Alienne Laval, Magistra PhD

Excerpts from Masses and Muses

First published 2005

Combat Diaries
London

1
Non-Locality

“Man has escaped his brain like a convict the jail. Finally a vacuum appears on the
top”, George Bataille
A ~= A

The vacuum, no matter if seen from a physics, shamanic or a writing perspective, is the
space bar that was left by the vanishing “absolute”. Its gradual disappearance leads us

2
deep into the history of culture and globalizing economics. Trade, commerce and
economics always had the tendency to connect and unify even remote regions, and in
this process monoglossic and heteroglossic approaches meet. We can further specify the
inevitably arising dialectics as the oppostion of fundamentalism and syncretism.
Fundamentalism is the typical centralizing state religion that arises in any process of
ethnification, nation building or semiotification. History knows very successful
realizations of this concept, e.g. China, the Roman Empire, the Mayas, The Roman
Catholic Church, certain Islamic states, the USSR, the USA. These systems are coded by
“information”, and their languages - and sciences - are modeled along a matrix of
stringent and image-like representations and reproductions. The Roman and Maya
examples show clearly the fundamental driving principles: a god-like “upper world” and
a hell-like “under world” as real life realities. The upper world is reserved for the
images, but the not-images are damned for the under world. Between these poles that
could be marked as life and death, heaven and hell, master and slave, subject and
object, mind and matter etc. exists a variety of classes, depending on their degree of
image deviation. And, in the very under world exists a “hell machine” - the circus of the
Romans, the star wars of the Mayas - to exterminate extrem deviations and to annihilate
them to utmost objectivity.
The first known theorists of this principle were the philosophers Socrates and Plato.
They said goodbye to “natural philosophy” because this approach could not keep the
promise to explain the whole world by the world’s own principles. In fact “spirits” like
Heraclite, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Parmenides etc. were far ahead off their time but
had no instrumental means to verify their theses, this is: no microscopes, no telescopes,
no computers, no measuring instruments, no probes, no accelerators etc. Instead of the
missing empirical data Socrates and Plato put episteme, definitions and ideas on the
central throne of their theory; all real world subjects and objects from now on were
nothing more than better or worse images of ideas. With Aristotele the theory building
gained a new degree of abstraction; Aristotle’s Metaphysics says:
A=NOT A is FALSE
NOT A= A is FALSE
A=A is TRUE
NOT A= NOT A is TRUE.
This is: if A=A is true, there can only be one initial A, one first A, known as god, logos or
idea. All that what follows after can only be tought of as images. Even the primordial
biblical pair, Adam and Eve, was not good enough to serve as ideal image.
But the images are not invariant, they are administered by a political, religious,
scientific, industrial, economic, ideologic, military etc. caste - the so-called elite - that
decides on the ideas that shall be seen as valid and prevailing. This is: a behavior that
once was thought as good, may be seen as bad in the future etc. This control system
enables flexibility, fast adaptions and expansion, but, in times of crisis, arbitrariness
too.
It is obviously that the whole system is a construction that inevitably lacks any
reference; it is a so-called top-down constitution and suggests that the whole uinverse
came into being by a top down process, developing IT from BIT in the language of
physicist John Wheeler. Up to now Wheeler could not answer the question “how we get
IT from BIT”. Recently he presented the question to the online community of physicists
to get it finally answered.

3
In the run of this discussion Jim Whitescarver wrote: “(Wheeler)… expects the answer
has to do with the nature of existence, which is as he describes it to be, a participatory
existence.” And: “Perhaps words cannot ever really answer the question using symbols
anyway, but we can, in principal, always be more precise, and more objective.”
But, the object or “the objective” is nothing more than the greatest distance between
“absolute” idea and utmost not-image. What is the use of exploring the not-image, to
find objectivity there then? To find there somewhere a system of total belief resp.
knowledge - like the astrology of the Mayas -, the so-called TOE, the “Theory of
Everything” - no matter what it would reveal.
Wheeler’s question is an in an emprical sense impossible one because it is not to answer
within the frame he suggests. If we on the other hand accept that the constitutive BIT is
an illusion of any expanding semiocity of the inertia type then there never was any real
possibility that any IT could had been constituted by that BIT.
Emergence, this is the actual power, never had anything to do with this adult or
“constructed BIT” (cbit); just in contrary, emergence produced its own BIT, the “real” or
“evolved BIT” (ebit), this is: BIT can only emerge from IT first, and, as long as evolution
produces no ebits, there is none. Any synchronic cebit is a simulation that forces all
emergent bottom-up processes under its concept and defines itself as the cause of IT,
making IT an image of the prevailing ideas or cbit. Evolution itself is by far not that
simple more or less stringent thing Darwin, Lamarck and many others dreamt of but an
above all fuzzy process of self-realization.

