the great cycle worldview
to the "average" reader:this is a cosmic theory, on the basis of its extrapolations. but it is especially dedicated to those who would prefer to remain agreeably neutral in the sense of god or darwin. the theory certainly has its attitudes, but they are not intended to show emphasis on one side or the other. instead, we hope for a future condition for humanity wherein godliness and scientific accuracy have been recognized as stemming from the same universal knowledge.
our intent is just to offer a place for you to stand, and keep your own counsel, on a small island in the midriver of many currents.
although for brevity we will be referring to this as a theory, we know it does not fully qualify as that, scientifically, for the reason that science prefers to reserve "theory" for ideas based to a substantial degree on empirical evidence. "substantive metaphysical evidence" does not yet count, but among ours can be found elements we think could become useful to cosmology, when it begins to be considered appropriate to that field of science. (some empirical evidence is, however, used here.)
our big problem is always the same: how to say what is essential to the subject, without using half the space trying to avoid offense to religion, science, the new age sector, and established special teachings. (we gave up long ago trying to mollify professional and hobbyist skeptics.)
we will begin instead by presenting a condensed overview of the great cycle concept. then we will proceed to the omega - alpha graphic, with the idea that it will keep everyone oriented temporally as the goal of renewing the universe comes into sight during the final epoch before omega.
the unusual and (we think) quite uplifting denouement of course comes after we lay out basic necessities, including causes and results, which we consider to be of eventual interest to cosmologists. (there will be no math or distortions of known universal laws.) along the way we will explore subjects having a suggestive bearing on universal survival.
the "great" in great cycle: we use the word "epoch" to designate stretches of time affecting evolution in world inhabitation. epochs, preceding humanistic mentality, are not included herein, which begins with "primitive". the five epochs illustrated represent examples of "earth epochs". an entire sequence of such would make a "great cycle". (if an unending series of great cycles has a name, we don't know it.)
to offset the negatives
as cosmological investigations move along, will there still be enough negative predictions to scare readers of newspaper science sections, scientific magazines, et cetera? can media remain forward looking without big bangs, big rips, big bounces? or especially big crunches, when all matter gravitates back home and demonstrates the very pinnacle of togetherness? speeding out into unending darkness sounds pretty sad, too, unless you feel that a future as stardust has appeal.
this is not to say that the many knowledgeable and practical cosmologists who present first-to-last scenarios of the evolution of universes cannot find positive routes between beginnings and endings. their main problem, in my opinion, is to stay within the known as much as possible. rationally possible imaginary hypotheses are indispensable, of course, in a narrative that is billions of years from its projected conclusions. but the best theories have in common the possibility of success: the destruction of the universe is avoided, one way or another, by human minds working to avoid such an end and make rationally achievable the continuation and improvement of life.
our thesis here provides a rationale by which that seems not only possible, but in the sequence of universes in what is called the great cycle...practically inevitable. that, of course, does not assure that cosmologists will agree with it, first, last, or middle. so our motive will be only to connect a few scenarios intended to elevate some readers over several depressing options that the media have run with. none of either kind, may i say, is given future reality by having happened before. wishing this universe would follow the great cycle pattern will not make it happen, either. but it might make you aware, for awhile, of some optimistic possibilities.
condensed overview of the great cycle
if, as many today think, the anthropic principle acts to incline the present universe towards the development of intelligence, knowledge, and the enjoyment of experience, then a theory such as this should postulate an origin for that principle.
our thesis provides a rationale by which that seems possible, though when facing an immensely long future it is futile to look too far ahead for actual evidence. on the other hand, there has for millennia been known a rational way to circumvent the cutting off, by physical death, of the ability to carry forward useful knowledge accumulated in human life. it appears to be essential, for truly cosmic reasons, that such knowledge should be augmented and passed on.
but that cannot be done -- at least not as we now are -- by the evolutionary enhancement of inherited mental faculties alone. libraries and data banks inhibit mental simultaneity on any large scale; technology and computational science fail to incorporate vital human capacities.
but there is a way to include them. on that, plus a permanent energy source underlying all of space, and upon the expanded role of natural laws, this optimistic but categorically unauthorized "theory" depends. known in various now "unknown" languages, the great cycle's basic "life clue" comes to this:
though the underlying field of the cosmos forever persists, each great cycle brings into existence a new universe of varied degrees of materiality. these continue, one after another -- forever . each worldfield in such a continuum is free from physical death except on the lowest.
how such things are actually done remains among the countless details of which we have never encountered the slightest clue. still, we think it justified to consider the great cycle as being the most practical means of surmounting perennial problems about the origins and endings of universes.
progress of intelligence
in a great cycle
the purpose here is only to provide a conceptual framework that aims to fit contemporary with unfamiliar new elements into a series of epochs suggesting the great cycle worldview.
hypotheses have been synthesized from prevailing scientific views as well as from vedic and private sources.
please understand that this worldview is not being put forward as a belief system. it should be taken as an optional scenario among many other scenarios based on science, philosophy, or the basics of religion. it does try to emphasize the optimistic wherever it seems justified to do so.
