Wednesday, 13 December 2017

Meditating Ordinary Things – on ‘the question of Being’ (Wilberg on Wednesday)

Preface: what I call The Awareness Principle does not only question, as Heidegger did, the nature of Being and its relation to beings. Instead it also and above all speaks of a primordial ‘Awareness of Being’. Its principle concern and question is therefore the nature of Awareness itself.  But this does not mean that ‘The Awareness Principle’ simply transcends or supersedes ‘the question of Being’ as Heidegger asked it. On the contrary, by speaking also of an ‘Awareness of Being’, The Awareness Principle - whatever new fruits it bears from it - is a tree that will always remain grounded and rooted in the ‘question of Being’ – and therefore also in the thinking of Martin Heidegger himself. The following essay is a new reminder and expression of this truth.” 

We take our stand as beings within a world of beings. ‘A being’ or ‘beings’ means here - anything and everything that ‘is’. But what, asks Heidegger, does it mean for any being at all to ‘be’? What is the ‘Being’ of any being? We may see a tree, rock, paving stone or a wall of brick, a car or house, a chair or desk, and say of it that it ‘is there’ – that ‘there is’, for example a paving stone, the brickwork of a building or the bark of a tree. We may look further and say that there ‘is’ a patch of lichen on it, that this lichen ‘is’ ‘yellow’ etc.  But where, how or in what way do we or even CAN we perceive the Being or ‘is-ness’ of anything which we perceive – and so also think or say of it: ‘there is…’? Where and how, for example, on a paving stone or wall of brick - or in the yellowness of the patch of lichen we see on it - do or even can we perceive in this being anything like its ‘Being’ or being-ness - its ‘is-ness’? Is this ‘is-ness’ perhaps not something so concealed or hidden, so lacking in any perceptible qualities or faces, that we could just as much say that precisely there, where we say of something that it ‘is’, we find precisely nothing – an ‘is not’. If so, then could we not just as well say of anything that ‘it is not’ and ‘there is not…’? Could it not be that in perceiving, thinking and saying ‘there is…’,  for example ‘there ‘is’ a tree or brick, with its bark and patch of yellow lichen’ we are at the same time saying ‘No’ to this ‘is’ - which is nothing ‘there’ to be seen or perceived at all – nothing at all that ‘is’, and therefore, in the deepest sense also no ‘being at all’? Such questions offer a crude summary of some of the many deep directions in which Heidegger’s meditative questioning on the nature of ‘Being’ and of ‘beings’ led. Through them, it began to seem to him that there was a great Nothingness at the heart of Being itself - not just because Being is no ‘thing’ but because the Being of any being is nothing that ‘there is’, nothing that can be seen or heard, felt or touched in any tangible way. But is this actually true? Could it not be, however, that precisely in and through the perceptible face or look of any being, the way it comes to light or ‘appears’ to us as a ‘phenomenon’ (a word derived from the Greek phaos/phos (light) and phainesthein – to ‘come to light’ or ‘bring to appearance through light’) that its true ‘Being’ can be found?

The particular ‘look’ of a being, the way it both appears and in this way also ‘stands out’ or ‘ex-ists’  for us, was what the Greeks called its eidos. This is a word that later became reduced to a mere ‘idea’ of something. But it also gives us a clue to a new way of looking at things, one through which their Being, ‘is-ness’ or ‘being-ness’ is nothing concealed at all but stares us in the face as their very ‘look’ – not in the form of any mental concept or ‘idea’ of what they are, but as their eidos in the original sense. It does of course remain true that as a long as we perceive in the way that most people are so accustomed to doing - according to a preconceived idea of what it is they are perceiving – that then there is no way that the Being or ‘is-ness’ of anything, any ‘being’, is evident to us. 

As long as we only perceive something as a ‘car’, ‘chair’, ‘desk’, ‘house’, ‘tree’ etc., then whatever its particular, distinguishing features, we see no more than a particular instance or example of what is not more than a general or generic idea of what it is, and not its ‘is-ness at all. The entire realm of our sensory experiencing and perception takes the form, not of immediate ‘sensory perceptions’, but of what I call ‘sensory’ conceptions’ – perceiving phenomena as ‘this’ or ‘that’. Our lives do not begin in this way. An infant for example - meaning someone who has not learned to speak (in-fans) and to name things in language - can hear just as well as an adult. Yet, lacking any idea or concept of ‘a car’, ‘a train’ - or ‘a Mozart symphony’ - cannot possibly hear such a thing as a ‘Mozart symphony’ or even simply ‘a car’ or ‘a train’ passing by. Instead the infant ‘simply’, but in some ways more deeply, and inwardly and tangibly than an adult – is touched by the felt tone and timbre of the sounds they hear. But what would happen if, like infants, we were able to not or to stop perceiving things in a pre-conceived way - ‘as’ this or that and according to a learned word for and idea of what they are? Then for example, a paving stone with its patch of yellow lichen would no longer be seen simply as ‘a paving stone’, the ‘lichen’ would no longer be seen as ‘lichen’. In fact, even its colour would no longer be perceived merely as some shade of what we have long learned to call ‘yellow. Instead, our experience of perceiving any phenomenon would be transformed into what, in my Memoirs and other essays, I have called ‘Sensuous Awareness Bliss’. By this I mean a concept-free and purely sensual and aesthetic experiencing of sights, sounds, shapes, tones, textures and colours etc. Yet this is a type of experience  that most people only have - if they are not on drugs like LSD - when, for example, they come to appreciate and enjoy a supposedly ‘abstract’ painting or sculpture, one in which they cannot identify anything in the artwork as some nameable ‘thing’. It is also an experience that some – but not all – people have when they listen to a piece of music. That is because music, by its nature, offers us a direct feeling and sensual experience which is innately free of ideas or concepts - which does not ‘represent’ anything, and is not even reducible to any ‘emotion’ we can  label in words. If it were, it would be enough to present a description of the music and the things or ideas it represents - and there would no need to actually listen to it and feel it at all! In this sense, all music – and not just modern music of a sort that is seemingly abstract or ‘atonal’ music – is essentially abstract, and is so however deeply and intensely it touches and moves our souls. Of course there are pieces of great classical and romantic music which also seek to ‘tell a story’, ‘paint a picture’ or convey the atmosphere of a particular country or landscape. Yet does this imply that the music could just as well be replaced by a story, painting or walk in that landscape? Certainly not. The question is - why? My answer, as the reader will come to see, is that the composer works with and from the very same tones and colours of feeling that find expression in the story, painting or landscape itself. These tones of feeling are nothing visible or audible in the story, painting or landscape itself – and yet  they constitute its very soul – made up of feeling tones that, if the composer is in resonance with them, can then wordlessly ‘resound’ as audible vocal, instrumental or orchestral tones.

In contrast, a great piece of clearly non-abstract or ‘figurative’ painting, may, of course, seem to clearly portray or ‘represent’, for example, ‘a tree’.  But the greatness of the painting lies first of all in the way in which it reveals or ‘discloses’ the unique shape, form and colouration of the tree something as a phenomenon that is - in itself - something entirely ‘abstract’ - no more ‘concrete’ or ‘figurative’ than an ‘abstract’ work of sculpture. For a tree itself, with all its many unique features  does not ‘re-present’ any ‘thing’ – and certainly not a mere ‘idea’ or ‘concept’ of what it is. As a result, no matter how naturalistically painted, the painting cannot merely ‘re-present’ a tree. For how can something that does not itself ‘represent’ anything be represented?  Both the ‘actual’ or ‘concrete’ and artistically ‘represented’ tree therefore essentially represent ‘nothing’ – ‘no-thing’.Yet perhaps we can rephrase this understanding and say instead that a tree, whether it stands before us in nature or in a painting, even though it ‘represents’ nothing, does indeed present something to us. It presents ‘nothing’ but what it itself is – its ‘Being’ - but only and precisely by not representing itself to us simply ‘as’ what we call ‘a tree’.

How then does the tree present itself? Not as a ‘figure’ representing anything but rather a unique ‘gestalt’ or configuration (‘con-figuration’) of purely sensory or ‘phenomenal’ qualities - qualities of the sort we can but need not represent in language as the sculptural form of its ‘branches’, the shape, density and colour tone of its leaves or ‘foliage’, the height, thickness and sensed weightiness of its ‘trunk’ and the particular texture, more or less smooth or rough, of its ‘bark’ etc. Yet to use what we call ‘a tree’ as our example here is all too easily misleading. True, we have shown that a phenomenon of the most supposedly ‘concrete’ or ‘natural’ sort – like a tree - is, in itself something that is as abstract as any supposedly ‘abstract’ work of art of the sort - which also only presents us with a un-nameable ‘configuration’ of sensory shapes and qualities. But great art or music is also and above all felt as meaningful - even if we cannot reduce this felt meaning or ‘sense’1 to an ‘idea’ or represent it in words, even if, to use the English phrase we cannot ‘make sense’ of it?

So what sort of felt meaning or ‘sense’1 is it that presents itself through the sensory qualities manifested in the look, face or eidos of any sensory phenomenon at all - whether natural or man-made, artistically crafted or purely utilitarian, that we do not reduce to some ‘idea’ of what it is? Is it not the same sort of pre-conceptual and wordlessly felt meaning that we experience in listening to music? But perhaps it is also something else – similar to the sort of ‘felt meaning’ we experience  whenever we perceive the ‘look’ or eidos of another human being - both the look of their bodies and, in particular, the look  in their  face and eyes. For such looks are no mere ‘object’ of our own visual perception, but reveal to us something very different – their own way of looking out on, seeing and feeling the world around them. This, in turn, is  something tinted or toned by  a particular way of feeling themselves – which also lends the look in their face and eyes a particular ‘mood’ or tone of feeling. 

