Joseph commnts about the announcement of CERN concerning the Higgs boson, and the following article from Natural News:

The Higgs boson 'God Particle' discovery explained in the context of conscious cosmology Learn more:


Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. RaPhi on September 6, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    Since I enrolled in this “course” late in the semester, I’m doing my best to catch up with the material. Apologies for the late comments… and uh, will this be on the final? 😉

    The topological approach seems appropriate since it’s about complex forms and how to map them. Mental analogue processing is modelling by correspondence with what’s known or sensed or felt (emotion) or intuited and inferring the missing details. Evokes those pin or peg maps where something pressed onto the other side (or by data input from a remote location) produces the 3D image of the original. The spaces between the pegs don’t prevent understanding the curvatures. A concrete example: I worked in th engine rooms of ships. Old gauges were analog; we preferred them to the modern digitals because the needle allowed a quick check without having to do calculations. The digital stuff seems to train the mind in linear thinking. But topology takes in the side territories as well. Perhaps like those scalar values of torsion fields.

    The idea of correspondences also allows for connections to the experiences of primal (tribal) people as shamanism. And the alchemists, alstologers, and Hermeticists. Not to mention Platonists and Pythagoreans. Since the work of people like Rene Schwaller de Lubicz and Christopher Dunn, we know the ancient Egyptians had precise geometric relationships in their monuments. I’ve long suspected that these were meant to develop the human mind– not simply by abstract reasoning, but by a deeply multidimensional experience of consciousness.

    Someone with a connection to Eastern Orthodox theology has another advantage. It isn’t just learning to consider the possible reality of deity or of self transformed via theosis. It’s the experience of hesychia, the mind of the heart. That’s unmediated experience of Mind. Another access to the topographical whole. And btw, where dividing by zero is allowed. My personal map for + infinity is at the sephirah of Chokmah on the Tree of Life of Kabbalah. And – infinity is Binah, at the level of Atziluth, or Pneuma. The divider by zero? The Divine Infinite, my fave god-term.

  2. Robert Barricklow on July 7, 2012 at 9:08 am

    You definately zeroed in on the solution.
    Consciousness is key, & language is a big part of that, as it expresses some forms of ir.
    The divide by zero is not a stopping point, but a place upon which to examine & develope a new key, to unlocking the processes therein. A new form of math/consciouness.
    There is then, ultimately, an interface of telekentics.

  3. Jon Norris on July 6, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    I think you are right on the money as usual.

    I have been searching for just this kind of unifying principle or methodology for many decades. I discover bits and pieces here and there, in what seems like an almost designed disarray with hefty levels of confusion. (Babel type stuff.)

    I have recently begun reading Richard Merrick’s two books, Interference and The Venus Blueprint, and I think he has put many new pieces of this puzzle together. If he ever reads Civilization One, he will put even more pieces together.

    Joseph, if you haven’t read these two books yet, I think you will find much of interest in them along the lines of a “unified field” sort of connection between sound, music, biology and physics.

    Life feels so much like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: all these tantalizing shadows of reality, yet not the whole picture directly and coherently.

  4. Greg on July 6, 2012 at 6:03 am

    Blame it on Duns Scotus who concieved of Being as univocal–a conception that got passed down through the nominalists, the Protestants, philosophy, and then into science. The univocal conception makes everything the same kind of stuff.
    Aquinas opposed this conception with the analogical conception of Being. Thus Being is only analogically related to being. The different levels of being co-inhere.All the traditions of the world adhere to the idea of a great chain of being (or angelic hierarchy as it is known in Dionysus)but to think of each level univocally is to make them into ontic competitors as it were–they would not be able to co-inhere. God or an angel would be good in the same way as you and I are good (or not as the case may be). It makes the relationship between God and man a zero sum game. Shankara (Vedanta) has to posit a Beyond Being as well as Being precisely because his conception of Being is essentially univocal.

  5. HeartStreams on July 5, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    This topic is of course totally spot on to my interest! Since the Hermetic teachings refer to consciousness as having multiple parts… e.g. witness and thinker (the specific terminology escapes me), it would of course have to be true that in order to create a topology which included consciousness, that witness and thinker would have their own functions. How does one model a witness? Is a witness just a “detector?” I think, or rather I feel… it is not. How would emotive feeling be understood in this topology? How would “cognition” fit? Who knows, and as someone said here to paraphrase, “do you really want to…?”