(cycles begin at alpha.)
commentary relating to graphic
for simplicity, only five epochs are indicated. it is in the last three that major, progressive changes occur in the use of mental faculties to accumulate cosmic knowledge. the omnipresent substratum and source of the universe must be represented by the blank background termed dynamic field in the metaparticle theory (since changed to essential field).
the emptiness shown between omega and alpha illustrates the cosmic problem of continuity. an existent universe will be totally dissolved after it re-enters the homogeneous energy field from which its elements originated. yet a new alpha must somehow be established if the next universe is to be "new and improved".
this theory has focused on the methods by which it is thought possible that the requirements for a new universe can begin coming again into existence at alpha. in sources pertaining to such a transition it is made quite clear that there cannot be reappearance or reanimation of any aspect of the preceding macrocosm. no entities, no memories of the old can remain to influence and possibly channel the new into repetitions of the past. the only exception is said to be in natural laws, the consciousness principle, and the possibility of a "super-cosmic supremity"
outlines of the five representative epochs
primitive and formative epochs
this beginning of a great cycle occurs when some intrinsic impulse or another stimulates the essential field to extrude fundamental particles into the space-time universe. that is the information we are going by. it happens not to accept the big bang in one feature: in this worldview there is no need for an initial exploding singularity which is of unthinkably small size but contains every iota of what will become the material universe (plus, i assume, the laws and forces that go with it. or does the big bang theory at this point say the laws and forces are already "out there"? sincerely, we can't find this out and wish we knew where to look.)
we do accept the idea that big bangs may occur in a far-apart series as the universe develops. in other words, in our outlook big bangs may be a matter-redistribution phenomenon, instead of the creative singularity.
one thing everybody can agree on is that the new universe will not be teeming with homo sapiens-type intelligences during the formative epochs. so, since this theory's interest is concentrated on the growth of intelligence, rather than particles, atoms, molecules, and on through dinosaurs, we will go on to the conscient epoch.
just when some of the occupants of our particular worldfield began to reach intelligence is variously estimated by anthropology. perhaps several hundred thousand years ago, maybe less, maybe over a million. but unless the term homo sapiens equates with intelligence, there can be no surety about when "conscient" mentality came on the scene. however, only cynics would doubt that we as a species are well into such an epoch by now. (and that the next will be better.)
our diagram (which is not intended to suggest temporal accuracy) depicts the epochs in great abbreviation and allots them roughly equal timelines around the cycle. the ancient vedic thinkers must have spent generations charting the great cycle into sub-cycles, cycles, days of brahma, nights of brahma, ages, and so on. i hate to relate this, but they finally assigned a very, very long time to an entire great cycle or "lifetime of brahma".
would you believe a number of earth-years in fifteen figures? ignoring the "nights of brahma", when nothing seems to happen but sleep, we get it down to around seven or eight. trillion. seven or eight trillion earth years. (that is too much for me; please see footnote.*)
"superconscient" can mean about anything you want it to in terms of mental powers, but in the present case it refers mainly to just one thing: being capable of participating in a mental state that is still very little known. this is no new age group activity that i have simply not read about. what little i have learned indicates it is a principle in consciousness that has remained almost completely unexposed. i would guess it is probably a mental ability that will not be generally recognized until the conscient epoch has phased into the superconscient. the name i have temporarily given to this mind-enhancing principle, lacking any other, is "multiple unity".
* apologies to all the brahmins, upanishad writers, etc., but i am unable to live with their figures. i frankly think there must have been something wrong with their master abacus. who can expect any human being to stay interested in reading something that can't bring about its full effect for trillions of years? without going into arbitration, shall we just agree to use an estimate of about a hundred or so billion earth-years. that should be more soothing. (note: the early brahmanists are not our major source of data.)
partial explanation of multiple unity
let me first assure you that i myself have never been personally involved in anything similar to multiple unity, though there was one short episode of co-participation, which sometimes precedes it. i also don't know anybody who has; i think it likely that the english experimenter frederick myers is likely to have been.