The body of a human being then, including and in particular, their face and eyes, have a ‘look’ that is not something we simply perceive as a thing or ‘object’.Neither is all that presents itself to us as the bodily shape, look and face of a particular human being something simply ‘there’ or ‘present’ for us to be or become aware of. Instead, and as a ‘phenomenon’ in the root sense, it brings to light and brings forth - it presences - the unique qualities, tones, shapes, colours and textures of that particular human being’s awareness, in particular their wordless feeling awareness of themselves and the world. Are not such qualities of awareness that which most of all tell us what, who and also ‘how’ that human being ‘is’? For surely, what a particular human being ‘is’ cannot be separated from how and who they feel themselves ‘to be’? And is not this feeling awareness of themselves something which itself tones and tints, shapes and colours, the entire way they feel, sense and perceive other people and the world around them – that world in which they first come to ‘stand out’ or ‘ex-ist’? It seems, then, that there is an intrinsic relation between ‘being’ itself and feeling. Here we find ourselves ‘at one’ with Martin Heidegger:

“Feeling is the very state, open to itself, in which we stand related to things, to ourselves and to the people around us … Feeling is the very state, open to itself, in which human being hovers.”

“Every feeling is an embodiment attuned in this or that way, a mood that embodies in this or that way.”

“A mood makes manifest ‘how one is’ and ‘how one is faring’. In this ‘how one is’; having a mood brings Being (Sein) to its ‘there’ (Da).”

Heidegger also remarks:

“The bodying of life is not encapsulated in the ‘physical mass’ in which the body can appear to us …”
But is ‘life’ and its ‘bodying’ restricted to the human being? Not at all. The light of awareness that is visible in the look of another human being’s eyes – whether it be a darkly inward-looking or brightly outward-shining light – can reveal countless possible shades of both light and darkness, as well as countless possible tones and colourations of awareness. In the light of this understanding, we can return to the ‘yellow’ of the abstract patch of ‘lichen’ - whether on a rock or  the bark of a tree, on the paving stones of a stree or brickwork of a man-made building. We have suggested that this yellow patch of lichen is not something that ‘is’ - in the sense of being simply there or present. Instead, we must concur with Heidegger in understanding that in everything ‘there is…’ - from a human being to a machine or motor car, from a rock, plant or animal to an armchair, table, desk – is something that is not merely ‘present’ but ‘presences’. But what exactly presences in and as the Being of any being or phenomenon?

That ‘something’ is, of course ‘no-thing’. Yet this does not mean it is ‘nothing’. In my books and writings (in particular The Qualia Revolution) I argue that in every sensory quality or feature of every experienced phenomenon, what is constantly presencing - coming to light or coming to presence – are innately sensual and feeling qualities, not of ‘physical matter’, but of awareness itself. The particular yellowness of the yellow patch of lichen lets a particular colouration of feeling awareness shine through – come to presence before our eyes. The lichen is alive with the light and colouration of awareness that its ‘yellowness’ allows to shine through and come to light  – even though the light and colouration of awareness cannot, in itself be seen – but only felt through its visible manifestation  and embodiment in the colour of the ‘lichen’.

Science recognises the lichen to be ‘alive’ in some way, just as it recognises life in a tree. But the rocks, bricks, roof tiles, paving stones or any surfaces on which the lichen may appear are not something ‘dead’, ‘inert’ or ‘insentient’. To believe this is to restrict not just awareness but also the meaning of ‘life’ – and with it the entire ‘meaning of life’ - to the realm of ‘biological’ entities or beings. This is a restriction imposed by the ideas and preconceptions of a ‘science’ which studies beings of every possible type – but, as Heidegger pointed out, without for a single moment questioning what it means for any being to be – for this is a type of question which ‘physical science’ - in the way it defines itself today - can perform no possible experiments to answer. The question itself transcends the bounds of this ‘physical science’. The question is by nature, and as already Aristotle recognised, not a ‘physical’ but a ‘meta-physical’ question. This is a type of question which modern scientific thinking in general not only does not even ask – but also has no possible way of answering in its own terms and through its own methods.Science also reduces the ‘presencing’ or ‘coming to presence’ of phenomena to mere chains of cause and effect. It has nothing at all to say of the Being or ‘is-ness’ of those phenomena: ‘the Being of beings’.

In the language of everyday life, however, we may say of a particular individual that he or she has a strong or powerful ‘presence’. What is meant by this? That through this individual being something comes to presence - something ‘presences’. The distinction between what is merely there or ‘present’ and what ‘presences’ or comes to presence through it goes back to Heidegger – as a fundamental clue to the relation of Being and beings. ‘Being’ is thought, not merely as what is present, but as what presences in all beings. It is also thought  by Heidegger as a clear and light-filled open space or ‘clearing’ (Lichtung) which first allows beings to be – to appear or come to presence. This open space and light are thought, in the terms of The Awareness Principle, as an open space and light of awareness. Hence what presences in all beings – and not just a human being with a particularly ‘strong’ presence – is awareness.

The solid mahogany desk at which I write also has a strong, weighty and powerful presence. But to be open to feeling this presence means being open to sensing what is presencing through its presence. The sensory qualities of the desk are clear for all to see and therefore also to sense – for example the symmetry and curvatures of its shape, its heavy solidity,  the deep brown colour, graining and sheen of its surface etc. But to be open to feel, sense and resonate with what presences through these qualities – the ‘Being’ of the desk - is another thing entirely – and no thing at all. It means feeling the ‘body’ of the desk not merely as some material body separate from my ‘own’ fleshly body but in a similar way to how I experience that body from within – which is not as a watery conglomeration of tissue and organs but rather as a configuration of actual and potential densities, weights, shapes, textures and colourations of feeling awareness itself. All of these qualities are sensual qualities – which is why through them I can come to strongly sense and resonate with the qualities of awareness that come to presence through the visible sensory qualities of the desk. The same thing applies to the body of any other thing around me - no matter how small, insignificant or lacking in presence or prominence it may be to those who enter my room. Even if they take time to survey the room as a whole, and all that is contained in its space - all they would probably think is ‘Oh, there is ‘a desk’, there is ‘a sofa’, there is a ‘picture on the wall’, there is ‘a curtain’, there is a ‘laptop’, there is ‘a bookshelf’, there is ‘a statue of Shiva’.

Whether they ‘like’ the room and things in it or not, all there is in their awareness of these things  is some mundane ‘there is…’. They see things that all have a clear function and use – even if that use appears as just ‘decoration’ or ‘symbolic’ in some way. In other words, they see nothing, because their mode of seeing is entirely and purely to see what is there ‘as’ this or that – ‘as’ a desk, curtain, laptop, chair, sofa etc. So however much they may ‘like’ some particular thing – for example my desk or fireplace, the matching colours of a lampshade and curtains, what they actually see is still just ‘a desk’ or ‘a fireplace’, ‘the colour’ of ‘curtains’ or of ‘a lampshade’ etc.  Their senses are in this way dulled if not blind to all that presences through the features, shapes and qualities of things, which is also all that – in this way -  constitutes their very ‘Being’ as beings. That is why most people (except perhaps at rare times when they might be entranced by a river or mountain while on holiday, or a work on display in an art gallery) live in a world which - though ever fuller of colourful, nicely designed and useful ‘things’ - is in fact a world of sensory deprivation and impoverishment. So let us be perfectly clear.

It is not the ‘domination’ of awareness by  sensory awareness that is a ‘spiritual’ obstacle to ‘enlightenment’ for anyone, but the very opposite - the dull superficiality of that sensory awareness of the world.  This dulling of sensory awareness is a ‘spiritual’ one only because it closes off awareness to a deep and even bliss-filled sensory appreciation of the very Being of the things around them, no matter how seemingly ordinary or mundane. To be sure, there are many who can still take great pleasure or even experience a moment of bliss in not only seeing but feeling – with and within their whole body – the beauty of a single small flower in a garden or meadow. If only they had the awareness to feel the same type of sensory pleasure or even bliss from fully feeling other things too, including man-made things that they take as so ordinary that they do not even pause to look at or really see them at all – like a patch of yellow lichen on a paving stone beneath their very feet. If they did ‘see’ in this way however, then all the world and everything in it would become like an ‘art gallery’ or a vivid and life-filled ‘lucid dream’ for them – and not merely a collection of ‘things’ pretty or ugly, mundane or extraordinary, practical or decorative, ‘liked’, ‘not liked’ or ‘unliked’.  They would also experience no need to have their senses artificially hyperstimulated by simulated sensory images of things and places on electronic devices such as computers, smartphones and televisions - or by addiction to the overwhelming variety of commodities, offered in countless gaudy shapes and colours, in supermarkets, shopping malls and other temples of consumerism.

My suggestion for such people – all people:

·         Take time to be more aware of anything around you in a sensory, feeling way.
·         Take time to frequently pause for a while and stop seeing some thing, however ordinary, merely ‘as’ this or that well-known type of ‘object’.