4
Spirit as Embedment

At first glance Anaxagoras’s thesis on the self-similarity of spirit seems to support a non-
evolutive approach to it that we later meet again in certain interpretations of the so-
called “Tabula Smaragdina” alleged to the authorship of Hermes Trismegistos, the three
times great Hermes, a late derivation of the Egyptian goddess Thoth. The most famous
sentence of the Tabula, “what is above is just as what is below”, clearly refers to spirit
that effects on the small and on the big in exactly the same way, as Anaxagoras
explained. Or, as Peirce claimed, the same precising logic (or Logos) is at work.
Many interpretations in Christian succsession – even if amplified with Eastern trains of
thought – see this sentence as a proof that god – identified with spirit then – was not
created but functioned as an unmoved moover; inevitably with all the implications I
discussed earlier. Especially the effects of straightening and concentrating the songline
or dream-path grid shows eminent theologic and philosopic consequences now.
The original tradition, deaparting from Egyptian thinking and with the “Gnosis” as its
last climax, draws a very different picture: here “self-similarity” means nothing but
“self-creation”. This is that spirit created itself out of the “not-created”. An ancient
gnostic text says:
“And the Savior agreed to his complement Pistis Sophia and revealed 6 shemale spiritual
beings according to the type of beings that were before and after them.
Their male names are:
the first is the “not-created”,
the second is the “self-created”,
the third is the “creator”,
the fourth is the “first-creator”
the fifth is the “all-creator”,
the sixth is the “main-creator”.

But the female names are:

5
the first is the “all-knowing Sophia”,
the second is the “all-mother Sophia”,
the third is the "all-creator Sophia”,
the fourth is the “first-creator Sophia”,
the fifth is the “Love Sophia”,
the sixth is the Pistis Sophia”
The first elements of these “narrations” are the signs, the symbols etc. Looking at their
complexer forms Claude Lévi-Strauss coined the term “mythem” for the smallest
mythical units, thought as celular text- or narrative structures. These texts and
processes realize or actualize themselves in the form of “semiospheres”, a term that we
meet in the work of Yuri Lotman. A semiosphere is a “sign space” or, a “consciouness”.
Lotman distinguishes biosphere, noosphere, and semiosphere that develop successively
in the run of evolution. Seen from a more elaborated perspective we can distinguish
three types of corresponding codes that “direct” the beings of theses spheres.
At the layer of the biosphere these codes are the “primary codes”, that, for example:
“regulate all the information that is present in the organism, and, thus of biological life.
The genetical code is one of them….”
Already these primary structures seem to have certain possibilities to change rules, this
is: “protopsychic functions” or functions with a “projective content”
Following the “new physics” we could see these possibilities as “parts” of a vacuum
locked in in the interior structure of these beings – vaguely comparable to carbon atoms
in a crystal lattice - where a very special type of evolution starts. In semiotic terms: the
protonarrative actualisations - these are the projective or protopsychic actualizations –
are very relevant in the evolution of a “social” in the ethological sense, and of the
dream with the soul and the psyche. We can see the biological evolution as the
protonarrative capacity and the evolution of culture as the narrative capacity.
In the model presented by John Whitewater the anorganic systems are not codified but
structured only. First with the primitive intentional biological systems the code concept
starts to make sense. Consequentely John Whitewater distinguishes three code qualities:
primary, secondary and tertiary codes – or, more in general: biological,
ethological/social and culture.
Further the model knows two realities, the first and the second reality. The first reality
contains all the coded or not-coded structured systems that are not born in dream,
play, psychological deviances etc., this is: those that are not born in “sign processes”.
These capacities form the second reality.
Even ancient artifacts show this opposition of “nature” and “not-nature”, elaborated in
the Gnostic distinction between the “uncreated” and the “self created”
It is obviously that all three code layers interact in human beings and lift them
successively up from the first reality and ascends them to the second, or, as
EdwinaTaborsky explains: from inertia to entropy. We exist within a threefold world and
have to balance between inertia and entropy. We cannot annihilate one ore more of
these codes to the benifit of the other/s.
Primary codes are very close to inertia and apply homogenous terms in the “explication”
of both realties.