i gather that multiple unity is not only a nascent power of human consciousness alone, but of the entire range of conscient worlds throughout presumably inhabited galaxies. it is best or most practically thought of as a key element in the aeonic organizing of knowledge predicted for achievement in the climactic epoch.
multiple unity can be interpreted as allowing comparatively advanced human mentalities to expand and temporarily include other minds of similar orientation. the result could be described as a collective, multi-faceted kind of thinking, consciously shared by a number of voluntary participants, during an agreed-upon mental effort. or i gather it can be employed just to enjoy the synthetic experience of unified co-participation. it is not known to be in wide practice yet among living mentalities of this physical planet, but there is evidence that it is practiced at this time during the conscient epoch in our third or mental worldfield.
i can say nothing further about multiple unity except that it is never used as a means of dominance. but i have come to believe that this acquired faculty will be one of two major causative elements in the goal of universal renewal, when our universe's lifetime ends at the apex of omega. the other element -- and about this i feel quite sure -- is the indissoluble continuity of "natural laws".
the ending phase of this final epoch (after many sub-cycles preceding omega) might be likened to an extended, transcendent celebration upon having perfected control over the laws regulating existence. (an implication only, but logically called for.) those achieving such cosmic ability -- seemingly always in specialized groups -- will have earned the "apex participation".
when the climactic epoch has had its full time, the universe of existence will simply dissolve. in all respects, from material to abstract subjectivity, all disappears into the essential field from which creative powers projected them.
a universe in the great cycle has lived and passed. only the field remains in the concept of "cosmos". but has death at last prevailed? in the deepest sense it has not.
if there is to be universal, cyclic continuity, the unified cosmic mind of a climactic epoch must surely have found a way to leave behind, in the field, some way to awaken it for a new universe to begin at alpha. (hence the term "omega to alpha.") changes which may have been effected in natural laws by cosmic mind might be included in that stimulus, but such a necessity is strictly speculation on the part of contemporary thinkers.
please remember that the climactic celebratory period spoken of could hardly be a daydream of mine. how could anyone of this time frame conceive of what it might actually be like? still, there are some things about it that i feel warrant positive consideration. the first is that at least a few active cosmologists have worked out scenarios on the subject of cosmic survival that in general are very similar to ours, speaking now only of the "climactic epoch". they also predict an age of fulfillment, if the term is adequate, far ahead but not immediately preceding an inevitable ending of the past cycle's universe. the second way in which omega to alpha shows consonance with professional theorizing is that both place great emphasis on the continuing growth of intelligence and knowledge, although by differing methods.
omega- to-alpha is, in its entirety, a worldview that recognizes the need for both creation by chance and by pragmatically conceived laws. it bestows an acceptance on both theism and atheism, (excluding only "nullism" -- the denial of significance to the universe and all life within it). such a worldview's outlook, we agree, might be termed mere hoping for eventual compatibility.
when the nature of dark matter, dark energy, and black holes become more functionally understood, crossing the gap from omega to alpha in order to bring about universal renewal may be facilitated a little or a lot, but that crossing or something like it has to occur. and if science should take centuries to learn about the subject, there could still be the comforting thought on the part of ordinary thinkers that any intelligent source of creation management, shall we say, should not allow any destructive threat to disrupt the great cycles of life.
i think a certain denial must be made, even though it doesn't actually qualify as one of the potentially beneficial aspects of this theory. first let me ask readers to discount intent on my part to sound knowledgeable about heaven. but i feel the "climactic celebration" topic could be confused with the christian and jewish concepts of heaven. so allow me to state that there should be no conflict between the two ideas, and i think mainly for the following reasons: no matter how exalted may be the experience in each, the climactic period, though never described to me in any detail, is clearly a long-lasting era featuring co-participation. how time itself, as well as heaven, might be perceived by the matured consciousness of that epoch is yet a matter of conjecture.
also, heaven is portrayed in a number of western doctrines as being -- at least initially -- a singular, personal, transcendent experience. it is seen as being achievable by any human being who qualifies. further, the opportunity to join in such co-participation is implied as being offered in every lifetime, not particularly during an end cycle.*
*dependable buddhist sources state clearly that "transcendent states" such as moksha, nirvana, and satori differ in many ways from heaven or devachan. yet all reach heights of consciousness.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
transition and renewal . . . instead of the "end" of a universe
for a moment let's trace, in synopsis, how we got here: it began with an "essential field" underlying all existence; containing in its homogeneous substance all of everything needed in a universe .
·being what we were, what we are now, and what we can become, we rode out the epochs as though something was helping us survive them, and also as though a natural evolution was helping something to do it.
