Science, Unification Thought and a Post-Materialist Era

Science, even physics, has in recent years moved much closer to Unification Thought, which certainly places life, especially human life, as the center of the universe.

The over-specialization of the past meant that an astronomer well-versed in planetary astronomy may know almost nothing about the research of the early universe astronomer in the office next door. However a concerted effort to encourage interdisciplinary research over the last two decades has brought about a newly-integrated understanding within science, a much more comprehensive picture that incorporates many diverse fields.

As a result of the rapid pace of discoveries in biology in particular, the importance of life and the recognition of much more about the mechanisms of evolution have changed our thinking of the role of life and consciousness.

Books such as Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe by Robert Lanza have been transformational, especially in allowing the average academic to feel more confident in publishing on controversial topics. Philosophy is experiencing an upsurge with the popularity of panpsychism, and old philosophers long overlooked have experienced a revival in popularity, as the themes of their writings have become the themes of today’s science.

In early December, a conference entitled “The Primacy of Consciousness” was convened under a partnership between the Galileo Commission, the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Science, the Institute of Noetic Sciences, and the Scientific and Medical Network in the UK. Scientists and thinkers of all varieties gathered virtually to discuss consciousness from their own perspectives as physicists, biologists, psychologists, etc. There was a strong feeling among the 700 participants that we are finally witnessing the breakthrough to a new paradigm.

The very basis of Unification Thought is precisely the new paradigm toward which science is moving.

Current physics describes the universe as consisting of inert particles of matter, following universal laws. Physics within consciousness ascribes meaning and purpose to the particles themselves, regarding the laws of physics as having been brought into being over time by the habit-producing choices of particles and organisms. This clearly allows for the human to be a co-creator, to have actual free will within the created universe, in accordance with Unification Thought.

Since the 1990s, there have been many scientists whose patience with the endless strings of String Theory, and the highly complex mathematics required by a physics that seemed impervious to observations, has reached its limit. Twenty-first century physics is starting to seriously question its foundational assumptions.

Groups of scientists began the Fundamental Questions Institute, the Perimeter Institute, and others, and the Internet has allowed for research papers with themes that would never have made it into the prestigious journals of the day. In defiance of the unspoken edict that a scientist must do everything possible to exclude the idea of purpose or design from models of reality, underground stealth interviews have demonstrated that a large percentage of scientists are in fact surreptitiously religious in their personal views.

The 19th century showcased the doctrine of evolution as the way out of needing a God. The 20th century also saw a powerful attempt on the part of the Positivist movement to limit all knowledge to that which could be obtained via sense perception only, thereby specifically excluding any possibility of meaning within the universe.

A Unificationist would not reject all 20th century physics. In quantum physics for instance the projection of the atom from a potential state into a real state would appear to require human consciousness in some sense, but an intentional cocreation would be a step further than quantum physics was willing to contemplate. Quantum physics has not yet come up with (or even sought) a mechanism by which the material world might be connected causally to the intent of the conscious mind, and yet that is a concept that would not be antithetical to Unification Thought.

Special Relativity was based on the observed fact that the speed of light in a vacuum was always the same, independent of the speed of the emitting source of that light, and also on the concept of the independence of the laws of physics from the frame of reference of the observer. At that time, there was a strong reaction from philosophers and physicists alike. Much of the reaction focused on the nature of time in Einstein’s universe, and its complete divorce from the actual human experience of time, the existence of the now, the experience of flux. Special Relativity rejected the concept of absolute time, the sort of time that one might read off the clock in “God’s office,” permeating the whole universe simultaneously, which Newton had embraced.

It led to the “twin paradox,” today a staple of science fiction and movies like “Interstellar.” Clearly the thought that an astronaut who goes off traveling close to the speed of light will find his twin aged by 50 years when he returns two years later is a challenging concept, and there was much resistance to its acceptance at the time.

To a Unificationist, this concept remains highly challenging, since it puts into direct contradiction two human values, the desire to travel and explore a universe which is there just calling to us, and the desire to experience loving relationships with one’s family and community. It is not conducive to love of family to have to simply miss most of a lifetime with family members should one want to indulge in space travel.