6
All spheres have typical and semipermeable membranes to protect their interiors of
entropic or inertial dissipation. On the layer of the primary codes are the lipo-proteid
membranes; the secondary codes or the “ethological social” – including camouflage,
mimikry, deception, pretend to be dead etc. -, and the tertiary codes, that is the sign
processes. From the primary to the tertiary code the mebranes become increasingly
more abstract, and at the tertiary layer the membranes are entirely symbolic and
textual.
In physical terms we could say that “signs” are a certain actualization of “force” and
“energy”. In accordance with the physicists we find the potential of force and energy in
the “physical vacuum” or “quantum vacuum”, a non-local, virtual and universal sub-
state.
Many native peoples - and the Celtic and Germanic peoples as well - know myths
dealing with “flesh” and “bone”. The “flesh” was seen as a dreamlike non-local
structure lacking some kind of skeleton or “bone”. This bone is the original god, the one
who gave structure to the world, the first word, the “logos”. Logos transmitted the
inner monologue by narration to another level - as Wendy Doniger put it:
“Yet narrative does not function in dreams precisely as it functions in myth. The
compelling causative sequence of events is absent from dreams; the thread of the plot is
replaced by a pattern of images that suggest but never actually spell out the story. For
this reason, too, proofs cannot be accomplished within dreams, for proofs depend upon
the skeletal structure of cause and result that dreams lack. Myths add to dreams
precisely the structure that makes such seeming proofs possible.”
But what then is “logos”? Is it simply a means to domesticate and objectify the dreamy
flesh in the in another essay discussed top-down manner?
As the Egyptian god Osiris was cut up into 14 pieces by Seth-Typhon, Osiris’s wife and
sister Isis mourned for a long time, searching the scattered parts of his body. Finally she
found all parts of the body, except the penis of Osiris.
But it was not the penis that she did not find, but more precisely the penis bone.
Differently from other mammals human males do not possess penis bones.The “Os
Penis”, “Baculum” or “Os Priapi”, is the penis bone of certain mammals. The baculum is
one of several heterotropic skeletal elements – i.e., bones dissociated from the rest of
the body skeleton. It is found in all insectivores (i.e., shrews, hedgehogs), bats, rodents,
and carnivores and in all primates except humans. Such wide distribution suggests that it
appeared early in mammalian evolution. The lack of this bone - or better: the probably
comparative realization of the lack - in the Osris myth, which is known as the “myth of
the dying god” - that was godfather to the later Jewish, Christian and Islamic myths -,
designates certain changes in mythology.
To think the loss as an evolutionary advantage in a Darwinian sense is absurd, because a
reliable means was changed for a labile one in this case. Biologist Burghard Mueller
concludes:
„To be soul there where others are pleased with a skeleton is a hard lot and cannot
mean any evolutionary progress. “
This sentence clearly knocks at the doors of anthropology, psychology and myth analysis
by introducing the out of biological discourse term “soul”. A soul is usually interpreted
as an u-topia, a non-topos, this is: it has no place in within the “real” world of material

7
facts where anything has time, space and locality. Thus the loss of the bone signifies a
loss of locality and of certainty therefore.
To relocate themselves our ancestors invented a second, an inner non-local reality to
compensate the loss. In anthropological terms we can say that they added a new “bone”
(this is: a myth instead the bone as skeleton structure) to the the dreamlike “flesh” of
the gods: they gave shape and inner structure to this heavenly flesh, made it incarnating
and moving in the outside reality.
And, in doing so, they invented - beside man and woman - a third and entirely cultural
sexus, the shaman, as mediator and embodiment of conceptual consciousness.
Most relevant to get a glance at and an idea of the concept is to examine the relation of
the Egyptian god Geb and the goddess Nu(it). Geb stands for the earth and Nuit for the
starry sky, the heaven, the cosmos. She often is formed like a bow with her husband
stretching out under her with an erected penis. The realtion between the both was
regulated by the god Shu, this is the wind.
Around 500 B.C. the philosopher Anaxagoras summarized the then state of the art of
narration and sciences when he writes that “the air and the ether… just are separated.”
It seems as justified to conclude that before wind, ether and spirit were treated as one
and the same element. No 5th element or “quinta essentia” was known until then. This
idea of the self-finding (or better “re-self-finding”) of spirit clearly implies pre-Gnostic
considerations.
Every year the Egyptians urgently needed the Nile flood to keep their country fertile.
The flood was accompanied by certain rituals and stood in coincidental context with the
star Sirius. But they did not saw the Nile flood as an effect of the river Nile, but as the
fertilization of the earth through the heavenly waters of Nuit. Only Nuit was seen as
having the power to re-increase the earthy waters, this is: she inseminated her husband
every year again. The parts of Geb’s body were seen as the mountains and plains jutting
out of the water. The penis was a plant, that must be tended, supplied with water and
protected to stay errected to give a good harvest.
The male deity was seen as the passive and receiving part in this yearly hieros gamos,
regulated by a third force, Shu, only, that played a significiant role in lifting up and
getting down the body of Nuit. This is: who regulated the force Shu could regulate the
intensity and the result of the intercourse. The one who could do so was called Thoth,
the moon god of magic, science and scripture, the patron of all later alchymists and
scientists who knew him better by his later Greek or Roman names, Hermes Trismegistos
(with whom he merged during the Alexandrian syncretism) or Mercury (often declined to
a god of merchants in the profane Roman Empire of imperialistic commerce, fortified by
tyranny and slavery). As an alchymist (Thoth) applying the bellows (Shu) he became
something like the alchemy icon as such.
The early Egyptian alchemy departed from two elements, “heavenly waters” (Nuit) and
“earth” (Geb), that were in a state of confusion and chaos (tohuwabohu) in the very
beginning. They knew very well that there was no possibility to dissolve one of the
elements into the other, and the tohuwabohu was seen as a mixture with the tendency
to separate finally. But the Egyptians needed the yearly repitition of this game of
mixture and separation to keep their land fertile. This world view condensed into the
alchemist motto “solve et coagula” in contrast to the later Roman “divide et impera” of
the more or less absolute earthy and heavenly rulers.