    I’m now puzzling over this. If I have anything that makes me want to scratch it into concrete, I’ll email it over and then you may certainly do with it as you see fit. I’m not making a living doing this. 🙂 If you like something I’ve said enough times and you want to acknowledge it, I leave that totally up to you. I’m just in love with imagination. And I don’t necessarily want to see anyone build anything with these ideas. I just want to understand things past the Babel moment. I want to see music, math, sciences, philosophy, et al in vivid detail as one crystalline perspective of the all, as the Hermetica so state. I don’t want this as some coarse craving for God-like power (the notion itself is deranged). I just find that I appreciate creation all the more when I can see the integral quality of it beyond the languages (including math) that we have. The great teaching of the Mayahana describes the “trillions upon trillions of emanations, the ever unfolding, with incalculable vastness, of the Prajna Paramita.” I want to have the consciousness to be able to experience more of this without the self-inserting consciousness divisor we all seem to experience when we brush up against this area. It’s like our brains rush into this wall that doesn’t allow us to see further, and our consciousness bounces off it and heads down another path. Maybe that’s why his head hurt….maybe he ran into the moonbeam. 🙂 I can’t wait for them to drive that thing away.

    • MattB on July 5, 2012 at 8:47 pm


      I find also that in literary theory Umberto Eco’s revolutionary concept of the ‘open text’ reflects these ideas as well. The reader is as much a part of the narrative as the author. Different ‘readers’ will input different observations, imaginations and consciousnesses into a narrative and create new and varied information. new ‘creations’.

  6. HAL838 on July 5, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    is vibration / frequency that brings with it
    someTHING that MOVES (strings as in any musical instrument)
    THOUGHT / consciousness / inclusive awareness,
    comes before sound.
    I think I might have made a pretty good kindergarten teacher.

    Sorry about that.
    I don’t mean to be abrasive,
    but that’s how I feel sometimes !
    So I’ll let it stand.

  7. neurotraveller on July 5, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Our whole civilization is run on the Physics of Fire and flirts with the physics of air and water. We burn things to make the engine of civilization run. We shoot and blow things up and call it progress. This kind of physics without a solid grounding is violent, poisonous, divides and separates. It doesn’t unify. When something is put together after pieces have been separated that object is only something artificial and not a true living unity. The Physics of Fire is very male and dominating. Our bullets, rockets, and missiles have a deeply unconscious phallic symbolism. Our religions and our secular science share a patriarchal outlook. When it comes to the Physics of the Earth we are like cave men who just learned how to start a fire and then put it out. Modern people are increasingly disconnected from the earth. Even our so called advanced footwear insulates us from the ocean of negative electrons beneath our feet that grounds and heals the physical body. If we are all so ungrounded how can we claim to be the most evolved people to have walked the earth. The ancients were obviously very firmly rooted in the earth with the knowledge of its forces. Thats how and why they could build such mind boggling stone masterpieces. With a physics deeply and firmly rooted in the earth all of the elemental directions come into harmony and the physics of consciousness will become obvious and we will call it Magick and not science. Because science is a useful fracture from a higher level of unity. And Magick is action out of unity.

    • HAL838 on July 5, 2012 at 7:39 pm

      A very good definition of (your {self / selves}) (those) running the world
      with testosterone fueled sex and violence, making everything
      go boom, as any totally ‘self’ respecting, ‘two’ headed, fire breathing

      Where were you, neuro man?
      On vacation?
      Or just enjoying some (home) movies ?

  8. HAL838 on July 5, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    Well, what would you expect?
    THEY keep throwing out “consciousness” [with] all those pesky zeroes
    and infinities (consciousness.)

    Hawkings is trying to tell us that he is the only ‘thing’ that has consciousness.
    It comes of being stuck within just your own, which is otherwise empty
    and therefore totally self-existent.

  9. Hammer on July 5, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    This is really interesting because I happened on a youtube video about a dying NASA scientists`last message or revelations, something like that. In it, he was talking about how in trying to communicate with extraterrestrial life they found out that instead of looking for it in the macrocosim they should be looking for it in the microcosim, and what they heard was a bunch of indeciferable noises and vocal utterences. In the end, there was no understanding it. But at least they made contact. I wrote a blog called “Stephen Hawking What`s He Hawking?”. Basically, I didn`t know what I was writing about, just as I felt Stephen Hawking doesn`t know really, what he`s talking about. When I think of all the money spent on things like the Cern Large Collider, sounds like a carnival ride, in the end, what`s the point? We`ll never understand reality enough to put in a box of mathmatical equations, and if we did, what then? Who was that guy who said, “I am that I am?” Sounds like he can`t put it all in a box either.

    • neurotraveller on July 5, 2012 at 7:15 pm

      “Stephen Hawking What’s He Hawking?” thats great. LOL

      • Hammer on July 6, 2012 at 12:46 am

        thank you neurotraveller. I have a special kinship with your name since I have been working in the psychiatric industry here in Germany for almost twenty years. Believe me, I don`t feel good about administering drugs to people with side effects like, “sudden death syndrom”. But what is the alternative? Should they be shot on sight? I`m refering to the establishment`s list of alternatives, not mine.