Einstein defined a method of measuring time (epistemology) by synchronizing clocks locally, subject to certain equations of transformation (known as Lorentz equations), and then proceeded to draw (ontological) conclusions. This quantity delivers different opinions, for instance on whether two events are simultaneous, a major point of contention for the French philosopher Henri Bergson, who felt that a model that dismissed human experience could in no way be complete, and that is the essence of the current objections to today’s physics: the exclusion of the human experience as meaningful.

Special Relativity is concerned with what can be measured. The Positivist movement centered on Vienna early last century was insistent on confining reality to that which can be experienced, intentionally and specifically excluding anything else as being meaningless metaphysical speculation. Einstein had become an unwitting hero of the Positivists by basing his theory on a quantity he called “t,” defined epistemologically by a measurement technique. Metaphysical speculation was thereby excluded. However, later in response to a query about why he didn’t like the epistemological approach, Einstein replied, “Perhaps I did use such philosophy earlier, and also wrote it, but it is nonsense all the same.” Einstein was not one to confine himself by people’s expectations of consistency!

The 20th century had seen axioms and proofs, the techniques of Euclidean geometry, take the place of scientific intuition, certainly in tandem with the positivist orientation. Einstein himself had in fact accomplished what some called the “geometrization of space and time.” In General Relativity all of reality exists at once, free will and choice are an illusion. We don’t affect the universe at all, we simply experience the pre-determined reality around us, passing through reality instead of affecting, let alone co-creating, it. General Relativity, like Newtonian physics, is a deterministic theory.

The mystery of consciousness and mystery of existence are deeply connected, and today there are a number of respected physicists and philosophers who take this possibility seriously. This documentary explores the possible connection between these two great mysteries.(Courtesy metaRising channel)

Kurt Godel, who himself frequented cafes with the Vienna Circle positivists, actually proved that intuitive concepts like time cannot be defined by formal methods. Just to make very sure his conclusions could not be rejected, he used precisely the methods of formal proof that the positivists so extolled. His motivation was to distinguish between “proof” and “truth.” Proof is determined within a system of axioms, but a universe so defined could have no room for meaning or an intuitive sense of truth, and Godel was absolutely sure of the existence of truth itself. It later emerged from his unpublished papers that he believed in idealism, in spirit, in God, although he did not write of this publicly during his lifetime.

After the Second World War, Godel and Einstein could be seen walking together every day through the streets of Princeton, NJ, where both were fellows of the Institute of Advanced Study, and despite Einstein’s achievements in physics, which in many ways rested on a base unacceptable to Godel, they seemed to have greatly enjoyed each other’s company. As a birthday present to Einstein, Godel published a paper detailing a solution to Einstein’s equations that explicitly allowed for the existence of paths enabling the space traveler to reach an effect before its cause, again a huge challenge to the theory, but received with interest by Einstein.

Meanwhile a process approach, primarily that of Alfred North Whitehead, which emphasizes meaning and purpose, had essentially been excluded from consideration for much of the 20th century. Physicists had decided that philosophy was essentially unnecessary for science at some point early last century, to some degree in response to clashes between the philosopher Bergson and Einstein over the notions of time and simultaneity.

Where Bergson argued that time could not be understood solely within the quantitative, scientific perspective, Whitehead’s science and philosophy is enjoying an unprecedented revival today among post-materialist scientists because of his emphasis on the intrinsic value and experience of the organism, as opposed to matter as inert meaningless particles, a similar theme.

Whitehead’s Process Thought restores to science the focus on the emergence and intrinsic value of the organism, with the actual experience of the human as primary. In Whitehead’s thought, everything moves toward those characteristics that give rise to a greater capacity to exist and relate, perception, awareness, reproduction, sentience, volition, growth, etc., providing the stable foundation upon which a greater joy can be experienced.

Over time, organisms evolve through the choices they make on the basis of what comes before, immediately presented via the consciousness within which all organisms have their being. The most likely choice for the lower organisms is to continue on with the prevailing pattern, but there exists also within all beings the inherent drive towards the manifestation of meaning, and towards the characteristics of life.

Physics within consciousness then sees the evolution of structure in the early universe as akin to the establishment of mycorrhizal networks of fungi, which are underground networks connecting individual plants in a vast “super-organism.” In fact, many astronomers have noted the similarity of the large scale structure of the universe to the network of nerves and synapses in a brain, and the emergence of structure can be likened to the emergence of the brain of an infant, gradually forming a neural network as the infant experiences growth.