·time, evolution, and inspiration are depended upon to assure that humanity's more outstanding minds will discover that the expansion of knowledge acquired can be preserved -- without "belonging" to individuals or groups -- and that physical death can be prevented from causing knowledge to be lost.
·faster achievers in aspiring groups learn the co-participation that results in increasing occasions of "multiple unity".
·in a "superconscient climactic period" of who knows how long, we can at last enjoy the perfected opposites of the fight for survival, much of which has been lived through along the way. with the power that springs from full universal knowledge, new changes can be made in old laws, it is presumed, for life to experience in the next great cycle. the experiencers won't be us, but the same field will be our mother.
·see if this seems at all worthwhile to you:
the fullness of knowledge throughout whatever the universe may have become, still cannot cover all possibilities of knowing; there would otherwise remain no newness for cycles ahead. by the same token, the apex times may indeed be very far ahead -- but contemplation in imagination happens now. could we let that make a little bright-side difference to offset the downer news in all forms of media?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
when you know everything that can be known in a certain frame of time, is it true that you are to that extent omniscient?
if no single mind at any time can contain everything known, may not countless minds, when interlinked as one, contain perfected knowledge?
if you become part of a "cosmic mind" that can accomplish whatever the laws allow, would that be sufficient for the term "omnipotence"?
and now the most subtle of the four: isn't what we think of as "self" still a limitation, no matter how far you expand it? isn't the limitless field from which came your substance along with that of the countless others...isn't that the basic reality of omnipresence?
(the above should not be considered "my" knowledge, but rather
questions about which answers ought to be known somewhere...)
if the plain thoughts above strike you as unusual, could that be only because they don't usually occur to us? somewhere ahead, this universe must either disappear or continue. can you imagine that in only a few billion more years there will be enough omniscience and omnipotence, along with the omnipresence of the field of being, to devise some new templates for the laws to follow when that field awakens again at alpha? the cyclic surety of endless new awakenings to new experiences by consciousness represents the main advantage of the great cycle worldview.
when it is shown why omnipresent laws constitute the very backbone of transition from omega to alpha, thus "renewing" and in that sense continuing the universe, an uneasy conundrum is bound to come up.
when omnipresence is added to omniscience and omnipotence, some readers are going to point out that i have equated the cosmic mind of this theory with god almighty of the scriptures. i herewith deny that to be my intent. (incidentally, i am an unaffiliated christian, in case you might be wondering.)
but if the triple-omnis are to be the measure of it, the reader might infer that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence could, without diminution, be taken as meaning god. either within or beyond the cosmos.
let me therefore say plainly that i am in no way suggesting that the cosmic mind, as called frequently in this conceptual theory, takes the place of god. is it not rational to think there must be supreme deific possibilities beyond those we can conceive of at our immature stage in a great cycle? my own belief is that the final state of multiple unity, based on the consummation of mentally human-like beings such as ourselves -- from all the worlds -- does not bring them godhood.
but it can explain their achievement of godlikeness.
mechanisms of the transition to a new alpha
in the omega to alpha theory the mechanism for cyclic renewal and continuity depends entirely on there being a system of cosmic and natural laws. for most of a great cycle that is coming to a close, these laws plus the random uncertainties introduced by evolutionary factors have controlled the material aspects of universal existence. now these material things having fulfilled their functions in existence must end. and even "godlike" entities, who still possess material elements, must return to their origin in the non-difference of being.
as omega nears, hyperphysical ranges supplying substantive elements for continuing mental life would exist until the great cycle's dissolution. such would enable mature entities to remain detached from any physical turbulence, while performing the task of making desired changes in the laws. (presumably!)
basis and "mechanism" of changing universal laws
what could be the actualities composing a procedure with the power to make such alterations? after all, one of the major assumptions of our worldview is that such laws have for billions of years been the immediate means of control over the universe. surely philosophers of the past have pondered this question, but i am unable to synthesize their answer to it.
one principle i would like to be a fact relating to the present scenario is this: cosmic laws -- as well as natural laws taken here as being subsidiary to them -- might to some degree be made of substantive as well as conscient energies -- of grades that will not be dissolved in the essential field as will be the matter of more material grades. omega has no material connection with the next alpha; thus if laws are to pass through the field they would have to be made, for example, of something like thought, will, and inherent motion. i certainly am not alone in thinking the laws of universal existence must at least include those. in fact, we can hardly turn to anything else that seems appropriate. unless, of course, we are content to just pass on all responsibilities to god, and let our wonderment stop there.
many challengeable suppositions are to be found in the areas of natural laws. these include the odd, but i suspect inevitable idea that we ourselves, led by science and having discovered such laws and named them, have also actually created them. (a commentary on that undependable idea has been included since the fifth edition of metaparticles.)