Instead, and in this way, begin to use your own sensory and feeling awareness to truly meditate ‘ordinary things’. This means seeing, sensing and resonating with those unique and blissfully sensual qualities of inner feeling awareness that they bring to presence - in and through their outer, sensory form. How? Perhaps, to begin with, by taking time intending to ‘see’ any seemingly ‘material’ thing as a type of solidified music – not just seeing but sensing, feeling or even inwardly ‘hearing’ it as an ‘inner sound’ - one that gives perfect sensory form to those uniquely shaped tones, colours, textures, densities and intensities of feeling awareness that are what it most essentially is. Remember above all  what ‘The Awareness Principle’ teaches us - that awareness itself can be sensed as having a rough, jagged or smooth, angular, rectilinear or rounded nature, a vertical and horizontal nature, and as having a weight, density and intensity, brightness or darkness,  lightness or heaviness, texture and tone - all of its own. How do we know? Because it is constantly presencing and made manifest in the sensory features of all the most ordinary things around us. Because it is the constant presencing or be-ing that is the very essence of their ‘Being’.

Have we then completely solved ‘The Question of Being’ in the way in which Heidegger – and Heidegger alone, was the first to pose it? Are there no further questions to be asked or yet to be found? By no means. We say for example that we ‘recognise’ a person by their ‘look’ or eidos, or else by the sound of their voice - or, in the case of the blind, by the felt shape of their face. And yet the look in a person’s face and eyes, like the tone of their voice can not only change over time but vary at any time – even to the point that we no longer ‘recognise’ them at all. Perhaps to simply ‘recognise’ someone for who they ‘are’ is by no means the same thing as fully and deeply cognising them through their (changing) features, figure, expression and tone of voice. If so, what is it that still somehow remains ‘the same’ amidst this changeability? Wherein lies the oneness in ‘the many faces’ of the soul?  The same question can be asked of the many symphonies or works of a composer or artist. Here the question of what is ‘the same’ is a clue to its own answer. For the words ‘same’ (selbe) and ‘self’ (Selbst) are, in German at least, cognate – sharing a common root. That is why Heidegger spoke less of any fixed ‘self’ than of ‘the Same’ (das Selbe). By this he did not mean the pure ‘identity’ of any thing or ‘self’ with itself, as expressed in the logical formula ‘A=A’. Instead he understood ‘identity’ as a belonging together of the self with itself - to which we could add also, the belonging together of its many aspects or looks, features or faces - these being many different faces and personifications of what we can call the ‘soul’. One need only think here of the many and varied life forms to be found in a sea or ocean, which are but manifold expressions of the life of the ‘self-same’ sea or ocean itself and as a whole.

Perhaps it is no accident then, that the German word Seele derives from ‘sea’ (See). In which case however, to speak of ‘soul’ in the terms of any other language would not be to speak of ‘soul’ in this specific meaning at all. Thus the Greek and Latin words for ‘soul’ hint of the element of air rather than water – of breath or wind (Greek psyche/pneuma) and Latin spiritus – from spirare, to breathe or ‘respire’. The same applies to the Sanskrit  word normally translated as ‘self’ - atman. This word is echoed in the German words for both breath (Atem) and breathing (atmen). Is there a basic ‘elemental’ difference or contradiction here to the word ‘soul’? By no means. For do not all beings, whether of land, air or sea, breathe? Indeed is there not even a way in which seemingly insentient things breathe. Lichen for example – lives on nothing but the very light and air around it. And both land and soil too – even porous rock - can be said to breathe, absorbing and emanating gases or vapours. 

To breathe a combination of gases such as ‘air’ is one thing. But why is it that we may feel a particularly strong urge to take a deep breath just at times when, for example, a wonderful vista open up before us or we see, hear or read something extraordinary.  Is this not in order to help us to fully feel and inhale – breathe in – our awareness of an extraordinary phenomenon. Is not ‘in-spiration’, particularly of a ‘spiritual’ sort - first of all an exhilarating in-breath of awareness itself – as when we open ourselves to fully take in or ‘absorb’ the bodily presence of another being – whether in the form of a human being, an extraordinary landscape, a great tree or mountain, or a man-made being such as an extraordinary house, car or work of art?

But then we must also ask what first makes the difference between something ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’? Does this difference even lie in the thing or being itself, or does it lie in the fact that anything can become ‘extraordinary’ if we are fully taking in or breathing in our awareness of it – and in particular our direct sensory awareness? Art is clearly the expression of what might be called the ‘aesthetic inspiration’ or ‘aesthetic experiencing’ of the artist. Yet no work of art is a work of art unless or in so far as it can also be aesthetically experienced by others. In other words, behind all art and all modes of active aesthetic expression lies something more fundamental - a capacity for aesthetic experiencing.  But even to speak of ‘aesthetic experiencing’  is to forget the Greek meaning of the word ‘aesthetic’ – which means simply and purely a  contemplative or meditative awareness of sensory experiencing in general.  All talk of ‘aesthetics’ as “a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste” or as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature." (Wikipedia) forgets this - and replaces meditative or aware sensory experiencing itself with mere ideas about it or criteria for making judgements on it.

Further reading:

Touch, Aesthetics and the Language of the Tantras

On the Centrality of Sensuous Experiencing in Tantra

Wednesday, 6 December 2017

Against Globalist multiculturalism, For Real Cultures which can exist side-by-side (Wilberg on Wednesday)

[Editors note: The Party's objection to Multiculturalism is firmly rooted in the reality that what is called multicultural, is in truth a bland mono-culture, nay anti-culture. We affirm our desire to develop and enhance our culture, drawing on the historical roots which formed it.  The British nation has blended Roman, Celtic, Germanic, French, Greek and all manner of ancient cultures including ones which date back to the mists of time.  To Focus on music: While we have no problem with Folk Music, we see great developments coming through Neo-Folk; While we have respect for Classical Music, there is a great and under-explored growth in Neo-Classical Music. Authentic Culture pays respect to its roots, but it does not stagnate, it thrives and grows. Multiculturalism of the coca cola sex-obsessed degenerate and artistically moribund variety is what we are against, but a genuine collection of coexisting and mutually-enhancing cultures, is something we applaud. But enough of this note, over to Peter!]

Globalist multiculturalism destroys authentic culture.


But do we want to see an ‘authentic culture’ that is tantamount to little more than dancing round rural maypoles in traditional folk costumes - or one that merely replaces commercial pop culture with folk music? What about a massive program of re-educating our own and other European peoples - starting from childhood - in the great musical, poetic, architectural, poetic, dramatic and philosophical cultural traditions of Europe - not least Britain? Do we really want to see the total eradication of that great European culture - one that spans an era stretching from Heraclitus to Hegel, from Aeschylus and Aristotle to Goethe, Shakespeare to Schiller, Bach and Beethoven to Benjamin Britten??? Do we really need to depend on the Chinese to produce new generations of great classical and romantic pianists? Do we really just want to dress up as Druids, replace crucifixes with statues of Odin - and pretend this superficial New Age mimicry of pagan rites is authentic ‘Tradition’ - a word which, as the chief philosopher of 'Traditionalism' - Rene Guenon - pointed out, means an authentic initiatory and experiential passing on (tradere) of both craft skills and profound experiences of spiritual and philosophical truths.

I think there is also another serious question to be asked in this context. The question is, were we to be able to wave a magic wand and instantly remove every single trace of ‘multiculturalism’ from England, what exactly would we be left with in terms of ‘culture’ except for the monoculture of endlessly streamed TV ads and crap American TV series? [Editors note: We want to eradicate Hollywood US Imperialist anti-culture, so there would be NO US sitcoms etc!] The ‘authentic culture’ of English Beer and Scotch Whisky? Pub chains serving up crap, microwaved imitations of traditional English food? Football, rugby and cricket? (...not that there is anything wrong with any of them at all). Brass bands and Welsh singers (albeit the best of whom, like Bryn Terfel become great and world-renowned singers)? What would happen to our great but underfunded and ridiculously overpriced theatres, opera houses, concert halls and symphony orchestras? Under National Socialism, as in the Soviet Union, truly great musicians were trained and cultivated in the classical tradition - initiated would be a better word. Great music was brought to the people and not just an elite - with even the Berlin Philharmonic playing in factories. More importantly, in both NS Germany and the Soviet Union great works of classical ‘traditional’ music were still being composed. And even the Soviet Union recognised how deeply interwoven Russian culture and music was with European culture - including both French, Austrian German and English culture and music (as shown by the great friendship of Shostakich with Benjamin Britten). Finally, why was Wagner’s ‘The Mastersingers of Nuremburg’ performed after each and every Nuremberg rally? Because the whole theme of this particular music drama (Wagner hated bourgeois 'opera') is how cherished traditions of apprenticeship and spiritual initiation in great artistic traditions such as poetry and song are not frozen in time but can be patiently and wisely handed passed on (tradere) to a new generations who will learn from, respect and conserve them even if they introduce creative innovations.

In my personal view, the great UNITY of European traditions and culture is revealed nowhere better and more deeply than in great music - to talk of ‘classical’ music here is to consign it to the past, when it is precisely that music which more than any other endures. And it is in the realm of great music that the unique and absolutely distinct flavour and feeling of, say, Russian, Czech, English or French music has never been lost came but first into its own - not despite but because of the fact that it was inseparable from Germanic music - and would not have even existed without the native pre-national Germanic homeland of European culture - the land of culture as Goethe called it, and the nation of culture he would have wished for. And to me, music education should become basis of all education - starting in pre-school. In Poland during the Soviet era they produced wonderfully mesmerising animations of classical music which put Disney's Fantasia to shame, and which I am sure even very young children would be drawn into watching - and in this way receive their first exposure to classical music.

Here are some of many:

great Polish animations

music with sand drawing

from the classical music animation film Fantasia

abstract animations

Tuesday, 5 December 2017

For Class And Nation, Not Regions, Not EU

The loathsome faux patriotic Theresa May has proven to the whole world just exactly who she takes her orders from - and it isn't the British Working Class.  In the ridiculous Brexit Negotiations, she has not only declared her willingness to give Tens of Billions of Pounds of YOUR money to the EU (money which we need for our own people), she has gone even further down the path of treachery, declaring that she is willing to shatter the very fabric of the nation in order to appease the tyrants in the European Commission, and those who stand behind them, such as George Soros, the Rothschilds and other even more odious nameless masters of the capitalist economy.