Unification Thought regards purpose based on heart as the organizing factor that determines the choices for the nature of reality. Specifically, the purpose of the universe is joy, since God is a God of heart and love, and every choice for the design of the universe is to facilitate the experience of joy, both for God and for humanity. Within Process Thought, God is seen as changing and growing along with the universe. Whitehead agrees that everything has both a mental and physical pole, just as stated in the Principle of Creation. However, Whitehead by no means rejected science; in fact he created his own version of Relativity based on his Process Thought, which was very similar to Einstein’s.

There is no thought that the scientific knowledge of today is irrelevant and wrong, but it certainly lacks a cohesive philosophical base, which has led to such a plethora of potential models with no way to distinguish between them. With a philosophical basis more aligned with the true purpose of the universe, we may be able to make more sense of our multitudinous models and the infinite multiverse that current astronomers are offering us.

Given that astrophysicists now realize they have been studying a mere 4% of the universe until now, the remaining 96% consisting of still-unidentified Dark Matter and Dark Energy, we can say with confidence this is a time of general recognition we are in a paradigm change. And it seems to be finally going towards a science that can recognize the value and role of the human, and for many people, the existence of some kind of afterlife realm, which has no problem finding a location in a science that has parallel universes and higher dimensions.

This is absolutely the time when science and Unification Thought should be developed and shown to be the visionary philosophy it undoubtedly is.♦

Alison Wakelin (UTS Class of 1989) is Senior Lecturer in Physics and Astronomy at Widener University in Chester, Pennsylvania. She is also currently the Town Chair of Ardentown, Delaware. She earned an M.A. in Astrophysics from Princeton University, and previously taught math and science for ten years on U.S. Army bases in South Korea.

24 thoughts on “Science, Unification Thought and a Post-Materialist Era

Add yours

  1. Dear Alison,

    Thank you for your insightful article. Yes, I believe you are right to highlight the brain-like structure of the universe. Also useful is your insight that such an intentional universe would then impart intention and meaningful purpose to all living organisms. How else can this come about?

    However, I perceive challenges to linking such a worldview to the current models used in Unification thought. For example, if a person is intentional in their creation, certain clear steps need to be followed for a person to have the best chance of achieving their goal. However, as far as I can see, Unification thought doesn’t clearly elucidate the ‘principles of creation’. Successful organizations and individuals consistently use these principles in order to achieve their goals — and probably all living organisms, too. However, I do not see how these principles fit into the current models that UT works with. Also, if there is a caring, transcendent mind empowering the universe — radiating out into all organisms — then one needs a relatively clear understanding of the different textures of God’s love — and why these textures are essential in the continued existence, sustainability, and developmental aspirations of each organism. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see these questions having been answered by UT. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Thank you for keeping us updated.

    1. Unification Thought doesn’t fully answer many such questions, and that’s why I think this would be a good time for Unificationists to work on UT and science. Science is seriously looking at its philosophical base right now, we have some good input.

  2. Excellent work, Alison. I think this framework between the secular and sacred is needed now, especially for the professional class of second gen Unificationists. Their immersion in the professional world cuts off the possibility of First Cause. This helps make a bridge for them.

  3. Alison,

    Nice job on this piece! I’ve recently been pondering some of the questions and issues you raise here. I’d like to address one claim you made in the piece: “The very basis of Unification Thought is precisely the new paradigm toward which science is moving.”

    I think the sheer number of metaphysical assumptions, theological presuppositions, and polemical arguments embedded in Dr. Lee’s UT book, make for a hard case to claim UT as an actual philosophical thought system and “the new paradigm toward which science is moving.”

    1. I think my comment is best taken on an intuitive basis. You are correct, but I guess intuitively the direction within science seems like the direction UT is pointing. UT is somewhat like you say here at the moment, but that can’t bury the core of truth and love at its base.

  4. Thank you, Alison. The paradigm change you are citing in science is, I believe, happening in the social sciences and philosophy as well.

    Science without purpose and meaning is like the social sciences and philosophy without the quest for truth. The relativism of the “post-truth world” in critical theory, which follows from logical positivism, shows that studying what is — be it material or human — is not enough. The consciousness associated with the transcendence of the observed is like moving from the growth stage to the completion stage in the sciences.

