been used to describe the development of life. Is there a difference?
TINNY: Both words are attempts to describe the same process of physical development.
Evolution was the name given to that developmental process when it has not well
understood. That early theory of the process of physical development was based on some
misinterpretations of the true nature of our existence. The new, more correct,
understanding of the developmental process is now called envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the definition of envolution?
TINNY: Envolution describes the progression of matter from a simple deterministic
beginning to a perfect transcendental culmination. This developmental process takes
place through a successive series of small steps.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you define envolution more simply?
TINNY: The physical universe begins with simple subatomic particles which can do little
else but act as the forces of physics determine they will act. As conditions allow, those
original subatomic particles will, through a series of small steps, organise themselves so
as to become more complex. The more complex those combinations become the closer
they will approach perfection. Just as the primal light created subatomic particles,
subatomic particles create atoms, atoms create molecules, and molecules create biological
life. The process of envolution does not end with biological life but progresses onward,
through human life to existence perfected in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you make the explanation of envolution even more
simple than that?
191
TINNY: When the physical universe was created it consisted only of the simplest forms
of matter. Through a long series of successive small steps the simple material forms
developed into more complex material forms. Major levels within this progression of
matter are subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, biological life, human life, and the as
yet unnamed levels beyond the human level. All of these different expressions of material
form are striving to become more advanced. This advancement of all matter is dedicated
to becoming perfected in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the environment determine how life will develop?
TINNY: Material and biological development takes place according to the essential
nature of physical existence. The environment does not cause any particular line of
development to take place; instead the environment allows certain lines of development to
take place. Matter will unfold according to its natural plan; matter will unfold according
to that natural plan when and where environmental conditions allow.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the natural plan followed by material development so
invariable that it could be considered law?
TINNY: The path of development which matter takes from light to subatomic particles to
atoms to molecules to biological life to human life and beyond is so firmly fixed that it
must be considered natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where does natural law come from?
TINNY: Natural law is laid down from beyond the physical existence. Beyond the
physical plane lies perfected, absolute existence. Natural law emanates from absolute
existence, beyond the physical plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does absolute existence decide what is to be natural
law?
TINNY: Absolute existence has an essential nature. The nature of absolute existence
becomes natural law when the absolute expresses its relative characteristics as the
physical existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: More simply, please.
TINNY: The characteristics of absolute existence show up as natural law at the material
level of existence, our physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does perfect, absolute existence have any other names?
TINNY: Perfect and absolute existence has been known by other names. Many people
refer to perfect and absolute existence as God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this God the same as the God of many of today's
religions?
192
TINNY: In the ultimate sense there is only one God. Those of different religions all have
the same God whether they know it or not, or even whether they like it or not. Absolute
reality is as it is, regardless of the many different ways we material beings perceive that
reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the physical universe a form of existence separate from
the absolute existence?
TINNY: The physical universe is one of the many characteristics expressed by perfected
existence. From our point of view, which is relative, the physical universe is separate
from that which is perfect and absolute. From the perspective of perfected existence the
physical universe is an inseparable part of one unified whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does it mean for physical existence to be relative?
TINNY: All that exists within the physical universe is temporary and undergoing constant
change.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does it mean for perfected existence to be absolute?
TINNY: All that exists beyond the physical plane is permanent and unchanging.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the material existence is only temporary and in a
constant state of change, is our physical universe real or is it only an illusion?
TINNY: Reality has many levels. Natural law determines the characteristics each level of
reality may express. Absolute reality is the perfect expression of all characteristics.
Relative reality, our physical universe, may only express those characteristics which are
temporary and changing. No level of reality is illusion; all reality is an expression of the
true nature of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is the nature of absolute existence expressed as
natural law in our physical universe?
TINNY: It is light which links the physical universe to absolute existence. It is the
characteristics expressed by light which determine the nature of the physical universe.
Light brings the characteristics of existence from beyond the material plane and expresses
those characteristics as physical form. In the beginning of the physical universe that
primal light produced the basic units of physical form, the subatomic particles.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the characteristics of perfect and absolute existence
expressed at every level of relative physical existence?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Light, either directly or indirectly creates all physical
form, from the smallest to the largest, from the most simple to the most complex. The
characteristics expressed by every level of physical form are determined by natural law.
No physical form can exist outside the range of characteristics brought to our physical
universe from the absolute existence by light.
193
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do subatomic particles express, in our relative
physical universe, the characteristics of absolute existence?
TINNY: Each of the progressively more advanced levels of physical form expresses more
fully the characteristics of absolute existence. Sub-atomic particles, being the simplest
physical form, express the characteristics of absolute existence in the most simple way.