8
It is quite surprising to find remnants of the Nuit-Geb-Shu-conception in many different
cultures, e.g. the rainbow snake oft the Australian Aboriginies, the Indian couple of Kali
and Shiva, the Yoruba gods Odua, Obtala and Eshu, the Germanic conception of Nott,
Mannaz and Tsiu (the Celtic Teutates) etc. It is obviously that many of these concepts
corrupted through the millennia.
In Lower Saxony, near the City of Wildeshausen, a ship-shaped Stone Age rock monument
(probably errected between 4000 - 3000 BC) can be visited where a certain rock attracts
particular attention. It lies on another stone table and is obviously processed in a special
manner. Departing from an almost flat and round rock of about 1,50 m in diameter, the
ancient artists/explorers created a broken shape by removing two triangular rock pieces
from the left and the right side (see below) of the structure. This way they got two
similar shaped halfs that they provided with drill holes, one hole in the “above” half,
and two holes in the “below” half.

The whole structure is suggestive of the stool of Pythia; from her is said that she sat on
a three-legged stool (a bronze tripod) above an abyss in order to get in trance and to
contemplate about present, past and future. Pythia bridged the abyss with her body and
soul and connected the separate halfs during her altered states of consciousness. Thus
she included the third or the middle that is separated or excluded in normal or every
day life, this is: it has no function in a “normal” and abstinent top-down order.
In general the Pythia is seen as the cardinal priestess at Apollo’s oracle in Delphi. But
the name Pythia comes from Python, this is the dragon that was slain by Apollo, and this
gives strong evidence that the Pythia originally was an office originating in the cult of
Gaia (earth). Python’s death at the hand of Apollo then symbolized a change in oracles
at Delphi. This is, she developed into a vehicle of Apollo’s will to be known to those on
earth.
Some mythic traditions say that Pythia’s trance was induced by vapors from a chasm
below the temple (the abyss), or from chewing “laurel” leaves. Functioning as a
middleman, a priest would interpret the Pythia’s response for the questioner.
The “Homeric Hymn to Pythian Aopllo” is an excellent source for the story of Apollo
founding the temple at Delphi “anew” and his intention to
“welcome the tribes of mankind who gather here, and tell them most important of all,
what will is”
but it makes no mention of the Pythia.
Theognis is the first to mention the Pythia, and the second is Aeschylus in his play
“Eumenides”. The first two lines of Eumenides open with the prophetess’s reference to
Gaia as the original god of the temple at Delphi.

9
A Participant Universe

The “participant-observation-concept” (PO) of anthropology was not pre-constructed