  10. HeartStreams on July 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm


    All true! Credit is always important and your statement of origin is certainly fine with me. That said, the Manhattan Project physicist, Victor Weiskolf one encouraged me to ask difficult, if insane or innocent questions with hesitation, for if one were to be afraid to engage, then one’s consciousness itself remains ignorant. He said “stupidity itself is conserved if one is afraid to ask questions.” 🙂 Perhaps some physicist will read these squibbles and think, “what if I…”. Salt is not required in the imagination. But credibility in science necessitates caution, as you aptly point out.

  11. HeartStreams on July 5, 2012 at 3:23 pm


    All true! Credit is always important and your statement of origin is certainly fine with me. That said, the Manhattan Project physicist, Victor Weiskolf one encouraged me to ask difficult, if insane or innocent questions with hesitation, for if one were to be afraid to engage, then one’s consciousness itself remains ignorant. He said “stupidity itself is conserved if one is afraid to ask questions.” 🙂 Perhaps some physicist will read these squibbles and think, “what if I…”. Salt is not required in the imagination. But credibility in science necessitates caution, as you aptly point out.

  12. bdw on July 5, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Why is it necessary to mathematize (or “scientize”) consciousness?

    Personally, I don’t think such a thing is possible. But if it is, my guess would be that it would be nothing but very bad news for most of humanity.

    Who says that absolutely everything in human experience can be (or “must be,” or “needs to be”) mathematized?

    I am certainly no expert. And I wish you well in your work. But I would suggest that simply understanding and using consciousness in a practical sort of way may be more important than using math to describe it.

    Math is not always the answer. A comment from some forum years ago went something like this:

    “. . . sometimes it seems like ‘the math guys’ treat the physical world like a leper colony.”

    The context was a discussion about how much of physics likes to pretend that math supersedes reality, when obviously it does not. Math is used by us to DESCRIBE reality. And our descriptions can be and often are wrong. When in conflict with physical reality (and/or “human experience”), math cannot prove anything. “Reality” must take precedence over math (if reality is what you want to learn about).

    • bdw on July 5, 2012 at 2:51 pm

      And I might add, even though I would expect to disagree with everything you come up with about mathematizing consciousness, I most certainly would want to read what you have to say about it !

    • HAL838 on July 5, 2012 at 7:46 pm

      It can be mathematized, or I would not have put a mathematician in my short story,
      “the Creators.”

  13. HeartStreams on July 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Thanks Joseph,

    That’s interesting. I thought that perhaps we have already encountered consciousness, with our references to the “complex plane,” and our need to “violate our math rules” to make the equations work. That is certainly an example of the kinds of analogical thinking you described in your video…

    If we consider a quaternion space to be a matrix (which is how they are best visualized), then it becomes easier to see how mathematically compatible quaternions are to a topological metaphor. One of the key opportunities of course, is that quaternions are non-commutable, which is really great in that a non-commutable quaternion might perfectly map to the recognition feature of analogical thinking. In an analogical model, reality is non-commutable. Consciousness has no need of commutation. I think if a topological function set had quaternion properties, then it might get really interesting to see what would drop out the bottom of it.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on July 5, 2012 at 2:45 pm

      Again, you’re thinking along exactly the same lines as I, and in fact, again (I hate referring to private conversations between another individual and me, again, Mr. Daniel Jones, but I do so only to invoke a witness to the fact that such discussions have been had by others, and that there appear to be a body of people working on these sorts of problems), this property of non-commutation is something I’ve tried to build into the formal system…doing so, however, vastly changes some standard topological/combinatorial axioms. You may be correct in that quaternion geometry, or at least some aspects of it, should form part of any such formally explicit language of analogy(and again, rotation and quaternions appealed to me as a means of expressing group phenomena vis a vis individual phenomena of consciousness). Just on the caveat emptor/caveat auditor side of things, one mathematician friend of mine, with whom I shared some private scribblings on the subject, told me in no uncertain terms that it made his head hurt, and that there was no middle ground with what I was/am doing, and that one end of that spectrum was, as he put it, that it was “crackpottery” (to coin an expression.) So take that, and my public musings on the subject, with a large bag of rock salt.

      • HAL838 on July 5, 2012 at 7:51 pm

        Why does everyone want to shut out the working of
        the extremely large as the same as the extremely small ?
        There certainly is no axiom or a priori that forbids it !

        Is it too close to everyone’s face ?

