Approved For Release 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP96-00792ROO0700130001-6 234 FRANK J. KELLY References Fancher, R.E. Psychoanalytic Psychology (The Development of, reud's Thought), W.W. Norton 0' & Co., New York, 1973. Freud, S. The Ego and the trans- liviere, J.), W.W. Nort/n & Co., New York, 1960. 's(l, Principle (' Freud, S., Beyond the Ple trans. Strachey, J W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1961, /1 Freud, S., Civilization and its ' contents, Norlon@ Co-, New York, 1962. Freud, S., On Autobiographica tudy (tra 'h' 1963. @:WS;r _y' W.W. Norton & Co., New York, Freud. S., The Interpretation of Dr ms (trans. Strac Y, J.), Avon Books, New York, 1965a. Freud. S., New Introductory Lecture on Psychhoaanaa @ is (trans. Strachey, J.), W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1965b. Freud. S., Instincts and Their Vicissit es. Gener I Psychological Theory (Papers on Meta- psychology) (trans. Baines, C.M. Collier ooks, New York, 1966a. Freud, S., The Unconsciou -. . cit., 196 b. 0' Freud.S.7ProjectforaScie ti .. Psycholog tan ard Edition of Complete Psychological Works tracne of Si-mund Freud s. Strachey, I Hogarth Press, London, 1968a, The Interpretati o Dreams.'6@ Freud@ S., Dreams. Op.. ., 5, 1968b. Freud, S., Instincts and Their Vicissitudes. Pa rs on Metapsychology. Op. cit., 14, 1968c. Freud. S., The Unconscious. Papers on Meta hology. Op. cit., 14, 1968d. Freud. S., Beyond the Pleasure Principle. 0) cit. 18, 1968e. Freud. S., Group Psychology and the Anal 'i 'Is of t e Ego. Op. cit., 18, 1968f. 0 8@g' Freud. S., The Ego and the Id. Op. 9 - cit., 1 19 6, f reud. S., On Autobiographical Study. 0 . cit., 20, 1 68h. Fn@ud, S., The Question of Lay Analysis. Op. cit., 20, 68i. Freud. S., Civilization and its Disconten '. Op. cit., 21, 68 Freud. S., New Introductorys@ecures o sychoanalysis. I Freud. S., An Outline of l' syc oanalys Op. cit., 23, 196 F-eud. S_ T-,e Quesfon ojLay ZZ" m @ Freud. S.. The Origins of Psych oanal is (trans. Mosbacher, E )'ork, 1977. Freud. S., An Outline of Psychoana sis (trans. Strachey, J.), 19 79a. Freud. S.. Group Psychology cit., 22, 1968k. New Yoik, 19,69. Strachey, J.), Basic Books, New . and i e A nalysis of the Ego (trans. Co., New York, 1979b. Gill, ;%I.M., TopographyandSysi si?zP.,;y(-hoatitilyti(-I'IieorylI 1963. Ricoeur, P., Freud and Philoso y: An Essay on Interpretation Press, New Haven, Con ., 1977. Sullo,xay,F.J.,Freud,Bio1og' of the Mind (Beyond the Psychoe New York, 1979. Norton & Co., New York, ichey, J.), W.W. Norton & u @angv Pre's". New York, Sa D ' age Yale Univ. ) yu, end) Basic Books, Approved For Release 2001/03/07 Psychoenergetics, 1983, Vol. 5, pp. 235-242 0278-6060/83/0503-0235 S18.50/0 (0 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Inc., 1983 Printed in the United Kingdom The orbitals of consciousness. A neurosyntergic approach to the levels of conscious discrete experience JACOBO GRIN BE RG-ZYLBE RBAUM FacultaddePsicologia, UniversidadNacionalAut6nomadeM6xicO, Ciudad UniversItaria, m6xico D-F. 0451D MEXICO and Instituto Nacional Pa- el Estudio de la CoHiq Iiencia A connection is traced from the behaviour of electrons existing only in particular locations (orbitals) around their nucleus, to discrete levels of conscious experience. According to the syntergic theory, the structure of experience is the result of an interaction between an energetic field created by the brain (the neuronal field) and the energetic structure of space (the quantum field). Conscious experience appears when a central processor focuses this interaction. It is postulated that this focalization process can only arise in some dis.crete portions of diwiete levels of con,.=.Ous experie- the syntergic continuum, thus atso activating ICAL INTRODUCTION 1.THEORET When the neuronal field (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1982) interacts with the quantUM field (Capra, 1976) a hypercomplex energetic interference pattern is created (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1983). This interference pattern constitutes the energetic structure of perceptual experience. This energetic structure is not localized in space and, hence, its conscious appearance as an individual conscious experience requires a focalization operation. This focalization involves a new interaction between the interference pattern and the central processor responsible for activating a hypothetical directionality factor (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 198 1). The directionality factor stimulates a limited portion of the interference pattern, transforming its energetic structure into a qualitatively distinct perceptual experience. The purely energetic structure of the perceptual experience (the interference pattern in space) is thus transformed into the dimension of a vividly conscious experience. The central processor responsible the activity of the directionality factor is intimately CIA-RDP96-00792RO0070013000$6 236 J. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM related to the Self, or real observer, known in different traditions as the Being, Se Dr Purusha (Ramana Maharshi, 1972; Vivekananda, 1975). Wolth the neuronal field and the quantum field, together with their intoaction, are located in a syntergic continuum (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 19g). The extreme of low syntergy in this continuum is characterized by an enM-etic organization in which each of its elements contains small amounts of inkpination of high coherence, poor connections between parts and restricted coRplexity. In contrast, in an organization of high syntergy, each one of its ements contains high amounts of information of high coherence, rich 8 cotmections between parts and unrestricted complexity (Grinberg- Ztrbaum, 1981). eoretically, it is possible to postulate that the pattern giving rise to the enggetic structure of experience appears throughout the syntergic continuum in q analogue, rather than in a discrete, form. Nevertheless, because the Ams of thought that have studied the appearance of consci sy, ousness (V&ekananda, 1975; Epstein, 1978; Aurobindo, 1971) describe discrete leN!as of conscious experience, these empirical observations imply the exfsTence of discrete levels in the creation of an interference pattern, or dAete levels of interaction between the central processor and a non-discrete inlokerence pattern, thus giving raise to quantized levels of conscious exgerience. CD 2. %E ORBITALS OF CONSCIOUSNESS T_ CD In Qace, the structure of the syntergic continuum is related to the varying degove of concentration of the information contained in it. A mathematical abs2action, the so-called minimal quantum of space, is of help in under staMing the syntergic structure. Each location in space can be conceived as a corA ,.@iner, energised to hold some quantity of information. Take, for example, tN'hsible information of the moon seen from the earth's surface. The minimal Vol L_ Cme of space capable of containing the maximum visible information ab%t the moon would be the minimal quantum of space for the moon at that '@fic distance. As the distance increases, the dimension of the quantum spe din&ishes until, at an -infinite distance from all objects, the minimal quantum 0 f ce is infinitesimal in dimension and contains coherent information relat- ingl all the universe. This hypothetical place in space would constitute the exAme of high syntergy - the Aleph (Borges, 1970). Similar, if not identical considerations, can be made in regard to the convergent organization of the brain (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1978). In it relatively dispersed information at the retinal receptors level, converges in bipolar and later on in ganglionic cells, in which patterns of neuronal activity ORBITALS OF CONSCIOUSNESS 237 are concentrated in what can be called neuronal algorithms. The same concentration of information takes place all along the primary, secondary and tertiary occipital cortex and later on in high integration polisensory structures, from where abstractions and language processes concentrate in coherent neuronal algorithms high amounts of previously disconnected information. CD Thus, a neurosyntergic continuum can be postulated in the brain. CD tergic CD The neurosyntergic organization of the brain unites with the syn organization of space by the creation, expansion and interaction of the CD I neuronal field with the quantum field. The neuronal field appears as a result o CD CD all the neuronal interactions taking place inside the brain structure. This CD energetic field expands in space and incorporates in its structure the active W neurosyntergic functioning level of the brain. C-4 (D Nobody has ever recorded directly the neuronal field, nor its interacti6s I* CD with the quantum field, but all of us see one level of this interaction as the CD physical world that seems to surround us. This perceptual world is just one (6 level of the neuronal-quantum fief& interaction. Other levels are the (D emotional, tactile, aural and the othe I qualitatively distinct modes of our 0 r conscious experience. In holography, it is known that the same frequency of laser light used to < create the holographic interference pattern is needed to recreate the holographic image (Caulfield and Lu, 1970). If another frequency is used, the resultant recreation is not a clear three-dimensional image but a blurred and CD chaotic one. There must be a frequency congruence in order to obtain a 'M holographic image. Something similar must happen before the central QD processor is able to activate a distinct level and quality of experience whilst ' . CD interacting with the interference pattern associated with the energetic CD structure of our prceptual experience. Probably, the neurosyntergic level of 04 (D the neuronal field has to correspond with some level of the syntergic U) M organization of space in order to create a coherent interference pattern. if, (1) Z, for example, the syntergic level of space is greater than the neurosyntergic _(D level of the neuronal field, the central processor would give rise to an image of transparency in an empty space. 