Sub-atomic particles act in accord with their essential nature; they show activity, which in
more complex physical forms is recognised as life, and they show appropriate reaction to
environmental conditions, which in more complex physical forms is recognised as
consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When does life and consciousness begin in the physical
existence?
TINNY: Life and consciousness are the essential characteristics of absolute existence,
brought into our physical universe by light. Light transmits the characteristics of life and
consciousness to subatomic particles. Sub-atomic particles transmit the characteristics of
life and consciousness to atoms. Atoms transmit the characteristics of life and
consciousness to molecules. Molecules transmit the characteristics of life and
consciousness to biological organisms, the plants and animals. Beyond the level of plants
and animals the characteristics of life and consciousness are expressed in the human level
of existence. At each more advanced level of physical form the characteristics of life and
consciousness are expressed more fully. Those same characteristics continue on, beyond
the human level, until life and consciousness transcend the physical existence becoming
one with the perfect and absolute existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true to say that the characteristics of perfect
and absolute existence leave that exalted state, take on physical form, progress toward
perfection, and return to perfect and absolute existence?
TINNY: From our point of view that is the true nature of relative reality. From the
perspective beyond the material plane no separation between the physical and the absolute
takes place. All is one, all has always been one, and all shall always be one.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the characteristics of perfect and absolute existence,
which determine natural law in the physical existence, only expressed as physics,
chemistry, and biology or does natural law also relate to human social behaviour?
TINNY: There is no aspect of the physical universe which lies beyond natural law.
Human social behaviour is as responsible to natural law as atoms are to the fundamental
principles of physics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can natural law be broken?
TINNY: The less developed the physical form the less likely natural law is to be broken.
Sub-atomic particles and atoms follow natural law very closely because they have
virtually no freedom to act other than in accord with natural law. As physical form
194
becomes more complex the degree of freedom allowed becomes greater. At the human
level our relatively high degree of free-will allows us to frequently violate natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any penalty for breaking natural law?
TINNY: Every action has its natural consequences. The natural consequence of breaking
natural law is the termination of progression; while the natural consequence of following
natural law is continued progression. When progression is terminated the individual or
species involved eventually ceases to exist. Continued existence only comes from acting
in accord with natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Human beings often break natural law, what is to be the
penalty for those transgressions?
TINNY: If the human race continues on its wrong path there is only one possible
outcome, the extinction of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the human species were to change soon, and begin
living in harmony with natural law, could we then survive?
TINNY: The choice is ours. We can continue to violate natural law and destroy the
human species; or, we can change and begin acting in harmony with natural law, thereby
bringing the human species to the fulfillment of its destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the destiny of humanity?
TINNY: The destiny of humanity is to progress onward, achieving a state of perfected
and absolute existence,
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How are we to know the right path, the way by which we
can achieve our grand destiny?
TINNY: At the less advanced levels of material existence natural law imposed its will on
the developing physical forms. At the human level natural law is not imposed; we must
choose whether or not we will follow natural law. To choose correctly we must know the
true nature of our existence. If we fail to correctly understand the true nature of existence
we will be unlikely to choose a path in harmony with natural law. We must be seekers of
truth. The right path for continued human development is to be found by the acquisition
of all knowledge. That which is right or good is that which enhances our progression
toward the more perfect expression of all positive characteristics. That which is wrong or
evil is that which inhibits our progression toward the more perfect expression of all
positive characteristics. To accurately judge whether our progression is being enhanced or
inhibited we must have a good and objective understanding of truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since it is critical for us to know the true nature of our
existence I will ask you several questions relating to areas of knowledge which have
important implications in determining correct human behaviour. First, do absolute truths
exist?
195
TINNY: Yes, there are truths which are absolute.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can we know these absolute truths?
TINNY: At the human level of development our knowledge of truth will be less than
perfect; absolute truth can only be known as a probability.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should we act as if the truths of high probability are
absolutely true?
TINNY: We should, but we must remain forever open to further knowledge which may
effect our assessment of the probability of any particular truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can a definite set of positive values be established for all
people in all situations?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Who should decide what constitutes a right set of human
values?
TINNY: Each person should make that decision for themselves. Natural law must be our
guide.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If each person made that decision today would a
universally accepted set of positive values be arrived at?
TINNY: No, there would presently be no possibility of universal agreement as to what
values are positive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would no agreement as to what are universal positive
values be possible at present?
TINNY: No agreement as to universal positive values can be reached because there is no
universal agreement as to the true nature of our existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If there was a commonly accepted worldview would we
then be able to arrive at a set of universal positive values?