There is no need whatsoever for the UK to be involved in 'negotiations' to leave the EU. On the 23rd June 2016, we voted for independence. By rights that should mean that as of the following morning when the votes had been counted, the UK should already be a free and sovereign nation, with all EU regulations, laws, jurisdiction, authority having ended at that point.  Our economic relationship with the EU should have defaulted to the World Trade Organisation rules, and all people from EU states living in the UK should have become considered as visitors, with the option to apply for residency or otherwise depart our shores.

The arch buffoon, David Cameron, stormed out of office like a baby throwing a tantrum when the People did not cave in to the pressure of the media and government lies about how being in the EU was in any way good for them.  He was replaced by the sly and manipulative Theresa May, who refused to accept the will of the Nation, and instead (after nearly a year of stalling tactics) finally began the ludicrous Article 50 process, treating the UK population's Declaration of Independence as nothing of the sort, rather as the beginning of 'divorce proceedings' with all the need to pay financially as if we had somehow acted dishonourably by not wanting to be ruled by Brussels!

When the UK joined the EEC, the People were told that the EEC was a trading bloc, not a country, and that we would benefit from free movement of goods making it easier for products from the UK to be sold across Europe.  In the time the UK has been inside what has now become the EU, successive governments acting under the direction of the rulers of the EU (Bankers, Head of Multinationals, the Global Ruling Class) have overseen the end of our manufacturing base.  Our Coal Industry is gone, so is the production of Steel, Cars, Aeroplanes, our Fishing and Agriculture have been crushed under EU legislation, our Oil/Gas production now generates profits which the People no longer benefit from.  The mania for privatisation has seen the NHS undermined, the Post Office given away to private companies with ties to corrupt politicians, our Motorways, Railways, Airports/Airlines, Canals and infrastructure such as Electricity, Telecommunications, Water, handed over to multinational corporate pirates.

Membership of the EU has made the Working Class poorer and more economically insecure.  The UK voted to leave the EU, because the Working Class are sick of the economy being run for the benefit of the rich, and want the country to be returned to the People, with Bankers, Multinationals and Corporate Whores stripped of any power they have over us.  The UK government is owned and staffed by people who are willing servants of the Ruling Class, and so they are doing all they can to negate the will of the Working Class and to keep the UK enslaved by the powers behind the EU. The so-called 'opposition' parties are equally owned by the globalists, giving the Working Class no voice in Parliament aside from a few rogue politicians who are kept out of any position of influence.

The latest wave of 'negotiations' saw the hated Theresa May offer the EU control over Northern Ireland, arguing that the existence of a stretch of sea between that area and the British mainland somehow makes it less British!  The politicians argue that it would be impossible to enforce a border between the North and Republic of Ireland - even though this is blatantly absurd considering such a border existed for decades.  Surrendering Northern Ireland to the EU is not a serious option. The UK government treats the North of Ireland as an area which is British when it suits them, and Irish when it doesn't.  If the People voted to secede and join the Irish Republic, then that would make the Irish Sea the EU's border with the UK. They have not done so, and until such a time as they do, that area must not be treated as in any way different to the rest of the UK.

The pathetic and disrespectful way in which Northern Ireland has been treated as a gambling chip, has led other anti-Brexit politicians to argue that if one part of the country can stay in the EU, so should any part which voted to remain.

The Mayor of London has pointed to the fact that the once British and now international capital of the UK voted to stay inside the EU. The people there did so because they have no allegiance to the UK.  London is an international city, made up of competing ethnicities and cultures, with the British population there being overwhelmingly liberal and decadent.  London does need special attention post-Brexit, but not in the way that Sadiq Khan would have it.  London is under occupation, and that occupation has to be reversed.  London was not long ago home to the Cockneys and to people from all over the British Isles - that situation has to be restored and the London Assembly ended.  The idea that London should be allowed to remain in the EU because the native population has been crushed under the liberal Capitalist/Trotskyite globalist nightmare of multiculturalism, is an outrage which no Socialists should give any time to.

The SNP has chimed in with demands for Scotland to be treated as different to the rest of the UK, with EU laws, the Customs Union, Freedom of Movement etc staying in place - hell why not just add in adoption of the Euro?!  In the Scottish Independence Referendum, the Working Class voted to stay inside the UK.  The Middle Class scum of the SNP are seeking to overturn that referendum by keeping Scotland in the EU and by default apart from the rest of the country. Such treachery demands the immediate dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the proscription of the SNP as enemies of the British (including Scottish) People.

In Wales, the dismal Plaid Cymru have also called for continued membership of the EU, failing to appreciate that except for a small number of selfish kulak-type people confined to the northwest who voted to remain in order to keep getting EU subsidies, like England, Wales voted for freedom.  Plaid Cymru have recently called for Wales to be made a Sanctuary Country where all the world's refugees will be welcome.  Clearly Plaid is not the 'Party of Wales' but the Party of Globalism, not fighting for the Welsh People, but against them, with the only defining policy being a bizarre hatred of the English people, which is the most pathetic of all forms of racism considering that the British people as a whole are one people and that language aside there is no difference between the Welsh and English (and even that difference is a contrived one with everyone in Wales speaking English as the first language and the minority of Welsh speakers speaking a bastardised tongue which has little resemblance to the genuine historic Welsh language).  Alike to the situation in Scotland, The Welsh Assembly needs to be shut down, and groups like Plaid banned.

Theresa May's position has been stalled by the DUP standing up and refusing to allow Northern Ireland to be treated as a region of the Irish Republic and not really part of the UK.  Should the People vote to change that, fair enough, but as of now Northern Ireland is a part of the UK and should not be considered part of the EU.  Belfast is just as British as Bodmin, Beaumaris or  Buckie. The most ideal situation would be for the people of the Republic to wake up from their trance and leave the EU, and to come home to the welcoming embrace of the Working Class peoples of the entire British Isles - an embrace they should never have been forced to leave had it not been for the divisive tactics of the Ruling Class which Marx wrote of in the nineteenth century and are now being repeated across the UK.

Clearly the regionalisation of the UK has helped the EU mafia, and has weakened the UK as a whole.  We call for the end of all the regional Parliaments and Assemblies, the end of Directly-elected Mayors and all of the divisive regionalism.  We call for the end of London as the capital of the UK, with the centre of authority relocated to York, to reflect the geographical heart of Britain, and an end to rule by an international city located close the the frontier with France for the benefit of the Bankers who have misruled England since the Norman invasion of 1066 and continue to misrule the entire UK for the benefit of associated people.

We envision a Britain in which our various cultures are interwoven, with the ancient languages taught in schools across the nation, so that texts such as the Mabinogion can be enjoyed in the original tongue by everyone. The false divisions of region against region are unacceptable.  As is becoming ever more evident, if we allow the Ruling Class and their proxies to pit us one against the other, they will retain power and we will become further enslaved, with a rump of England (not including London) easily being overpowered by treacherous politicians/media and globalist corporations, which would make any form of Sovereignty a fleeting and superficial one.  We need to stand together as one. For Class And Nation, against the false regionalism of the globalist infiltrators.

Wednesday, 29 November 2017

Leaflets and other Useful Information to Reach the People (Wilberg on Wednesday)

Here some new materials for the SWPE.

The Bank Loan Scam

This is a revision and expansion of a draft I wrote for a leaflet to make available via a stall to hand to and/or just talk to people about outside local banks. I've tried to make it as simple and clear as possible. Let me know if you think I've succeeded - or have any suggestions or questions. Think the main thing should maybe be to first talk to people who stop and look - for example by asking them simple questions like 'Where do you think banks get their money from to give out loans?' The leaflet below could also maybe turned into a 4 page A5 leaflet.

Could also write another complementary short leaflet/pamphlet type piece about what money is and where it comes from, i.e. how it's all created by the banks as debt - though only 10% of loans go to businesses - but could be created by governments and spent into existence for the people good rather than lent into existence for the bankers. Must admit that though the SWPE does want to get rid of usury I am not totally convinced that people (even diehard Marxists) understand what I mean by "the nationalisation of money creation" being central to 21st century socialism.

Further material:

Speech by Fran Boat

Germany calling...

A piece on AfD party proposals for repatriation of Syrian refugees

Transforming the Eurozone through money creation for the peoplefrom

International Monetary Reform

Speaks for itself - showing loads of countries that now have their own national movements to de-privatise money creation - you can open and right click on any flag to Google translate and read their own basic programs for monetary reform.

Tuesday, 28 November 2017

Concerning Actions rather than just Demos

A few thoughts to add to the call for Meaningful Actions rather than just Demos

I would like to add that a good example is Donbass. They are actually Revolutionary Republics: The Steel Industry and Coal Mines have been taken off from Kiev-based oligarchs and are actually taken over by the Workers and the People's Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk.

Communists, Ultranationalists and National Bolsheviks are cooperating for the Common Good and defying the Left versus Right nonsense which came out with the Freemasonry-led Bourgeois French and American so-called 'revolutions'.

Another example I can think of is Golden Dawn in Greece. They are doing a good job in assisting the Greek Proletariat starved by the IMF, the EU and Globalisation. There are of course other examples, including Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Connecting to the two examples in Britain, I can see where it comes from (the need for action) over demos. Deep down, I think the National Front is still better than the Socialist Workers Party by a million miles. Apparently, the NF is having a revival in recent years, as lots of people defected from the BNP, as several regional branches defected. Kevin Bryan, the current NF leader, defected from the BNP a few years ago.