0 The neuronal field is able to change its levels over a continuum. The same LL thing is true of the quantum field. The central processor interacts withouta constraint with innumerable levels of energy patterns. What makes conscious > L_ experience behave in a discrete fashion is that the interaction between 0 neuronal and quantum fields results in a congruent interference pattern only CL CL when both fields share a similar syntergic level. The orbitals of consciousness< correspond to these permitted levels of interaction where the syntergy of the e quantum field. An neuronal field corresponds with some syntergic level of th extreme example of this correspondence is unitary consciousness. This level of consciousness will be treated later on in some detail. Here, it is enough to `3@, J. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM ,bay that, theoretically, it appears when the neuronal field is able to interact ,,k,ith the Aleph. In other words, when the neuronal field combines with the uantum field at the highest syntergic level that the latter is able to reach. 0 In unitary consciousness, the neuronal and the quantum fields regain their @Zriginal nature by becoming one indivisible field. 0 0 THE CENTRAL PROCESSOR Wecent experimental evidence (Grinberg-Zylberbaum, 1983) indicates that Mhe neuronal field is able to interact with a crystalline structure whose lattice @@imensions are of the order of the wavelength of x-rays. This finding is the Ctirst known indication relating to the physical characteristics of the neuronal aield. It suggests that the neuronal field is able to vibrate at the frequency of ax-rays, but it does not say that this is the limit of the frequencies that the euronal field is able to reach. If, as was said before, unitary consciousness implies an identity between the !iighest syntergic quantum field level (the Aleph) and the highest neuronal qle-ld level, the limits for the frequencies that the neuronal field is able to reach ,@nust be much higher than the ones associated with X-rays. In fact, these limits C:Kre not calculable for unitary consciousness, because the frequencies that can Q ge reached by the quantum field are not bounded. If the central processor's :@Iunction is to transform the purely energetic structure of experience into Ctonscious experience, the nature of the central processor must be such that it is a 04ble to include the energetic structure of the interference pattern within itself, aven when the neuronal field becomes identical with the quantum field at its *ighest syntergic level. If this is so, the possibility of a non-physical nature for 2he central processor must be considered seriously. 4) The central processor as a non-physical entity would then be able to 0 .@ranscendthe ossibly infinite level of frequency of vibration that the quantum p Meld reaches in the Aleph. In other words, if the central processor belongs to a 'Lhon-physical reality, then it would be conceivable that it could transcend the '@imits' of frequency in the physical universe, HoA: and where. a non-physical reality is able to interact with a physical one, ains a deep mystery that an energetic model (that states that an interaction m Mxists between the central processor and the interference pattern) is unable to 2 CL Prince Louis de Broglie (Beiser, 1968) confronted, in physics, the problemle- the existence of discrete orbitals in the atom. His solution was extraordinaril@ elegant. He stated that each electron has an associated wavelength and that only when the perimeter of an orbital is an exact multiple of this wavelength, does the electron not disappear from the orbital. Forbidden orbitals are those whose lengths are not an exact multiple of the 240 J. GR1N13ERG-ZY1.BFR13AUM electron's wavelength. In these, the electron suffers a self interference wave ocess and hence is unable to exist. In the realm of consciousness, there are also self interference processes. &rictly speaking, there is only one energetic field and thus unitary conscious- Ohs should be the most natural if not the only level of consciousness. In it, the CY, cdichotomy between the idea of the existence of a physical versus a non- V_ @Zhysical universe is dissolved in the perception of an all-encompassing and ;Jlobal consciousness, in which everything is included. In other words, the COluminated human being living in unitary consciousness sees everything as Q CWst different levels of the same consciousness. The rest of us do not live in Wnitary