may i add one more assumption regarding the alteration of laws: it is not our intention to imply that cosmic laws such as equilibrium, contrastual opposites, and conservation of energy should be subject to alteration. they are certain to be keystones of the subsequent universe also. natural laws should be changeable in details, however -- enough, perhaps, to leave "anthropic hints" as well as new possibilities for enjoying life.
cosmic laws such as those mentioned above seem indispensable to a universe that is anything like ours, and probably could better remain unchanged from universe to universe.
it is assumed in this theory that natural laws, such as the laws of physics, chemistry, and other sciences, may be subject to change, but not necessarily all such laws. (at this i can imagine all expressions in all departments would be the same.)
i personally see no conflict between natural laws and the processes of evolution. i cannot see that laws could possibly apply to random happenings. therefore, random changes caused by evolutionary phenomena can easily be accepted as introducing novel variations into life forms without interfering with patterns established by natural laws. however, it is theorized that control over random collisions with established genes is the factor issuing in the epochs of growing knowledge. before that stage is reached, the lesser qualities of mental achievement should prevail through the conscient epoch -- where we supposedly are at present.
growth of shared knowledge
it is an essential part of our thesis to emphasize the distinction between intellect and knowledge. we choose the definition of intellect given as "the capacity for rational, intelligent thought". intrinsic brain development is paramount in this sense. consequently the phenomena of darwinian evolution should exert a major effect on how well a brain of high potential can handle the knowledge it acquires during life.
in the operations of multiple unity, partially explained earlier, clear intellect (but not, at first, extraordinary intellect) is required of participants. but the actual achievement factor is the continuing accumulation of knowledge. the reason for this is that knowledge can be compounded -- synthesized, consolidated, and extended-- by the epoch-long practicing of multiple unity. (note the "practicing"; i do not intend to imply that those who practice it remain constantly in that condition.)
today the accumulation of knowledge also occurs in teaching, literature, data preservation, and in concentrated thinking. but in those cases the knowledge cannot be provided, shared, and stored simultaneously in a way permitting total access by individual participants universe-wide, eventually. also, individual deaths can prevent a great deal of knowledge from surviving.
it can be seen, then, that our modern achievements in data access lack the faculty of preserving knowledge synthesized by a temporary group effort, in a way that is totally recallable by each and all participants. on the other hand, combined intellectual abilities can provide dynamic, useful power in applying knowledge. it is because of this that something relatively unheard of such as multiple unity seems ideal for the later cycles of co-participation.
death disconnects, disengages. but in multiple unity individual contributions become a structure of thought that involves many minds and thus knowledge survives. this is said to be the key capability that preserves and can enlarge the mechanism of knowledge - plus intelligence - to cosmic proportions.
(it should be understood that those aspects of consciousness and life that are traditionally covered by words such as morality, faith, and spirituality are too extensive and significant to be addressed in the present paper.)
in a time of pervasive global problems on an inhabited planet during a conscient epoch, it would seem that the best help available would be given -- whatever that might entail. in view of historic indications that periods of ascent most often follow periods of deterioration, we can indulge the hopeful probability that such a phase can be expected after world environment problems have been met.
at this time, relative to 150 years ago, much is known of our racial past and of the workings of nature. but if there are sound reasons to look for help from other sources, there are also other reasons for depending primarily on ourselves.
personally i doubt that cosmic laws could be adapted for local conditions on a planet; it would seem "natural" laws are needed also. the reader may or may not think it highly illogical to entertain the feeling that on this planet we enjoy some kind of cosmic priority. i confess, however, that facing the threats of the near future, i would welcome help from any "godlikenesses" who could give it, or from benevolent et's, or from winged angels bearing fire extinguishers for that matter.
i'm sure this great cycle renovation won't be mislabeled cosmology; that science has its own variety of scenarios, seeking evidence that depends more upon predictions of a high-tech nature. but most of our concepts do follow a logic based on evidential likelihood. and the great cycle worldview is much more than imaginatively possible.
despite the "local problems" above, i believe in a universe that at least permits, if not arranges for, the fulfillment of life's best vistas, far away as they now seem. may i recommend that we keep in mind that heights are reached by going upward more often and farther than we go downward, and that the highest is what most of us, perhaps secretly, desire.
wishing good luck in a good future, anthony paul perella
oct. 1, 2009
for a free, full-color printout of the great cycle worldview (as a .pdf file): click here
for a free, full-color printout of entire website (as a .pdf file), click here
e-mail address: email@example.com
copyright © 2006