The SWP is just an open Trotz pro-immigration (aka White Genocide) bourgeois pro-EU, pro-globalisation party of upper class uni students [who play at rebellion] before going to the City of London. Electorally speaking they are an electoral spare wheel of the Labour Party, as at almost every General Election they say 'Vote Labour'.

The NF and SWP both have faults, but as far as I know, at least the National Front have some positive ideas, not like the SWP Trotzs!

Concerning Action in Practice

I have really smashing news. Unione Socialismo Nazionale emailed message of support for SWPE. Its a message of Solidarity. [It is a Message we reciprocate]


Monday, 27 November 2017

Separatism as a Tool of Globalism. United We Stand

SWPE has long had a policy of seeking an independent England.  The use of the name England in the party name is a key indication of the centrality of that policy.  After much debate internally, this policy has now been revised. More than revised, this policy has now been reversed.

Great Britain is an island nation, comprised of several sub-nations, the main ones being

These main sub-nations can be broken down into the even smaller and more ancient nations which came before them, such as
Ēast Engla/East Anglia,

But why stop there! Regional loyalty can be taken down to even smaller levels, to counties, to cities.  The historic rivalty between Yorkshire and Lancashire dates back to a dispute between rivals for the crown of England. Even today, there are a small number people on each side of the Pennines who genuinely hate those on the other, failing to appreciate that the massacres of common people during the Wars of the Roses benefited nobody except the Ruling Class families to whom loyalty was mistakenly given.  Interestingly, the modern truncated county of Lancashire (excluding Merseyside and Greater Manchester) was once (alongside Furness Cumberland and Westmorland aka Cumbria) a part of Strathclyde, which would make it reasonable to argue should exclude it from an independent England and place it inside Scotland.

To argue for separatism is to invite further spiralling into regionalism, with the end being the total disintegration of the nation, and the emergence of a vast number of little states, each with their own governments, each with their own leaders, each with their own despotisms and hidden allegiance to the same Global Ruling Class which would gain in power by virtue of the inability of any one state to have control over matters which have a Britain-wide impact.

As noted above with reference to the ancient kingdom of Strathclyde, the borders between England, Scotland and Wales have been fluid for a long time. Monmouthshire has only been in fixed in Wales by law since 1972.  And what of the northeastern border of England? The former nation of Northumbia included not only the counties of Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland, but also the southeast of modern Scotland, including Edinburgh, the very seat of the Scottish Parliament.  Lowland Scots/Doric is a Germanic language which has no similarity at all with Scottish Gaelic. 

Culturally, ethnically, linguistically, the peoples of Britain have so intermingled that to try to separate us is pointless, yet that is exactly what the separatists and regionalists are trying to do.  The Westminster regime is the epicentre of regionalism, pushing the devolution hoax, with directly-elected City Mayors joining the rush for extra layers of government which of course have to be paid for with our taxes, and achieve nothing other than to provide centres of corruption outside of London in the manner of new hubs in a spider-like web of control.  Of note again, Lancashire has been targeted by the London regime, with its largest cities (Liverpool, Manchester and Warrington) no longer even officially recognised as being parts of Lancashire (Warrington given to Cheshire by the stroke of a pen, Liverpool and Manchester being first carved off into unitary authorites and now saddled with the expensive and un-necessary directly elected mayors so beloved by the politicians who seek to divide us in every way possible).

We formally renounce our policy of English separatism, which we now accept was a mistake. We replace this with a commitment to unity. 

The British Working Class suffer the same injustices regardless of location, we share the same hardships, we are treated by the Ruling Class with equal disdain. Over the centuries, our people have moved around the country and have intermingled. The historic divisions reflected divisions between rivals for power - and as such were of importance to the Ruling Class in terms of areas they controlled, but for us are interesting, but not reason for animosity towards our countrymen. The modern administrative demarcations have even less significance to us, being drawn up by servants of the State as lines on maps, with no care for cultural or any other ties.Who with family from these isles can seriously claim to be a 'pure' Angle, Saxon, Pict, Jute, Celt?  We all have ancestry which roots us firmly with the original inhabitants of the Isles who came before any of the recognised modern tribes. We have become a single extended family not just from Lands End to John o'Groats but also onto the many islands which surround the British mainland.

Splitting us apart is to break the family, to make us weak, to give power to hostile elements. A free Socialist Britain would throw out NATO, the US military, multinational corporations, the 'monarchy', all institutions and individuals with loyalty to any organisation, country, company, or way of life which is not, of, from and for this land.

Unity Is Strength. We need to heal the wounds caused by those who create false divisions, and to deepen and strengthen our diverse cultures which when wound together become an unshakeable foundation for a better, happier and healthier future.

For Class and Nation

Wednesday, 22 November 2017

The Illness is the Cure. (Wilberg on Wednesday)

The Illness is the Cure An Introduction to Life Medicine and Life Doctoring - a new existential approach to illness

Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Don't Play the Enemies' Game. We are Revolutionaries. Be Revolutionary!

For all the best will in the world, political activism can be something which is non-productive or worse, counter-productive.  The phrase Acta Non Verba sums up the futility of words which are employed as a substitution for action.

In the current political climate, political action has become the stuff of pantomime.  Across the spectrum, the 'revolutionary' activities tend to boil down to protest marches and demonstrations (which in every case have to be organised with the express permission of the police and state), and the usual stickering/leafleting campaigns which likewise have to be prepared with one eye on the possible legal ramifications for publishing material which does not conform to the liberal orthodoxy of the globalist Ruling Class.

Set piece activities do not work.  They have become the norm because they are the sanitised and acceptable face of rebellion. They are conformity wrapped in the smug air of dissidence.  To ensure that the people are kept in line, the liberal thugs who violently suppress any 'politically incorrect' expression of thought, have become a particularly insidious type of police by proxy.  This makes activity more difficult.  If only politically acceptable activity can be safely undertaken; if only non-threatening and easily ignored activity is sanctioned by the very state which is the problem, then what is the point in bothering?

A couple of poignant illustrations of pointless activity can be considered by looking at two organisations on opposite sides of the reactionary spectrum.  These two organisations consider themselves revolutionary, but by obeying the rules of the game, they can be proven to be just side-shows and examples of how not to engage in politics:

  1.  The National Front (NF). The NF claims to have been in existence for 50 years, and takes great pride in this. Their signature activity is the march.  NF marches were at one point spectacular events attracting vast numbers. They have since dwindled to the shuffling of a few skinheads with media attention dwindling in direct correlation.  They have learnt nothing in 50 years. They have failed to grasp that the massive protest marches in London which occur ever more frequently, achieve nothing.
  2. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP). The SWP set piece activity is the paper sale.  This takes the form of a handful of students badgering passers-by to buy the SWP rag (Socialist Worker). An amusing example of such a sale was the SWP setting up stall outside a Bank(!) with the full permission of the Bankers inside to sell their rag.  How very radical, how revolutionary!  Of course it is with bitter irony that the SWP has fallen into the trap of becoming a neutered Trotskyite parody, full of Social Justice Warriors who are so obsessed with bizarre fetish identity politics that they are no threat whatsoever to the Capitalist system.
Demonstrations are not always pointless. 
  • Taking a stand alongside Striking Workers shows solidarity and emboldens the cause.  
  • Leafleting for specific purposes and specific times is a valid course.  A flash demo outside a bank for the purpose of handing out literature to bank customers exposing the banking racket, is a worthy task (with the purpose of waking people up to the mendacity of the system being far more worthy than selling papers full of liberal drivel which wouldn't look out of place in the Guardian!)
  • As long as the leaflets are concise and appropriate (not general and largely irrelevant), and as long as they are handed out personally and in broad daylight (not put through letter boxes / on car windscreens in the dead of night like a reverse burglar!), leaflets have their place.  Stickers?  Do they have any purpose at all? Probably not.
Revolution is not set-piece. Revolution requires imagination and the application of skills which each of us have individually.
  • The Education System is Toxic. Don't moan about it! Home school your own children. Where possible set up education cooperatives with like-minded people to teach sanity, and keep the minds of the youth safe from liberal lunacy
  • Medicine is largely a cash cow for the Pharmaceuticals Industry. Research Natural Remedies, keep fit, break free as much as you can. Don't moan while continuing to feed the system - get out of the system and help others to do so.
  • Stuck in a dead-end soul-destroying job?  Quit!  It isn't easy, but with planning, it is possible. As Socialists we espouse Workers' Cooperatives and the right of the individual to be his/her own boss. These are not theoretical possibilities for a post-revolutionary era; these are real and achievable building blocks of the Revolution right now.  
  • Live by example. Moaning about how awful life is, while remaining a cog in the machine, is defeatist. We want to build a better society. We can start by making our own lives better. If we live as Socialists, trade as Socialists, work as Socialists, support each other, help our communities, strive for our people as Socialists, we become living examples and we inspire others to do likewise.
In Wales, the fake patriots of Meibion Glyndwr tackled the problem of tourists depriving locals of homes through buying up property to holiday in, by the utterly stupid strategy of sneaking around at night and setting second homes on fire. This helped house no-one, and only further limited available housing.  A better strategy would have been to break into empty properties and occupy them with people otherwise homeless (and not just Welsh people!)  Meibion Glyndwr made the Welsh people appear to be an English-hating set of idiots, when they could have used a better set of tactics and become a beacon for the homeless across the UK.  We have to be careful not to engage in activities which are counterproductive. The ends and means must work in unison.