consciousness because we are not pure enough and our neuronal fields C*4 a)re heterogeneous. Memories, repressions and fears, as energetic components @@ollute the neuronal and quantum field interactions. We are the ones that C?ivide and dichotomize the One consciousness into compartments and Aections. [L Self interference processes appear in the realm of consciousness when the Glivisions which we impose on the world resist unification by ourselves into 1@ew wholes. It is as if disperse experiences, each with its own life, became !Sntagonistic to one another and thus their unification in higher syntergic qatterns and algorithms became impossible. What could be a new and more ,@powerful syntergic level, degenerates into a low syntergic pattern in which c:onterference, lack of organisation and poor connections between parts cqbbstruct the achievement of unity. To live in a 'forbidden' level of conscious- !aess is the result of these self interference processes. The forbidden levels are 6he interfaces between orbitals and, in them, open energetic irradiation and absorption processes are the characteristic experiences. The 'sufferer' in a 6nterface feels himself to be a product of external influences which are beyond *is control. (D I would like now to introduce two other considerations. One is related to Whe cymatic (Jenny, 1974) interactions between fields and structures, and the Kther to the Zeeman effect (Beiser, 1968). L_ 0 Cymatics (1974) is a relatively new experimental approach, in which Upatterns that result from an interaction of vibrating fields with structures, are 73tudied. If a sound at some specific frequency interacts with a metallic plate on >vhich fine powder is located, the powder acquires the form of a pattern. If the Brequency of the sound is increased, the pattern becomes more complicated Rut maintains a basic structure. When the frequency reaches some threshold, -4he pattern becomes three-dimensional. If the quantum field is conceived as a structure with which the vibrating neuronal field interacts, creating cyrnatic patterns, the differing levels of consciousness could be related to disc, rete cymatic like patterns. On the other hand, in esoteric psychology, it is said that man has different energetic bodies (Wilson, 1974). These bodies are related to ORBITALS OF CONSCIOUSNESS 241 discrete levels of consciousness. Perhaps, what is called 'energetic body' is a stable cyrnatic pattern. If this is so, some masters (Wilson, 1974) were able to visualize what is, for the rest of us, invisible cyrnatic-syntergic interactions.(? I believe that man is in a constant state of evolution towards higheS syntergic levels of functioning, pointing to unitary and the Being consciousio ness. In this evolution, real suffering is a state of dichotomy and lack og unification. When some contents of experience are dissociated from thev- CD focalization action of the directionality factor of the central processor, thio individual is internally divided and in a state of pain, tension and imbalance. I t on the contrary, he is able to accept all his experiences as real and as a genuing part of himself, he permits his convergent codifiers to unify everything withhR himself into a congruent algorithm that is able to be transformed by the ceiattap, processor into an integrated and coherent self-conscious experime'ec' This. secret of achieving unification and high syntergic levels of consciousness ipD total acceptance. We live in a very complex world'in which we are stimulated by powerfug) eraction'@, of these fields create new levels 127 information fields. The int _U experience. W In physics it is observed that, when an atom interacts with a magnetic fiel new spectral lines appear. This phenomenon is called the Zeeman effecu (Beiser, 1968) and is similar to the new experiences that we were discussing - before. In fact, when the laws of consciousness are compared with the behaviour 11 LI It elementary particles, the feeling is that these two extieuies touch each otheio How is it possible that such a complex phenomenon as consciousness beha .vZ in a similar way to atomic particles? The similarity implies that both realms arc a manifestation of One reality. C*4 Other examples of these simil are the radiation or absorption of energ?) from and to an atom when the electrons change from one to another orbitam changes when a subject is in a-Z (Beiser, 1968) and similar energetic inter a6 interface between the orbitals of consciousness. During their quantum jumpm the electrons behave as if they were simultaneously in two orbitals (Beisef-_ 1968). In the realm of consciousness, something similar happens when ILO change in consciousness occurs and the mind of the observer is still in aw interface between orbitals. The individual then feels as if he were simula) taneously in two levels of consciousness and in none of them and, as we hav> CL said, during this process he is open to receive or radiate energy. 