TINNY: Yes, but only if that worldview contained a close approximation of absolute
truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How far from truth is the present worldview held by the
human race?
TINNY: The old worldview is so far from truth as to constitute a danger to the survival of
the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What can a person be called whose perception of reality is
so far from truth as to constitute a danger to themselves or to others?
196
TINNY: Such a person would be called insane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since humanity as a whole has a perception of reality so
far from the truth as to constitute a danger to the survival of the human race would you
say human society is insane?
TINNY: Sadly I must say that is true. The human race is presently insane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you fairly be accused of making an overstatement
when you call the human race insane?
TINNY: No, the human race is not only insane, but is to a large degree suicidal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be correct to say the large number of social
problems facing the human race are symptoms of the collective mental illness of
humanity?
TINNY: Yes, all problems facing human society are symptoms of that collective mental
illness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the cause of the collective mental illness of the
human race?
TINNY: The mental illness of the human race is directly related to the failure to
comprehend the true nature of our reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the cure for the collective mental illness plaguing
humanity?
TINNY: The collective mental illness that humanity suffers can be cured by a sudden
influx of new knowledge, thereby correcting the mistaken beliefs about the true nature of
our existence which presently prevail.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would this new, more correct worldview be able to bring
an end to the many social problems facing humanity?
TINNY: There is no problem facing humanity that cannot be solved by a society which
has a good understanding of the true nature of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you consider this new worldview, presented in the
unified theory of existence, to be a form of societal therapy?
TINNY: The unified theory of existence is most definitely a therapeutic worldview.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it important to know all of the unified theory of
existence to receive the therapeutic benefits?
TINNY: To know any of this new worldview will bring benefits; the more that is known
the greater will be the benefits received.
197
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there more to the unified theory of existence than we
have discussed?
TINNY: There is much more to the unified theory of existence. The unified theory of
existence links all truth, so there is nothing that exists which is not represented in this new
worldview.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Obviously the members of a society who understand this
new worldview would be very different from people in today's world. How different will
those people of the future be?
TINNY: The time has come in the natural progression of human development for a new
stage to be expressed. The human race is soon destined to experience a quantum leap of
consciousness. The beings of our future will not be as human beings are at present. The
new humans of expanded consciousness will be so changed they could no longer be
classed as homo sapiens. The beings of new consciousness will constitute a new species,
homo nouveau - the new humans.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How much better will that world, peopled by beings of
new human consciousness, be compared to today's world?
TINNY: Compared to our present condition the world of the near future will be a
veritable utopia. It is the destiny of the human race to live in a world where all shall be
good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the new humans be much more intelligent than us?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the new humans be much more free than us?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the new humans be much more peaceful than us?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the new humans be much more loving than us?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the new humans be much more happy than us?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many, probably most, people in today's world are willing
to use force and aggression to get what they want or what they think right. Will the new
humans continue to use force and aggression to achieve their goals?
TINNY: The new humans will turn from the path of force and aggression and follow the
path of peace and love. It can be no other way.
198
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say there is no other way for the future of
humanity than for the path of peace and love to supersede the path of force and
aggression?
TINNY: If we are to have a future it can only be a future of peace and love. The
continued use of force and aggression does not allow a future for the human race. The
path of force and aggression necessarily leads to the extinction of the human species. That
is natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there no possible way to use force and aggression to
bring about a better world?
TINNY: There is no way a better world can be brought about by using force and
aggression. Any gains which may be made in some areas will be more than outweighed
by losses in other areas. That is the nature of negative control at the human level of
existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tinny my child, there is no need for you to go further with
your summary. It is clear to me that you know the true nature of our reality; you
understand the unified theory of existence.
TINNY: Many of the ideas we have discussed I knew already, but now I also see how
those many and often seemingly unconnected areas of knowledge are interrelated. I can
see all existence as one. I no longer can see the world the way I used to. I can see the
potential in this knowledge to bring about a healthy and sane society. I can really believe
it will be done.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure there was much more you could have included in
your summary, but, since it is now clear you have a good understanding of the unified
theory of existence, it would be helpful if you could provide a much more brief overview
of the essence of our discussion.
TINNY: In the beginning light created physical existence. Light became simple matter,
the subatomic particles. From those subatomic particles emerged many different atoms,
forming the basic elements of which our universe is made. Galaxies, stars, and planets
formed from combinations of those original subatomic particles. As the groupings of
subatomic particles became more complex, in numberless places throughout the universe,
life of high consciousness developed. Human life is one example of this process of
development, called envolution. Envolution describes a process whereby simple material
existence, exhibiting few of the characteristics of life and consciousness, comes to exhibit
fully and perfectly all characteristics of life and consciousness. Our physical universe and
all that it contains is created to reproduce the nature of perfected being, God. We human
beings are the physical expression of God’s nature. For billions of years natural law
directed this progressive development of simple matter until human life came to exist.