Social Media is another minefield. Yes, it is useful in raising awareness. But if it is used without serious thought, it can lead people to the wrong idea about us. The message must be consistent, positive, constructive.  If people want to naval-gaze and engage in self-pitying whinging, they can turn on the TV - they don't need to have the defeatist sickness pushed at them by us. We need to inspire people, and we won't do that by becoming an echo of the mainstream media!

To work Comrades!  Be the Revolution.  Take time to think about how we behave and how the general public see us.  Actions, Not Words, will bring about the end of the Capitalist System, and it is up to us to do all we can, so that others do likewise. We are few, but we can inspire and motivate many. 

Wednesday, 15 November 2017

Beyond the Religion of ‘Objective Science’ - Wilberg on Wednesday

Humanity at the Threshold of the Subjective Universe

Language as such is ‘no-thing’ - for it is everywhere and nowhere. It is not reducible to a localisable textual object or spoken word but is the invisible non-local context of every word, text and act of speech. Subjective awareness - like language as such - or like activity or potentiality as such - is also ‘no-thing’. It is also everywhere and nowhere - a subjectivity irreducible to any localized object and not the property of any localised ‘subject’. All apparent ‘physical’ objects are but elements of subjective experience emerging (physein) within an infinite non-local field of subjective awareness. We dwell not in an objective but a subjective universe. ‘God’ is not some supreme ‘subject’ that ‘has’ awareness - ruling over a universe of objects. God is awareness or subjectivity as such – absolute and as all-pervasive as space and time, transcendent and immanent in all things. As pure awareness or absolute subjectivity ‘God’ is the most fundamental reality of all and no ‘delusion’. Modern science on the other hand is a delusive religion resting on the central dogma of an objective universe ruled by human subjects or ‘observers’. Hence its ever more aggressive assault - not only on all religions that treat ‘God’ rather than Man as supreme ruling subject - but on any attempt to undermine the dogmatic identification of reality as such with a universe of objects and of truth with objectivity. In today’s ‘postmodern’ world however, this dogma is belied by the linguistic or sign character of objects themselves. Go into any airport or shopping mall for example, and you will find barely a single object that does not stand before us as a sign of some sort – whether a directional sign, the sign of airline or shop, or a carefully de-signed product or logo. Objects lose their substantive character as totally independent ‘things’ and become mere signs - signs whose sole significance lies in their being ‘signifiers’ for a whole world of other signs. Thus a fashion item, brand name or logo stands as sign for the whole world of fashion signs in the form of branded commodities. Similarly, an electronic gadget stands as sign of the whole world of telecommunications and computer technology – itself but a medium for the transmission of signs in the form of words, images, photo images and advertising signs and video streams. Where once material substances and their sensory qualities were beheld as symbols of a world of subjectivity or soul, they now stand as mere signs. Where religious symbols once reigned, now rules the commercial sign - or the purely abstract mathematical symbols of science.

“Science is the new religion.” (Martin Heidegger). Yet what is the central, unquestioned, unprovable and, as I shall argue, wholly untenable dogma of this religion? This fundamental dogma of science and the sciences is the identification of reality with a world of ‘objects’ and truth with ‘objectivity’. The dogma begins by forgetting that the very terms ‘object’ and ‘objectivity’ are, first and foremost words – linguistic constructs. Yet no physicist or philosopher bothers to consider in what way language as such can be considered to be an ‘object’ or to have ‘objective’ reality. We can identify a word on the printed page but cannot say ‘where’ language as such exists – it has no locality in the same way that a physical ‘object’ seems to have. Nor can we even say what language as such is - for it is not reducible to a finite set of sounds, alphabets, syntactic rules - or even ways of speaking. Even the spoken or written ‘word’ is only a word by virtue of being more than a mere ‘object’ – for what makes a set of ink marks on a page or sound waves in space into writing or speech is that we read or hear within them a totally invisible or inaudible meaning whose material form is but the manifestation. Though scientists constantly use language to articulate their own theories of a world of objects there is no ‘objective’ way of even proving the objective existence of that invisible, inaudible and immeasurable world of meaning that lies behind their language and language as such.

Moreover any very way of thinking, speaking or writing about language assumes and makes use of language, which is not the private property of any thinker, speaker or writer and has a character innately transcending everyone who thinks about it and every thing that can be said about it. Thus though the terms ‘object’ and ‘objectivity’ are used as if they were self-evident, they themselves rest on a reality – language – which cannot itself be reduced to any object or set of objects. One of the main uses of language however, is precisely to objectify reality – for no sooner does a word or term become part of the common currency of language (including the word ‘language’ itself) then we assume that it to refer to some pre-given thing or ‘object’ that has existed for all time. We make this assumption despite the fact that the very word used to name this ‘objectively’ existing thing may be a neologism of the only the most recent historic coinage – emerging within a specific historic culture at a specific time, and belonging to the vocabulary of a specific science, religion, or academic discipline within that culture.

Thus the word ‘religion’ was coined only a few centuries ago in European culture and thought. Yet having become common currency we assume it refers to some ‘thing’ which has always existed in human culture and of which all specific ‘religions’ are but variations. Thus we speak casually of ‘Eastern religions’, we superimpose a European linguistic construct on Eastern cultures, completely ignoring the fact that in the language of these supposed ‘Eastern religions’ themselves, there is not a single word that corresponds to our recently coined and now globally superimposed term - ‘religion’. The word ‘religion’ then, far from being taken as a historically and culturally specific linguistic construct, is taken instead as some universal cultural thing - an ‘object’ which has existed universally and throughout history, and is differentiated only by its local, historical and culturally specific ‘varieties’. What can be said of the objectifying use of the word ‘religion’ can be said of the word ‘science’ too – and indeed of the terminologies of all the sciences. For their very terms are linguistic constructs – terms which linguistically construct the very ‘objects’ whose reality they assume as ‘given’. That the relation of scientific terminologies to their supposed objects of ‘exploration’ and ‘explanation’ is not even explored or examined as a question in science, shows how, in its own dogmatic self-understanding, modern science is an ideology that lags behind the most elementary of ‘post-modern’ understandings of the objectifying power of language, understandings which are not ‘pre-scientific’ but post-scientific - or rather post-scientistic – what we take as ‘science’ being a quasi-religious ideology or ‘-ism’.

Yet there is an even deeper fault and fissure in the foundational dogma of science – the dogma of a world of pre-given ‘objects’ and of truth as ‘objectivity’. That fissure is to be found in the narrow concept of ‘subjectivity’ that it presents or implies as its ‘unscientific’ counterpart. In everyday language use we take the word ‘subjective’ to refer to things experienced ‘in here’ – in our minds or imagination, as feelings in our emotional life and imagination, as moods or as bodily sensations such as pleasure and pain. All these dimensions of experience are counterpoised to an external world of ‘objects’ assumed to exist ‘out there’ - independently of our experience of them. Not a single modern physicist and but a single modern philosopher – Edmund Husserl – has come to the elementary insight that all experiencing – including every element of our experience of a world ‘out there’ – is by nature subjective. The fundamental but still unacknowledged starting point of ‘science’ is therefore not what it takes it to be - the dogmatically assumed pre-existence of a world of objects ‘out there’. Instead the true foundation of all knowledge and all true ‘science’ is subjective experiencing. This is true whether or not any given elements of experience are thought of and experienced as ‘in here’ or ‘out there’, as purely personal or wholly impersonal, as relative or absolute.

It was Husserl’s great insight that by excluding our experience of the entire ‘external’ or ‘physical’ world from our understanding of the ‘psychical’, we reduce the ‘psyche’ to a purely internal world of private experiences - thus creating a wholly false dualism between the ‘physical’ and the ‘psychical’, the ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. The result is a wholly false separation of the so-called ‘sciences’ of ‘physics’ and ‘psychology’ - both of which ignore the inherently subjective nature of all experiencing, ‘outer’ or ‘inner’. That is why ‘phenomenological’ science is deeper than both physics and psychology, for understood properly, it is an understanding of science that transcends the unquestioned dualism of ‘subject’ and ‘object’, the ‘subjective’ and the ‘objective’. Phenomenological science runs counter to the dogmatic identification of reality with objects and objectivity. Indeed in its ultimate form ‘phenomenological science’ denies ultimate reality to any ‘objects’ whatsoever, which in essence are nothing more than linguistic objectifications of ‘phenomena’ ie. different elements or complexes of subjective experiencing.

The massive challenge posed by phenomenological science to our whole understanding of ‘science’ and the ‘sciences’, not least physics and psychology themselves, was understated even by Husserl, who failed to tackle the single most important fortress shared by both these sciences in defense of the dogma of objectivity. This is the highly Eurocentric but now ever more globalised dogma subjectivity is necessarily the private property of an individual ‘ego’ or ‘self’ – the so-called ‘subject’ - or that casually assumes that terms such ‘subjective’ or ‘subjectivity’ imply the existence of such a subject. As a result, the nature of subjectivity or consciousness as such is not even considered, but instead identified with the conscious experiencing of individual beings or ‘subjects’ - in particular human beings and subjects and individual human consciousness.

The identification of subjectivity, consciousness or awareness with a limited human ego or subject did not form any part of pre-modern Eastern ‘philosophical’, ‘religious’ and ‘scientific’ understandings of reality. Nor is it at all congruent with a new post-modern and post-scientific worldview. For the reduction of subjectivity as such to a property of an individual ‘subject’ is equivalent to reducing language as such to the private property of an individual speaker rather than the other way round – understanding speech as an individualised expression of language, one that shapes and reshapes the speaker’s very experience of themselves as an individual self or ‘subject’.

