WHAT'S GOIN' ON ACCORDING TO THE 21ST CENTURY HERETIC

I’m a process, not a fixed entity. I allow my views and opinions to be fluid and subject to evolution in the face of new evidence, and I recognise that sometimes the most valuable and significant new evidence comes from the periphery of human wisdom and endeavour – in other words, from the heretics of modern society. 

The trick is to always be prepared to apply one’s own critical reasoning faculties to one’s direct, personal, first-hand experience where applicable and not just automatically accept the conclusions of people more qualified or academically intelligent without first doing the former. And then to at least double-check that there aren't equally-or-better qualified people who advocate an alternative position (see below).

I was once extremely orthodox in my world view, earning two academic degrees in the social sciences and humanities –  but by my mid-thirties I was finding mainstream reality increasingly unsatisfactory and inadequate in both narrative and methodology. Now approaching my mid-forties, I’m experimenting with an alternative cosmology, which I call my “21^st Century Heresy”. It incorporates a certain amount of alternative and so-called “conspiracy” information that many have been programmed to automatically reject and ridicule; but it rejects a lot of it too.

Because I subscribe to the cosmology that consciousness and information are the fundamental basis of our reality – as opposed to materialism – it means that my sense of what may and may not be possible has become far broader than a materialist cosmology is able to allow. That is not to say that I dismiss materialism as unimportant – kicking me in the bollocks would hurt me as much as it would hurt any man, I suspect! – but it does mean that I perceive a reality that is far more expansive and profound than merely the material, physical reality: indeed, it means that my base assumption is that material reality is born out of the mystery of consciousness and not the other way round, which is the contemporary orthodox position.

There is plenty of robust, credible scientific support for such a cosmology. For example, Max Planck – founder of Quantum Mechanics and 1918 Nobel Physics Prize winner – who famously wrote: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." (Source: The Observer, Jan 1931).

Perhaps frustrated by the fact that so many of his colleagues failed to understand the implications of this, and kept on imaginging the Universe as though it was at the most fundamental level made out of godzillions of tiny little billiard balls – that appeared out of no-where and no-when – mindlessly smashing into each other, he is also known for having said something to the effect that "science advances one funeral at a time". 

Max Planck is far from alone  in the pantheon of scientific heavyweights who accord primacy to consciousness, however. His quantum buddies, Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, were of a similar opinion. Interestingly, there are impeccably qualified scientists who today share this perspective, though much of the internet dismisses then as cranks and excommunicates them from the scientific in-crowd with terms such as 'pseudoscience'; formerly 'respectable' scientists who have descended into sinful, heretical modes of thinking (see Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Dr. John Hagelin, Dr. Bruce Lipton, Thomas Campbell, Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, Peter Russell, Dr. Eben Alexander, Prof. Brian Josephson, and others). Equally interestingly, it doesn't take much research to ascertain that the above's more orthodox peers themselves generally remain respectful and civilized in their disagreements. The ad-hominems, the defaming, debunking and dismissing tends to come from less able and more anonymous sources.

While listing all these contemporary intellectual powerhouses and academic heretics, of course, is nothing more than an appeal to authority that can be more than matched (in numbers, at least) by people arguing in favour of the orthodox cosmology, it does at least endorse my point that there is a whopping great debate to be had here, that the science is not 'settled' or 'in' as we so often see proclaimed; there are plenty of flaming brilliant, highly accredited minds who support  (or at the very least acknowledge) the validity of a consciousness-before-matter cosmology; that it is not crazy or unhinged to do so - or that if it is, it is the sort of crazy that puts one in the company of individuals who really know their stuff.

"The Science Is In", is it? Feck off!

In the old days, you were a heretic if you expressed any doubt about the cosmology espoused by your friendly neighbourhood priest or vicar or rabbi or whatever. Scripture told us where we came from, who was responsible, what was nice, and what was naughty. If you disagreed, you’d be socially ostracized at best, and burnt at the stake or beheaded if you didn’t learn to keep your mouth shut and start singing from the prescribed songsheet with the rest of the great unwashed. 

 

The moral of the story? People in positions of authority don't like independent thinkers. And in case I need to spell out the obvious, it's because their authority is derived from mass consensus.

Nowadays of course, the attitude towards modern heretics is mercifully more civilized. Burning them at the stake is generally frowned upon (though some high-profile heretics have been known to end up dead under mysterious circumstances from time to time even in these more laissez-faire times). We normally just exchange pained expressions with other non-heretics and do some social ostracizing with the odd bit of ridicule and scoffs of derision thrown in for good measure, don't we?

Our esteemed 21st century custodians of knowledge and wisdom are our scientists. They may still wear distinguished white frocks, but they now use the formidable Scientific Method - backed up by the Peer Review Process - to form our contemporary cosmology. These are very reliable tools, don't ya know (but sssh, don't say too much about the replicability crisis, or the peer review crisis, okay? You'll be cruising for an intellectual bruising...) and have a reassuringly consistent relationship with observable reality. Scientists tend to routinely kick ten tons of shite out of scripture and 'olde worlde' beliefs in that department, and have been doing so for centuries. It is of course ultimately thanks to them that I am able to communicate with you, dear reader, through the mixed blessings of mass communication and social media. For this and a number of other reasons, I have a great deal of respect for science and scientists. 

This is, however, tinged with a robust and incorrigable dose of scepticism.

The trouble with our dear, lovable modern-day scientists is that on the whole (with a few honourable exceptions) they are either too trusting of their superiors and benefactors, or just simply not badass enough to hold onto their integrity in the face of people with lots of money, power, guns and an agenda. Most of them are desperate for cash. Or peer recognition. Or tenure. Or all of the above. No doubt, it's difficult to see beyond these things if your life's work is at stake. Anyone in a position to provide the above academic mana, and you'd be amazed how broadly and flexibly applications of the scientific method can suddenly be interpreted by people with big brains. Think about it.

Hark! Do I hear gasps of shock, outrage and indignation at this latest heretical point? Do I hear cries for evidence and proof? 

Sorry to disappoint you guys. It's not gonna be that kind of blog. Sure, I may occasionally toss you the odd link chock full of overwhelming evidence from some much more dedicated and accomplished alternative researcher (i.e. fellow 21st century heretic) than myself here and there to chew on. There's plenty of it out here in heretic country. But see, the beauty of heresy is that it's first and foremost "an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted”. I'm not a journalist with a mission to spoon-feed you common sense. Go and check it out for yourself if you're iconoclastic enough to dare, or alternatively, feel free to keep right on outsourcing all your opinions and worldviews to fellow fallible human beings who - if they are ambitious enough - invariably end up getting funded by people who are known control freaks and unscrupulous sociopaths. 

Disagree all you want. That's heresy for you. I haven't even got started yet. *grins*

Here's a provocative parting heresy to challenge you with until next time: He who pays the piper calls the truth.