but emerged in fieldwork. What anthropologists defined as “specified targets” were
ethnicites that already were examined by preceding researchers without using PO.
The problem did not arise while visiting undiscovered terrains and ethnic groups, but
these possibilities were and are extremly rare. But if a researcher wants to visit a
“known” terrain he has already studied all the preceding monographies before going into
the field practising PO. The former findings are not inevitably false and often are
reasonable.
10 to 20 years before physics anthropologists (and a few psychologists - if we take the
early Freud into account) made the same “discovery” as the physicists did later. It is
interesting to compare the personal fieldwork diaries to the official publications. In
particular the case of Bronislaw Malinowski, the inventor of PO, is very interesting. Not
only the struggles of a paradigm change - similar to that in physics – are detectable, but
a gap between scientific work and standards on one hand and personal feelings,
emotions, music, philosophy, religion, love affairs, hate, drugs etc. on the other.
Seen from a physics perspective we could say that the “official findings” of Malinowski’s
research are equivalent to the already by “classical research” (Cartesian, Newtonian
etc. concepts) “specified targets”. It is obviously that these preceding specifications (or
measurements) obscured the view on entangled states; rather: the first layer of
“observation” or the “classical approach” in both cases did not describe any factual
material substratum (“material culture”, objects, celestial bodies, atoms) but simply set
this layer - that is a concept in deed - as basic.
For a long time many anthropologists tried - ordered by government or (mining) industry
- to model the “primitive ethnicities” along our “image of man”- just like the biblical
god who served as modelling frame here. So they looked for what they called
“reasonable standards” to implement strategies of “indirect rule”, using the traditional
institutions and structures to erode the ethnicities and make them adapted to the
dubious Western top-down standards (Christianity, “slave work” etc.).
Even if the researchers did not know what “mind”, “spirit”, “soul” etc. were, they
settled their own minds on the top of a functional hierarchy with the aim to isolate and
understand “objects” that could be useful as resources with the aim to increase some
vague productivity.

10
PO and the corresponding physical concepts led to a breakdown of this “classical
interface” between subject and object.
In etymological perspective “subject” means “the subdued”, and “object” means “the
presented”. Thus the “classical researcher” is a subject of certain concepts and of
nations and states; he is subdued to god, governments etc.
As a young student Albert Einstein lived with the linguist Jost Winteler’s (1864-1929)
family in Aarau, Switzerland. Daily discussions with Winteler made Einstein familiar with
Winteler’s linguistic concepts about relativity and invariance that were the basis of his
linguistic theory.
For some time Einstein experimented with both terms in order to name his own
emerging theory. In a letter written in the year 1901 to Winteler Einstein “branded” the
German “authority-fluke” as the greatest enemy of truth, and just before his death he
admired once again his Aarau teachers that they “never relied on any external
authority”.
This is that Einstein and his teachers doubted the classically prescribed localities of
subject and object that arose within the monotheistic process with focus on an absolute
standpoint out of creation.
The historical roots of this standpoint are to find in the works of Socrates (episteme),
Plato (definitions, “realm of ideas”) and Augustine. In this process God increasingly
withdrew from the entire creation, leaving it as an “object” in toto or as partial objects
of an inaccessible realm beyond. Only the substitutes of this realm, such as rulers,
priests and “absolute monarchs”, were direct subjects to the absolute.
But with the historical disappearance or deprivation of these representatives the
absolute positions did not vanish at all; instead the sciences, democratizing politics etc.
only and simply plopped into the vacuum the absolute positions left. This way all the
achievements of the bourgois and proletarian revolutions can be seen as “given” from
above, as constituted in top-down processes that intercepted the bottom-up emergences
– sometimes violently - at for the “top” just bearable stages with the aim to maintain
the subject-object-concept.
This concept was of enormous relevancy in the process of nation building. It is
interesting to take the relatively young German nation state here as example. Hugo
Hoffmann von Fallersleben wrote the “Song of the Germans” (todays national hymn) in
1841 on the island of Heligoland.
This was exatly the same red rock in the North Sea where Werner Heisenberg found his
uncertainty principle in 1925 and postulated while climbing a thin red rock needle
named “Lange Anna” (Tall Anna):
“The more precisely the POSITION is determined, the less precisely the MOMENTUM is
known.”
Einstein’s “relativity theory” and Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” were the triggers
to break with the subject-object-concept in the discourse universes of some natural
sciences.
Seen in this light the monomaniac “super-nation” of Nazi-Germany was nothing more
than a dangerous farce and regress into the futurisms of the 18 th and 19th century that
long since belonged to the past. But Einstein and Heisenberg did far more than that:
they withdrew the absolute locus from any anchor ground, be it in macro or micro