Philosophers in the West have no concept whatsoever of ‘subjectivity without a subject’ – the Eastern notion of a ‘universal consciousness’ that is the absolute source not only of all individualised consciousness, but of all that is – pervading all things, human and non-human. Instead, with only one or two exceptions they continue to wrestle with the meaning of ‘subjectivity’ whilst failing to even question the notion of ‘objectivity’. I have spoken of the everyday use of the term ‘subjective’. For Western philosophers subjectivity is understood only as the property of pre-supposed ‘subjects’. As a result, subjectivity is also identified with what is seen as the key attributes of such ‘subjects’, namely perspectival relativity, ‘ipseity’ or self-awareness, and autonomous agency.

‘Subjectivity’ is associated in Western philosophy with perspectival relativity because each ‘subject’, by virtue of having a unique location or ‘position’ (whether physical and perceptual, mental or emotional, ethical or cultural) sees ‘objective’ reality from a unique and therefore irredeemably ‘biased’ point of view. There is a paradox here. For having reduced subjectivity to a ‘subject’, this subject is then thought of in the same way as a localised object - being positioned at some ‘point’ in space. In contrast, in the most sophisticated of Indian yogic philosophies, subjectivity was understood as an all-pervasive or ‘non-local’ field comparable to space as such rather than any ‘objects’ in it. Space itself was not experienced by the yogi as anything ‘objective’ or ‘physical’ but as identical with the ‘universal’ or ‘divine’ consciousness’ – the latter being a limitless, non-local field of ‘pure awareness’ or ‘absolute subjectivity’ - and as such both transcendent and immanent, both embracing and pervading all things and beings within it. The practical yogic path to experiencing the limitless non-local nature of subjectivity was precisely through identifying with the seeming void or emptiness of the spaces within and around things – in reality the all-surrounding and all-pervading ‘space’ or ‘aether’ (Akash) of pure awareness.

I call my own further explication and refinement of yogic metaphysics ‘The Awareness Principle’. By this I mean the understanding that subjectivity or awareness as such (‘pure awareness’) cannot - in principle - be either the property of a pre-given subject or reduced to the function of any object. For in essence all ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’ are but differentiated elements of subjective experience - all emerging from and embraced by a spacious field of absolute subjectivity or ‘pure awareness’. From this point of view the association in Western philosophy of subjectivity with the ‘ipseity’ (self-recognition or self-awareness) of an individual subject is also undermined by The Awareness Principle. For awareness of any experienced ‘self’ or ‘subject’ cannot - in principle – be the property of any self or subject we are aware of. For like every element of our subjective experience, our experience of self necessarily belongs to an experiencing awareness or subjectivity transcending that particular, experienced self – or any self or subject. 

The Awareness Principle is a philosophy of absolute subjectivity transcending any subject. Behind the ‘Objectivity Principle’ of modern science on the other hand is the religious absolutisation of an abstract subject standing apart from, over and above a world of objects. Whether this absolute subject be conceived of – objectified - as human or divine makes no difference, for belief in its existence constitutes the central dogma shared by both modern science and theistic religions.

The absolutisation of the subject - as opposed to a subjectivity prior to all subjects – came to its fullest expression in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, where the subject as ‘observer’ is the principle agent responsible for determining what is observed. Whereas classical physics concealed the subject behind a world of objects in absolute space and time, Einstein’s General Relativity abolished the absolutivity of space and time, and Special Relativity made all motion relative to the observer – the subject. Quantum mechanics went yet further, ceasing to claim the existence of any objective world of particle-waves or wave-particles ‘behind’ instrumentally measurable data, and instead implicitly raising the scientist as such – the observing subject - to the status of a sole or absolute object. In place of God as a divine being or subject ruling over man and nature as its objects was placed the human being – but only in the form of the subject as posited by science - the observer. In this way we can see how theism, atheism, humanism and science all unite as one in sharing an identification of subjectivity with ‘the subject’ - whether it be conceived religiously, scientifically or humanistically.

Understanding itself as a mere set of operational practices with no claims to truth, science has, as Heidegger saw, become a mere handmaiden for technology - offering global capitalism an abundance of operational technologies to profit from by enframing exploiting the earth and converting it into a ‘standing reserve’ of human and natural resources. This exploitation is made possible, not in the first instance, through the machines and mechanics of industrial technologies, old and new - but rather through an unthinking mechanisation of thought itself. This is the transformation of thinking as such into a mere instrumental or operational tool for the enframing and objectification of every qualitative dimensions of earthly experiencing, into a specifically calculative mode of thinking which subjects them all to its own objectifying and purely quantitative or ‘quantised’ terms of reference. Such a mode of thinking is now being aggressively employed in an attempt to attack and wipe out any remaining experience or conceptions of a universal awareness or subjectivity – one that transcends both absolutised ‘subjects’, human or divine, and their worlds of operationally manufacturable and manipulable objects.

Heisenberg’s recognition of the intrinsic relation or ‘relativity’ of observer and observed in the observations possible in quantum physics could be seen as transcending the whole subject-object metaphysics of Western thought. Heidegger however, did not see Heisenberg’s ‘relativity’ as a return to a type of unifying ‘holism’ in physics - but rather as its very opposite - a theoretical mirror image of Hiroshima.

“The objectness of material nature shows in modern atomic physics fundamental characteristics completely different from those that is shows in classical physics … And yet – modern nuclear and field physics also still remains physics, i.e., science, i.e., theory, which entraps objects, in order to secure them in the unity of their objectness …

… the way in which in the most recent phase of atomic physics even the object vanishes also, and the way in which above all, the subject-object relation as pure relation takes precedence over the object … the subject-object relation thus reaches, for the first time, its pure ‘relational’, i.e., ordering character, in which both subject and object are sucked up … That does not mean that the subject-object relation vanishes, but rather now the opposite; it now attains its most extreme dominance …” Science and Reflection

No longer is it Newton’s God that is seen as supreme subject ruling over the earth but the human subject - a subject for whom, scientifically, objects, and even human beings themselves, no longer even exist except in so far as they ‘count’ as instrumental measurements or statistics. Such a delusive and deluded ‘subject’ is intrinsically destructive and self-destructive - for in submitting science to the service of commercial calculation and the technological-industrial depletion of the earth it quite literally removes the very ground from under its own feet. This is capitalist industry abolishing what Marx called its own ‘natural condition of production’ – whether in the form of forests and trees, soil, oil, water - or the exploited and polluted body of the human being.

The growth of a tree is not the activity of an agent or subject, human or divine. The tree is not grown at all, nor can the natural growth of trees be speeded up to keep pace with industrial demands for wood and paper. Trees are not grown. They emerge from the deeper soil and larger field of their environment, serving, like speech, as their living expression. Yet where can be found ‘physicists’ who remembers that the Greek physis – ‘emergence’ - is the true root and root truth of the term ‘physics’? Where are the philosophers who recall that the Greek logos - ‘speech’ - is the true root and root truth of ‘logic’? Where, above all, are the true thinkers who, as yogis, can once again experience space as the aether or ‘Akash’ of pure awareness, and who can once again experience the physical world as emergent word - as one experiential language or expression of pure awareness among others - not our language but that of a ‘God’ which does not ‘have’ but is awareness or subjectivity, universal and absolute?

Another attribute attached to the ‘subject’ and ‘subjectivity’ by Western philosophers is ‘titularity’ – its sense of owning its actions and experiences. As ‘subjects’ one aspect of our ‘subjectivity’ is defined - from this Western point of view - as the sense of an action or experience being ‘mine’. Eastern thought too has long recognized a close connection between what it understood as the limited self or ‘subject’ and this sense of ownership or ‘mine-ness’. Yet in contrast to Western thought yogic philosophy sees this ‘titular’ subject as the biggest obstacle in the way of realizing a higher and vastly expanded sense of self - a self identical with pure awareness or absolute subjectivity as such. That is why the basic principle of yogic philosophy and principal aim of yogic practice is to overcome ‘Anavamala’ - the basic ‘stain’ or ‘impurity’ of awareness that comes from ignorant identification of ourselves and of subjectivity as such with the finite ‘ego’ or ‘subject’ – the very ‘ego’ or ‘subject’ which Western thought takes, in its own ignorance, as something ‘possessing’ awareness or subjectivity as its ‘own’ titular private property.

The very terms ‘subject’ and ‘object’ are effectively separate, linguistically constructed ‘objects’ of Western philosophical discourse. It is because these linguistic constructs are then taken as ‘objectively’ real that the false assumption arises that consciousness and cognition are based on a sort of external relation between separable ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’ - in reality a relation of linguistically constructed objects. In an attempt to give some sort of ‘objective’ reality to this linguistically constructed relation, the commonly accepted neuro-scientific account of perception reduces the ‘subject’ itself to a single observable object - the brain. In doing so however, it also reduces the external ‘objects’ we think we perceive ‘out there’ into mere subjective hallucinations ‘projected’ outward by the brain in response to sensory data. The philosophical and logical nonsensicality of this ‘scientific’ model of cognition is revealed as soon as we ask what sort of external ‘objects’ the brain and sense organs are supposed to derive their initial sensory ‘data’ or ‘information’ from - given that what we perceive as such ‘objects’, are according to neuroscience itself, nothing but subjective images manufactured by the brain! According to this attempt to solve the riddle of the subject-object relation therefore, the brain – itself but one perceptible object among others - is supposed to give us a perception of other objects by interpreting sensory data coming from its own subjective hallucinations of such objects!

