Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By
The “modern” view of reality which prevailed in the West for quite some time was
that we lived in a materialistic world and universe where the building block of reality is
and was the Atom. Because of this we developed to some extent what can be described
as an Atomistic World View. This idea was that the ultimate nature of reality was
After awhile, though, some scientists and philosophers started wondering if in fact
the Atom itself was composed of even smaller particles which they called subatomic
particles. Soon, scientific experiments started “proving” the existence of such subatomic
particles as the electron, the positron, the photon, the quark, and finally, the Quanta.
About the time that subatomic particles started being talked about, Einstein
Interestingly, these scientists could not account for a Unitary nature of Reality anymore.
Thus, the search began for Unified Quantum Field Theory. It was thought that if Unified
Quantum Field Theory was found, this would once again argue that there is a unitary
While the search for Unified Quantum Field Theory was still well under way,
some scientists decided to take another approach. This new approach to reality was
called String Theory. String Theory argued that the ultimate nature of reality is
composed of “strings” which mask themselves as subatomic particles. Thus, the
ultimate nature of reality is the chameleon string. The problem was, however, how to
reconcile string theory with Quantum Theory? Well, the answer which I came up with,
even prior to reading about string theory, is this: The ultimate building block of the
universe is the Quanta subatomic particle. Thus, there is a Unitary Quantum Field, and
I argue that the Quanta subatomic particle, like string theory, is a chameleon
particle. The Quanta masks itself as other subatomic particles by reason of meaning
and/or natural law. While the Quanta can certainly display itself as a Quanta, it can also
Now, the question at this point is how can Quantum Physics be reconciled with
Classical Metaphysics which utilizes the concept of Being as being the foundation for
Reality? Well, my argument is that the concept of being, although it stands on its own
two feet independently of Quantum Physics, is in fact an analogous concept. One might
argue that Being manifests the Quantum Field, or on the other hand, one might argue
that the Quantum Field manifests Being. Or perhaps there is a dialectical relationship in
the Dao where Being manifests the Quantum Field and the Quantum Field manifests
Now, what then is the nature of Being? Well, in Classical terms Being is Form of
Form, or an Unrestricted Act of Understanding. But what is Being made of? Being is
composed of Beinga Streams which take the function of Quanta Particles or Strings.
Previously, if have referred to Beinga Streams as, Relational Meaning Streams. In fact
this is a good definition of Beinga Streams. Beinga Streams are Relational Meaning
Streams. Thus, it is apparent that Beinga Streams or Relational Meaning Streams
It should be noted that Being as the Building Block of Reality is supported by the
that there is a spirit for every person, animal, or thing. Every rock has a spirit as does
every blade of grass. In Western indigenous culture these spirits were referred to as
Elemental Spirits. I argue that Beinga Streams, or Relational Meaning Streams, Quanta
Particles, and Strings, are all analogous to Elemental Spirits and in fact perform the same
Finally, you might ask what are the political implications of the foregoing. In
fact, the notion of Beinga Streams, Quanta Particles, Strings, and Elemental Spirits, all
support the idea of Moderate Relativism as the nature of knowledge and reality.
Moderate relativism means that we can have probabilistic knowledge of reality which is
fallible, and subject to revision. Moderate relativism means that we must follow the
Responsible, be Loving. Moderate relativism means that there can be two sides to an
argument. Moderate relativism means that it is possible that reasonable people can differ
in their assessment of a problem. Moderate relativism means that we still have logic and
reason, and must take logical arguments seriously. Moderate relativism means that the