11
cosmos. Instead their successors found structures that mocked any until then imagined
reality.
Already in a 1925 published article Waldemar Bogoras started to compare Einstein’s
findings (and Minkowski’s, Mach’s, Umov’s etc.) and implications to shamanic world
conceptions that he had studied in etnhological fieldwork among the Siberian Chukchee
and other peoples of Northeast Asia.
He came to the conclusion that the physicists while putting their equations into concrete
form “they closely resembled shamanistic stories and descriptions”.
Primitive people perceive the world through what he called “an ideological lens”; this is
that “supernatural forces” that must kept in check by using magic; witchcraft and ritual
are the “rulers” of a multi-layered universe full of invisible spirits. Only shamans and
these spirits can move freely between the different dimensions of that universe.
Spirits and shamans are no constant and invariant qualities but they differ relatively. As
Antoine Giraud points out:
“Simply put, attacking spirits grow to large proportions and vanquished spirits diminish.
It can be said that people and spirits reside in different “systems” which act and react
against each other in a kinetic fashion. This corresponds to a physics formula in which
the size of bodies belonging to separate systems are determined by the differential
motion and velocity of these systems.”
Also the perception of experiencing a prolongued sequence of events within a short
time-span occurs in a shamanistic trance. The shaman is ostensibly able to complete a
long journey to a spirit world within the short period of his trance. This phenomenon is
similar to another formula of physics: There exists no absolute time.
Moreover, Bogoras stated: “our dreams are palaeolithic”.
He deduced that modern physics developed to the primitive conceptions of space, time
and dualism analogous concepts that as well coincide with dream-world elements.
Antoine Giraud:
“These primitive concepts are also found in hallucinations, drug or alcohol induced
visions, schizophrenia, hypnotical suggestions, children’s play and in the “double
consciousness” of actors, poets and novelists. The same elements of space and time are
found in primitive art.”
Bu there are good reasons to doubt Bogoras’s main hypothesis, that primitive ideas
“mirror” modern ones because people all have identical cognitive faculties of
perception. Since that would really be so, the subject-object-opposition (with “absolute
monarchy”, slavery, fascism, democracy, socialism, capitalism, communism, economy
etc.) never would have had come into existence.
I would characterize our recent state between capitalism and communism as “adult
state” of a certain type of living social systems, the mass or inertia type. The multi-
layered world model is not valid here; instead an explosive mixture, a vaguely codified
centralized chaos (tohuwabohu) is effective. And, the respective center wants to be
mirrored in any theory or praxis, slowing down any individual intention or self-dynamics
close to zero.
Pioneers like Einstein, Malinowski, Bogoras, Heisenberg, Pauli, Freud, Jung, Lethbridge,
Cantor, Lévi-Strauss, Marshack and Griaule among many others may have foreseen that
and started more or less scientifically to destroy the games of “mind” and “body”,

12
subject and object, god and man, master and slave, white and black, man and woman,
man and animal, heaven and hell.
With them some kind of pedomorphosis - that went far back the Nazi futurism farce -
started to avoid an evolutionary dead end in the sense of Arthur Koestler. Now the
universe slowlely began to show an entirely different face, with vanishing reference
points, without upside or downside, inside or outside, small or large etc.

13
Flesh and Pilot Waves

With reference to the recent physical data we apparently can distinguish a “non-local
micro quantum vacuum” (with symmetric effects) and numerous “local macro quantum
vacua” (with asymmetric effects). This approach shows the so-called “classical layer” as
embedded between these both vacuum types that have much in common with states of
dreaming and thus moves us again very close to the primordial codification of dream,
myth and culture. Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss and philosopher Paul Feyerabend
informed us of these implications already in the 70s of the 20 th century. They came to
the conclusion that the “modern sciences” will become indistinguishable from mythology
some day. And here we enter the terrain of semiotics and cultural semiotics, especially
with their investigations of narrative structures.
The emergence of local signals or „elements“ from a non-local quantum state brings to
light local and relative “linear time”, this is: the classical layer. “Complex time”, with
its roots in rhythm- or dream-time, emerges during the evolution process within the