2 CL < 5. THE NATURE OF THE CENTRAL PROCESSOR if the central processor is the Self, it is included within every process and 242 J. GRINl3ERC;-ZYL13EIZBAUM thought of the mind. In fact, the central processor is the observer of the mind. It is not affected by thought, emotion, pleasure or pain because it is part of its nature to be able to testify all these changes in mind's activitywit.hout changing 0 or losing its capacity to observe them. 0 Cl) - When a human being identifies himself with the Self, he trans7cends every v- and all relative and temporal changes in mind activity and becomes part of a 0 a kind of unchangeable silence from whence experiences appear and are seen as [*-mi'r'aculous happenings standing out from a grou-nd of empty fullness, and at C@ C@ the same time forming part of an immense and all-encompassing pattern of C) relationships. To the question about the individual or collective nature of the W c4central processor, nobody can give afinal answer, but intuition feels that the [*-observer in each one of us is the One Observer, the self in each one of us the Rorie Self and the central processor in each one of us the One Central LProcessor. To conclude, it is possibleto postulate that the central processor does not 0abide in any sp .are, is atemporal and belongs to a non physical reality and has Wno shape or form.", Refe're'nces C)Aurobindo, S., La Vida Divina, Editorial Kier, Buenos Aires, 1971. ;7peiser, A., Cdnceptos de Fisica Modernd, McGraw Hill, Madrid, 19W OBorges J.L., ElAleph, EMECE, Buenos Aires, 100. :@3-_aulfie?ld, H.J., Lu Sun, The Application of Holography, Wiley Interscience, U.S.A., 1970. O.Capra, F., -The Tao of Physics, Fontana, U.S.A., 1976. CEpstein, P., Kabbalah, Doubleday, New York, 1978. Mr-inberg-Zylberbaum, J., The retrieval of learned information. A neurophysiological (D convergence-divergence theory. J. Theoret. Biol., 56, 95-110, 1976. tA3rinberg-Zylberbaurn, J., El Espacio y la Conciencia, Editorial Trillas N16xico, 1981. Vinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Psychophysiological correlates of communication, gravitation and unity J Psychophys. Sys., 4, 227-256, 1982. 1$__rinberg-Z@lbe,ba.,, J., Etraocular vision. J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 141-158, 1983. "Ienny, H., Cymatics, Basilius Presse Basel, 1974. @54aharishi, R., Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri Ramanasramam Tiruvannamalai, India, LL 1972. Vivekananda, S., Raya Yoga, Kier, Buenos Aires, 1963, 1975. i 1M7 Non, C., Lo Oculto, Editorial Noguer, Barcelona, 1974. 0 CL CL Psych oen ergetics, 1983, Vol. 5, pp, 243-252 0278-6060/83/0503-0243 S18.50/0 C Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Inc., 1983 Printed in the United Kingdom CIO Researc notes and comments Scientific ex lanation of wave vector collapse C%1 0) D.F. LAWDEN 0) In his reply (Villars, 19 to my r' e h note (Lawden, 1983) on the rolAW observing instruments in uantum. f ory, Viltars does little more than ari@ that his approach to the roblem f wave vector collapse is logically c t 06 sistent. He fails to meet in critic' in that he has no scientific explana ion the phenomenon. Thus, to meet my charge at he fails to provide a principle by whichlav observing instrument can be tinguished from all other physical systerns,Rb states that such an instru en is recogniz .able by the circumstance thag functions as required of s han strument by the axioms of quantum thedp- etation f the theory, then, there are two classe19 According to his inter Itio physical system, (i) a I ger class c prising the generality of physical system to which the Schro** di ger evolution aw applies, and (ii) a much smaller clas )jut a of observing instr ents whose be aviour is governed by other laws. vw admits that he is nable to separate t ese classes by appeal to any physA criterion and fa s back on the definiti n that an observing instrument iE physical syste which behaves as an obse ing instrument. However, such an instrument o ly behaves in this manner i very special circumstance I S' is @ si when it int racts with the specific type, of ass-(i) system it e I@gnedt yp of es. it be I*k orthodox class measure in all other circumstanc ves i e an em 0 system. hus, a polarizer is a class-(11) system hen it interacts with phot-1 belon ing to a properly positioned incide@nt bea but its behaviour in allot cj th ul s ances (e.g. when it is heated) is a f a class ii) system. V irct mys erious! 2 von though Villars may be able to establis hat this interpretation is logically unassailable, this is not the only requirement of a scientific theory. If such a theory is to provide an acceptable explanation of the world, it must eschew occult elements as far as possible. Thus, if it were established that all babiesborn onacertain dayof the year were more likely to become actors than 243