Another unresolvable riddle and paradox arising from the subject-object model of consciousness is its inability to explain so-called ‘qualia’ – our subjective experience of sensory qualities such as colour. Here physics and our everyday experience of the world set themselves on a collision course. That is because, for the physicist, colours are ultimately nothing but ‘objectively’ measurable quantities - wavelengths of light. How then however, does our everyday qualitative perception of colours arise? How are we to explain our experience of a quale such as ‘redness’? Is it something ‘purely’ subjective, is it the subjective figment of a biological object – the brain - or is there some truly objective sensory quality – and no mere quantity – corresponding to it?

The assumption here is that subjectivity has no innately sensual qualities of its own - an assumption questioned by both everyday language and everyday experience. We both experience and describe ‘moods’ for example, in terms of sensual qualities such as light (being in a ‘bright’ or ‘radiant’ mood or being in a ‘dark’ mood), colour (being in a ‘blue’ or ‘black mood’), gravity or weight (being in a ‘heavy’ or ‘grave’ mood or one of ‘levity’ and ‘lightness’), spatiality (feeling ‘high’ or ‘low’, ‘up’ or ‘down’, ‘exposed’ to or ‘closed off’, ‘distanced’ or ‘close’), heat (feeling ‘warm’ or ‘cool’, ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ towards something or someone), texture (feeling ‘solid’ or ‘empty’, ‘knotted up’ or ‘strung out’), time and motion (feeling ‘speedy’ or ‘slowed down’, ‘in a whirl’ or ‘going round in circles’) etc. etc. Is it any surprise that given the existence of such innately sensual qualities of feeling awareness or subjectivity, they should find expression in our dreams as experienced sensory qualities of dream objects - a dark cloud in our dreams for example expressing a felt darkness of mood, for example? Indeed the whole riddle of sensory perception and of the subjective vs objective nature of experienced qualities or qualia are resolved for us every night - through our experience of dreaming. For in contrast to scientists, with their dogma of a world of objects and their identification of truth with objectivity, our experience of dreaming is something we recognize as wholly subjective. We do not take dream objects as ‘objects’ in the way that the physical sciences and Western philosophy consider them – as entities existing independently of consciousness or subjectivity. Instead we experience them ‘physically’ in the root sense, as phenomena emerging (physein) from within the overall field of our subjective dreaming awareness, whilst at the same time giving expression to that field - constituting animate portions of that awareness. We would not think of attempting to find the ‘objective’ cause of a particular dream, let alone an explanation for the experience of dreaming as such - in one particular ‘object’ we happen to dream of.

Yet this is precisely what neuroscience seeks to do in explaining the nature of our waking experience of phenomena - by taking one single object of perception (the brain itself) – as the foundation for our waking experience of all other objects. Indeed neuroscience even attempts to explain dreaming experience as a function of our brains. This is a further oddity or paradox - given that neuroscience maintains, in effect, that our perceptions of waking world objects are themselves dreamt up by the brain. The only object excluded from this whole brain-based explanation of our perception of objects is the brain itself - our perception of which is treated, unlike all other objects, as immediate and ‘real’. Neuroscience cannot, in principle, explain this contradiction in its account of perception. For even to recognise this contradiction would be to admit the absurdity of its claims that consciousness and perception are functions of the brain. For the logical consequence or reductio ad absurdum of this claim is that the brain too cannot be considered as a scientific ‘object’ existing independently ‘out there’ - but is rather a figment of its own subjective imaginings, an object dreamt up by itself!

Our subjective experience of dreaming offers us vital clues to a wholly different understanding of the fundamental nature of waking consciousness and cognition to that which is proffered by the logically confused and self-contradictory constructs and explanations of modern science – all of which are rooted in the dogmatic identification of reality with objects, of truth with objectivity, and of cognition and consciousness with a relation of separable ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’. Indeed the experience of dreaming offers us a wholly new understanding of the fundamental nature of reality as such, allowing us to acknowledge the fundamentally subjective nature of all supposedly objective realities. In waking life, as in dreams, we inhabit a subjective universe. This is not a universe composed of separable subjects but of multi-dimensional fields of awareness - all rooted in a universal and absolute subjectivity of which we, and all things, are individualised portions and expressions. This absolute subjectivity is not the private property of a supreme subject or ‘being’. Quite simply it is subjectivity or awareness as such - without a prior or pre-given subject as its ‘owner’.

‘The Awareness Principle’ undermines not only the objectivity dogma of science but the philosophical and religious dogma that awareness or subjectivity is necessarily the property of a pre-given subject or ‘being’, human or divine. It understands ‘God’ neither as a supreme being or subject, nor even as Being - but as that absolute subjectivity or unbounded awareness of which all beings and all bodies in space-time are portions and expressions. Modern science itself, by virtue of its own untiring attempts to sustain the notion of an objective universe and an objective ‘explanation’ of subjectivity or awareness, has brought itself - through the contradictions inherent in both quantum mechanics and brain science - to the furthermost boundaries of its most religiously cherished assumptions and beliefs. In doing so it has also brought humanity to the threshold of a wholly new understanding of the universe and of ‘science’ itself. Crossing this threshold marks our entry – or rather return – into the subjective universe from which we and all things hail. This is a universe that can only be explored through subjective sciences based on directly subjective and experiential modes of scientific research. Yet no amount of research will allow this threshold to be experimentally or even experientially crossed unless it is first crossed in thought. This means questioning and letting go of the long-standing prejudice that still governs human thinking - the prejudice that grants more ‘reality’ to the objective than the subjective, that reduces subjectivity to subjects, subjects to objects, and that ultimately reduces both to nothing at all. That is the threshold - for subjectivity, like language, is indeed ‘no-thing’ and no ‘being’ – but the source of all things and all beings.

Crossing the threshold to the subjective universe is not a return to ‘religion’ as it is currently practiced and understood. Instead it is a return from the new religion that ‘science’ has become back to the eternal inner truth of religion as such, re-linking us with that ‘God’ which is not a being ‘with’ awareness but simply is awareness - absolute and unbounded. This is not some ‘New Age’ God but the oldest, most primordial God of all; one that has never ceased to re-gather and re-plant the knowledge-seeds of its scientist-priests, both during times of war and of peace.

The fact that the very term ‘subjective universe’ is taken today as connoting a type of private, solipsistic universe of the individual subject - comparable to a purely private and fantastic world of our dreams or imagination - shows how dramatically the meaning of the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ has altered over recent centuries. For as Owen Barfield has pointed out, the single most important attribute used or assumed by contemporary philosophers to define the basic concept of an ‘object’ – its nature as something independently real or self-subsistent in its own right – belonged originally to the word ‘subject’.

This is only one reason however for the difficulty faced by both physicists and philosophers in affirming the innate reality and validity of subjective experience and of subjectivity as such. The other reason is their own habitual defensive use of language as a way of intellectually distancing themselves from the realm of immediate subjective experience. In contrast, the yogis of the past took direct subjective experience as the starting point for the development of a refined subjective science and of philosophies that affirmed the absolute character of subjectivity or awareness. What is called ‘yoga’ did not suddenly come into being a fully-fledged philosophy or set of practices but arose from centuries of subjective-scientific experimentation with awareness, aimed at exploring and experiencing its many dimensions and qualities – the subjective universe. Out of such experimentation precise yogic practices were evolved and developed - not as mathematically calculated, operational acts performed on ‘objects’ – but rather as ways of letting presence and bringing forth new experiential aspects and dimension of that universe. Such practices made use of religious rather than mathematical symbols, and gave pride of place to the experienced body of the yogi - and not any technical instruments - as principal instrument of research. What passes as ‘yoga’ today however, is a pale and stale shadow of these practices, now adopted second-hand and without any memory of the original, experimental purposes they served - and through which they were evolved and refined, both in principle and in practice. These purposes were both scientific and spiritual - ‘spiritual-scientific’ – though the term itself is redundant so long as the original and essential meaning of the term ‘spirit’ itself remains unquestioned and clouded in holy smoke. What is ‘spirit’? In essence, it is nothing more or less than the immaterial yet foundational reality that is subjectivity or awareness as such - a reality that is the source of all in-spiration and indeed the ultimate foundation of breathing or ‘re-spiration’. Hence the yogic practice of using awareness of breathing to experiencing breathing itself as an in-spiration and ex-spiration of the life-breath or innate vitality (Greek psyche / Sanskrit prana) of awareness as such - that ‘higher air’ or Aether which permeates the spacious field of pure awareness that we perceive as empty space. Neither the subsumption and setting in stone of strict yogic practices within dogmatic religious sects, nor the secularisation or yoga as a mere means to physical well-being, do justice to its true significance as a primordial expression of subjective science - aimed at expanding the awareness of the practitioner to a degree that enables them to experience and explore ever-new and larger dimensions of the subjective universe of awareness.

In Europe and the West, the ‘subjective’ has long been relegated to the twin realms of religion and the arts - rather than seen as central to science and the sciences. In India and the East, the essentially arts of music, dance and sculpture never ceased to be understood essentially as religious-scientific disciplines or ‘yogas’. In the West, meanwhile, metaphysics and philosophy have long since given way to the new religion that is modern science, ruled by the high priests of quantum physics. Yet this is a ‘theory’ that no longer even understands itself as seeking fundamental truths but mere final mathematical solutions. Einstein himself said of it: "This theory reminds me of the system of delusions of an exceedingly intelligent paranoiac, concocted of incoherent elements of thought...If correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science." (letter to D. Liplein, July 5, 1952). It is indeed the end of physics as a purely objective science. Subjective science on the other hand, is aimed at not only at understanding but experiencing ultimate meta-physical and theosophical truths - not only understanding but experiencing the subjective universe.