14
increasingly complex codification of “inner spaces”, starting with procarionts,
eucarionts etc. Finally the bodies, brains and consciousnesses of the mammals evolve.
Now the capacity to dream signifies a progressive virtualization of the interior – an
evolution from inertial “mass” to entropic “muse”-, that needs other forms of
organization than the relative objects of the “outside world” or very simple life forms.
And here we meet – according to the new physics – states of local macro quantum vacua
and the signal non-locality:
From structural studies in mythology we know, that our anthropoid ancestors escaped
the prehistoric semidarkness of ‘pre-space’ and ‘pre-time’ via a primordial dreamtime
type of codification by certain mythological operations of inversion, that added a
cognitive skeleton or frame to the diffuse ‘objective’ backgrounds that later enabled
elaborated derivations and concepts like space, time, fact and reality. But these
concepts stay interactively and processually interwoven with the primordial, non-local
or quantum states.
On the basis of these findings we can assume that the universe consists of several quasi
independent layers with their own special rules that are explicable in themselves. These
rules are: 1.) the rules of the micro quantum vacuum, 2.) the rules of the “classical
world”, followed by the evolution of life, and 3.) the rules of the macro quantum vacua.
An example can make the assertion explicit; in his essay “How to make our ideas clear”
(1877), Charles S. Peirce interpreted the essence of “force” in the following manner:
“Whether we ought to say that a force is an acceleration, or that it causes an
acceleration, is a mere question of propriety of language, which has no more to do with
our real meaning than the difference between the French idiom ”Il fait froid“ and its
English equivalent ”It is cold.“ Yet it is surprising to see how this simple affair has
muddled men’s minds. In how many profound treatises is not force spoken of as a
"mysterious entity,” which seems to be only a way of confessing that the author despairs
of ever getting a clear notion of what the word means! In a recent admired work on
Analytic Mechanics it is stated that we understand precisely the effect of force, but
what force itself is we do not understand! This is simply a self-contradiction. The idea
which the word force excites in our minds has no other function than to affect our
actions, and these actions can have no reference to force otherwise than through its
effects. Consequently, if we know what the effects of force are, we are acquainted with
every fact which is implied in saying that a force exists, and there is nothing more to
know.“
Thus Peirce concludes that “force” itself has no substratum, no basic layer, no mystic
originator or some kind of beyond that produces “force”. Instead “force” and its effects
are identical: force is its effects.
The advantage and actuality of this approach becomes obviously if we take into account
the again and again started efforts to collapse all layers of existence into one giant non-
local set and/or one single and unmoved mover.
On the basis of these simple but consistent considerations Edwina Taborsky proved that
exactly the same is valid for “energy”. Energy could never exist for itself but needs
forms of actualization. Edwina Taborsky states: “energy does not exist to be an atom, a
molecule, an organism etc., but energy only can exist being an atom, a molecule, an
organism etc.”

15
If we now take the human cosciousness in consideration we can formulate a similar
phrase: Consciousenss/Unconsciousness do not exist to be or to produce “signs” but can
exist as “signs” only. This is: Consciousness and Unconsciousness are “sign processes”
(semioses) and “sign spaces” (semiospheres), this is semiocities or: “muses”:
David Finkelstein pointed out, that “we must shift this interface to unify them; we
introduce a metaphoric extra-cosmic quantum experimenter. This also introduces a
higher-order quantum logic, in which laws of one level are quantum variables of the
next.
If we interpret ‘law’ as the actualized, coded or stabilising reproductive information of
certain levels of codification, and the on each successive level ‘higher-order quantum
logic’ as ‘potential information’, then we gain a model of ‘narrative evolution’, similar
to that one used in certain semiotic approaches. The “metaphoric extra-cosmic quantum
experimenter” would be something like a final cause in the sense of Aristotle or, so to
say, our selves in the future. This new higher-order quantum need not inevitably act as
analogous to those non-local and symmetric micro quantum states physicists or perhaps
contemplatives so far studied, but could be of a very different, a new quality, possibly
some kind of macro quantum state Basil Hiley imagined.
Symmetrizations are ‘saturated states’ and show that the coded structure - to which the
symmetrized quantum state as ‘horizon of expectation’ or final cause belongs - has no
possibility or intention for evolution. These symmetrizations for instance are vitally
important to keep the internal organisation of our bodies - to allow actions and re-
actions within the different levels of codes - coherent, but they are detrimental to all
creative processes.
Humans, as I suppose, emerged within the dreams of apelike ancestors. These dreams
and the following myths are the missing links that connect us to the animal kingdom as
well as to the realms of mind and spirit. In this view we are the final causes or ‘realized
quantum’ states of those ancestors.”
Consequentely there is no originator of signs on older, higher or lower levels, but the
originators of the signs are the signs themselves. This is: if we study the effects, the
relations of signs and texts etc., we study consciousness itself.
The cardinal defect of the “classical sciences” - classical physics, biology, neurology etc.
- and the presently leading confessions was/is the search for this originator, the
primordial cause or an unmoved mover far outside the realm of signs; not forseeing of
being trapped in the inertia type. The holy scriptures talk about a first light, sign, word
etc. that is the creator god. But this “light” is no effect of atoms, discharging synapses
or of the sub-states of the primordial physical universe, but an effect of the “sign
universe”, the birth of muses, myths and consciousness, the relative but in metric sense
dimensionless principles of the web of signs.
Just in oppposition the emergence of the primordial physical universe is a completely
different matter. At the end of the 19th century Charles S. Peirce knew nothing of a
“quantum vacuum”, but he showed that no “innermost” or “basis” of the universe could
explain the rules of the layers within any actual universe.
First scientists of the 20th century revealed the possibility of the quantum vacuum and
we know Erwin Schrödinger’s famous “quantum cat”. In his mathematical example a cat
is locked up in a black box that includes a capsule with poison. The poison will be
released by a quantum process. And now Schrödinger asked his students to calculate if