  14. Robi Akram on July 5, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    in those concern what about the work of Nassim Haramein which try to deal with the concept of infinite mass of the proton (mini black hole)? the vacum as the medium of consciousness through fractal structures? and the links with ancient symbolism?
    beyond the mathematical accuracy of his model, he seems to be in the right direction as far as attempting a real alternative to the standard model or the string theory…

    • neurotraveller on July 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm

      I would love to get both Joseph and Nassim together in the same room. That would be an amazing discussion!

  15. HeartStreams on July 5, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Very interesting, Joseph.

    A couple of comments if I may.

    1) One important area of mathematics – as you have aptly pointed out in your books – is quaternion geometry – discovered by Hamilton and used to great effect by P.A.M. Dirac in his reconciliation of quantum mechanics, Special Relativity, and the suggestion of antimatter in that the equation supported a charge of both +1 and -1. Having studied it (an undergraduate thesis I wrote in college covered the discovery of anti-matter and its relationship to the Dirac Equation and its matrix formulation).

    it is clear to me that your course might be charted well with quaternion geometry. QG has interesting properties that relate directly to the puzzles you describe and it is quite useful in elaborating torsional systems in addition to traditional vector spaces. I have to think that the perhaps one avenue of exploration would be to map the topology of consciousness in quaternions, and then relate it to electromagnetic theory and at least special relativity.

    Remember Maxwell’s decision to deploy QG in describing his analysis of the “full” electromagnetic theorem. This bears further analysis.

    2) QG fell into disuse in the 1890s through the work of Lorentz, Heaviside and others. But it has actually come roaring back in this century because its original liability, computation complexity, is rendered moot by advanced computers. In fact, it is finding broad application in simulation and computer gaming because of its superiority in creating visual manifestations of spinning systems. I think that QG – which is somewhat topological to begin with – in a true topological formulation would be most interesting. It was one of the most important mathematical developments in human history and it will ultimately take its rightful place – if it has not already in some futuristic places.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on July 5, 2012 at 1:28 pm

      Hi thanks for the comments heart streams. As for your comment re. the use of quaternions in modeling consciousness, the idea already occurred to me. I mentioned in a private conversation to a friend of mine, Mr. Daniel Jones, an occasional commenter on this site, that the way to model the difference between individual and GROUP consciousness interactions with the medium would be precisely by ROTATION, and this is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind(ie., what you suggest). I do think, however, that even quaternion geometry may have its limitations in this respect(though it’s nothing but a suspicion at this point), and that one might have literally to CREATE the sort of higher order topological language to express all this. I suspect, in short, that we’re entering the “Age of the Metaphor” (referring to what I’ve been calling the Topological Metaphor of the Medium).

      • MattB on July 5, 2012 at 5:47 pm

        The Universe began with a word.

        I wonder if the hidden race is on to mathematically map a metaphor, that is a word, the first word, a divine word……

        To speak the very words of God, to climb the Tower of Babel and have the ability to do ‘whatever we set our minds to doing’.

        Imagine a technology of the consciousness that could create and destroy the very physical medium itself. man becomees ‘god’.

        Scary stuff

        • HAL838 on July 5, 2012 at 7:55 pm

          I’ve often thought that being / becoming god must be very scary stuff indeed

      • Robert Barricklow on July 5, 2012 at 5:57 pm

        It is already here, & has been, for all time.

        • HAL838 on July 6, 2012 at 6:16 am

          “………..for all time……………..”
          You forgot a tense.
          ‘………and wiil be…………..’

          • Robert Barricklow on July 8, 2012 at 7:26 pm

            Unless there is none.

          • HAL838 on July 12, 2012 at 9:10 pm

            🙂 🙂 🙂

            Do you remember the show “I’ve Got a Secret”?
            Oh, sorry, not the point.

            “Unless there is none.”
            There most certainly is !

            Will YOU be there/then ?

  16. Mary linderman on July 5, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Joseph while I was listening to you explain the topological analogy of ancient physics and mathematics, an idea hit me. I know that the truth of the “firmament” is still being debated among biblical scholars. What if after hunting down ancient technology they found they could create or remanufacture a new firmament (Chemtrails) and control the population by bouncing radio waves off it (Haarp). This may have been what was done in the past from a Godlike culture ruling the masses from above somewhere. Maybe a mountain. I have always wondered if the firmament was a solid crystal layer in the sodium layer of the outer atmosphere and that ancient scientists did something to it to make it collapse. I have never believed that mineral accretion could have caused all the salt in the ocean. I for one think it’s hilarious that some folks talk about back-engineering a ufo from another planet, when they can’t even look at tree rings and ice cores to figure out how our geography works.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events