The major developmental levels to this point are light, subatomic particles, atoms,
199
molecules, biological life, and human life. At our level, human existence, natural law no
longer externally directs continued progression toward perfection. One of the
characteristics being progressively expressed is free-will. Sub-atomic particles had
virtually no free-will, atoms had a bit more, molecules still more, and biological life even
more free-will. At each of those levels of material existence, although free-will was
constantly progressing, the external control of natural law had more influence than freewill. At the human level for the first time free-will has progressed to a point where it has
the potential for greater influence than the external control of natural law. Natural law
must still be followed, but we humans have the ability and the obligation to choose
whether or not to follow that natural law. If we are to fulfill the purpose of physical
existence, which is to attain perfection in every aspect, we can only do so by choosing to
follow natural law. If we do not choose to follow natural law we will cease to exist as a
developing life form. The future of humanity has only two possible paths. We will
continue to progress to a perfected and absolute existence or we will cease to exist as a
species. The path to perfection is the way of harmony and beauty, a future of peace and
love. The path to perfection is heaven on earth, a veritable utopia. The path to extinction
is chaotic and destructive, a future of force and aggression. The path to extinction is hell
on earth, a veritable nightmare. Ours are the generations which must make that fateful
choice. While it appears obvious that given such a choice any sane person could only
choose the joys of the path to perfection over the sorrows of the path to extinction, it
remains an important truth that all lines of development progressing toward perfection do
not attain that grand goal. The human species as a whole cannot be considered sane. It is
an unhappy fact that humanity may not choose the path to perfection, but instead may
choose extinction. It is our collective insanity which could bring about that fatal error. It
is the natural condition for humanity to be sane. We have diverged from the path of sanity
due to our ignorance of the true nature of existence. We have based our beliefs and our
behaviours on an incorrect worldview, a mistaken perception of reality. To become sane
we must come to know the true nature of our existence. A new worldview is needed, and
it is available. If we are to survive, if humanity is to have a future, we must soon come to
know, understand, and live in accord with natural law. Our future offers ecstasy beyond
all previous experience. I want that beautiful future for myself, but I want that future even
more for all humanity. I will work my whole life to help bring about that grand future, but
it will take much more than my small efforts. It is my hope and my prayer that all
members of the human race will join together, work together, and progress together
toward our collective destiny, perfect and absolute existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That has well said. Now, I would like you to present the
essence of these truths even more briefly.
TINNY: Light brings the physical universe into existence. Matter begins as simple basic
particles, the electrons, protons, and neutrons. Matter progresses through a series of more
advanced forms, from subatomic particles to atoms, from atoms to molecules, from
molecules to biological life, and from biological life to human life. The purpose of
200
physical existence is to progress toward perfection. At the lower levels of physical
existence natural law controls the path of development. At the human level natural law no
longer controls development; further development must occur by choice, through the
exercise of free-will. The path of force and aggression will not allow further development
of humanity, but can lead only to the extinction of the human species. The path of peace
and love is the only way humanity can attain perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again please, still more briefly.
TINNY: In the beginning light appears in nothingness from the perfect and absolute
existence. This original light forms the material of the physical universe. Matter following
natural law becomes human. Human life when choosing to follow natural law approaches
perfection in every aspect. Peace and love is the only path by which we can achieve our
grand destiny, thus returning to perfect and absolute existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are beautiful words, the brilliant light of truth
radiates from your mind. Before we begin discussing how the world's problems are
related to our failure to understand the true nature of reality, is there anything else you
would like to say about the unified theory of existence?
TINNY: Occasionally there occurs in the progression of human knowledge a great leap
forward in understanding. The unified theory of existence provides the impetus for the
greatest single stride forward in the long development of the human race. The unified
theory of existence is the culmination of modern scientific knowledge combined with the
essence of ancient wisdom. The unified theory of existence is not simply a body of
knowledge, no matter how significant. It is a body of knowledge specifically designed to
alter the consciousness of humanity in a positive direction. This is to be accomplished by
raising the level of consciousness of each individual who becomes aware of this new
worldview. The unified theory of existence shall be the catalyst for a revolution in every
aspect of human life. With this knowledge humanity shall survive the present threat of
extinction and travel the path to perfection. This is the beginning of the utopian dream …
201