16
the cat is dead or alive after a certain period. No answer is possible because the cat is
dead or alive or both simultanously with the same probability, independent of the
duration of the period.
Our only possibilty to get certainty is to open the box. But with this operation we
transmit the experience of the “realm of locality” and the “realm of signs” with their
own probabilities, special rules and “intentions”.
And here this question arises: could that non-local potential not be the origin of
consciousness or sign processes – resp.: could it be the consciousness itself? Today’s
physicists do not share a common opinion and we roughly can distinguish two relevant
groups: the symmetricists and the asymmetricists. The symmetricists depart from the
assumption of a “total universe”, trying to find the already mentioned TOE, the theory
of everything, finally. But they periodically come into trouble if they are asked to
explain the evolution of life. They see us surrounded and interspersed by a symmetric
meta state, locked up in a total synchrony. In this model any diachrony finally must
dissolve within the synchrony of mortal states or an universal micro quantum vacuum.
The origin of this horizon of expectation is a result of their search for the “universal
laws”, the integral of all or the world formula, valid for all layers of existence.
More interesting from a semiotic and evolutionary perspective are the asymmetricists.
Here I see more or less esteemed researchers like Basil Hiley, the late David Bohm, David
Ritz Finkelstein, Jack Sarfatti etc.
The physics-artist Jack Sarfatti, some kind of an “enfant terrible” in the community of
physicists denies the possibilty that any symmetrical universe could be origin and aim of
consciousness, and says:
“We are trying to explain the emergence of consciousness in open complex material
systems, not in equilibrium on any level! Consciousness in the physical vacuum would be
Hawking’s "Mind of God”
The symmetrical possibilty of the non-local vacuum shows an equilibrium in Sarfatti’s
sense. First with “open complex material systems” and their very different rules energy
actualizes to become “conscious” finally. Hawking’s God is a possibility of the later in
evolution following “narrative codification” but by no means an entity of the primordial
universe.
Physics departs from the hypothese that the most primordial state of our cosmos ist the
“non-local quantum vacuum”. This micro vacuum (QM) likewise is the oldest state and
the permanent basis and source of our present physical reality. This is: non-local, virtual
and potential processes “self-emit” local particles that form the bodies, the structures
and real or actual systems – the atoms, the molecules, the stellar bodies and the beings.
In the language of physics we can speak about the “signal locality” of these bodies that
are in certain relative motions with one another.
To get actualized the virtual particles need light, or more abstract, particles of the class
of the Bosons. If we open the imaginary black box we do exactly that: we let light into
the box and stop the accidental processes. In reality bosons emit in the vacuum - per so-
called “black body radiation” - accidentally and sponatnously.
A signal in the physical sense is not a gesture or a traffic signal, but a measurable
extension or quantity that signifies an object with a locality resp. a relative motion or
acceleration. All beings – including the physicists with their equipment – measure these
localities by a codification process that forms information departing from signals.

17
We can already observe that the passages between non-locality and signal locality /
information are not consistently explainable without concept and obviously show
ruptures and saltos. In Taborsky’s interpretation the gaps or “clefts” between the three
layers function as borders, limits or buffers that separate the layers. This way the
buffers protect the regions of signal locality and information against the inertial
dissipation and allow very stable forms of reality. And more: the ruptures and gaps
between the localities are the typical character of the universe of “signal locality”. Here
Leibnitz’s idea to describe living beings as “windowless monads” arises by transfering
the characteristics of the isolated objects of signal locality to conscious beings with
their “open” and “asymmetric” codification
For these reasons we cannot say that the reality of atoms or micro quanta constitutes
us. We emerge within an evolutionary process and the later possibility to constitute
various conceptual orders is a result of this process.
Human consciousness or sign processes are a reality for and in themselves, an
“indicative mood” with very special rules. We meet these rules since the primordial
times of man in dream, play, myths and rituals, in works of art, shamanic plasmations,
religions, philosophies and scientific theories, utopias, ideologies and fictions, texts, the
virtuality of contemporary media, including the computers and the internet, and, in
coming time perhaps in “artificial thinking” and “artificial intellectuality”.
These activities are narrative processes; they do not only tell stories, but the humans
live within these stories as well. This is: at first glance the humans live there only, but a
closer look shows that all the organic and anorganic world that came and comes into
contact with humans will end up there eventually. Or, in the words of Anaxagoras:
“For all parts is valid that no one is totally separated and distinguished from the others,
except the spirit. Because the spirit is self-similar (completely identical), both in the big
and in the small.”

18