    In UT this is a dangerous time because it is the stage of growth in which the “fall” occurred. We see scientists tempted by money in their research, and we hear advertising for new drugs and vaccines that we do not know if we can trust or not. Thus, while we are witnessing a hopeful period of scientific consciousness arriving, we also witness the dangers that come with “the false preceding the true.”

  5. Alison,

    Thank you for this article. The issue of bringing together science and spirituality is such a core issue, and an integral part of the vision of Divine Principle. I am grateful you bring the area up for discussion. You point out a feeling of immanent paradigm change that is present in the field. I share that sense of immanent change, that we are indeed living at a pivot point of fundamental change.

    A, perhaps, the, central issue is the role of consciousness, as you point out. The role of consciousness in the universe has not been integral to the development of contemporary science, and integrating science and spiritually cannot avoid this point. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin offers some interesting insights in this regard. Just as in Divine Principle, he regards particles themselves as being half spiritual. That is he suggests they have a “psychic within.” Divine Principle says they have sungsang. He then stresses the importance of complexity in a system. In systems of sufficient complexity he proposes that there is a transition where the fragmentary “within” of the particles become whole in a living being. A form of consciousness emerges.

    Consciousness in this sense would then be pervasive in the universe at many different scales from the smallest single-celled organisms to planetary and maybe even larger scales. Emergence is such a key concept in this regard and, as you say, “… the emergence of structure [in the universe] can be likened to the emergence of the brain of an infant, gradually forming a neural network as the infant experiences growth.”

    1. This is similar to Whitehead’s thinking. So where would be the difference between the models of Whitehead and Teilhard de Chardin in terms of consciousness? Do you find one preferable over the other?

      1. Whitehead characterized all of [Western] philosophy as footnotes to Plato. In this he was correct and, for me, he is important precisely because he shows there is a viable alternative. Process Theology then provides an alternative to the ontology of substances found in theology and philosophy rooted in Plato. However, for me, the concept of “process” seems to imply some “thing” that is in process. How you get “things” from “process” is not obvious and the thought is notoriously difficult to grasp.

        My intuition here was guided by Divine Principle, and I did not explore Process Thought in depth. So I cannot comment directly on Whitehead’s view of consciousness. However, I do have some generalizations. In thought derived from Plato, consciousness can exist by itself, or, in Divine Principle terms, sungsang can exist separately from hyungsang. In Divine Principle, this does not occur. Sungsang and hyungsang are both characteristics of a particle, one “thing,” and do not exist separately from each other. Even God has both sungsang and hyungsang, so is not just disembodied consciousness.

        This has consequences for my perspective on contemporary work to bring science and spirituality together. Everything I have seen assumes sungsang can exist separately from hyungsang. I may be wrong, but I think Whitehead falls into this category, as does the popular conception of the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. Even Teilhard de Chardin eventually takes this path in his thought. However, if we revisit his ontology from the perspective of Divine Principle we can arrive at a different view.

        1. David,

          For Whitehead the fundamental unit of consciousness is described as “a drop of experience.” Each moment of “concrescence” involves the inclusion and dissolving of the past and the “prehension” of the future. He does not say that consciousness exists independent of material so much as our knowing is based on our consciousness. In that sense, consciousness is in the subject position. He did not deny the material or declare consciousness was possible without it, because consciousness is tied to our senses. As a mathematician, he had an idea of pure abstraction, but that is not consciousness. I think his view fits very nicely with a Unification view.

        2. Gordon,

          I have read this kind of explanation before, but don’t really grasp how it is a unit of consciousness. It seems more like a philosophy of time than a philosophy of consciousness, where time itself is granular rather than continuous. So our sensory experience appears continuous, but is more like watching a movie that is actually a sequence of still images.

        3. David,

          It is a way to explain time as well. A drop of experience, as Whitehead refers to it in the realm of consciousness, might be considered as analogous to an atom in the material world.

        4. Ah, so the question is what does “experience” in this context mean? Does Whitehead see consciousness as emergent from these drops of experience, just as a molecule is emergent from the relationship of atoms, or does experience necessarily imply a preexisting consciousness that has a drop experience?

          This, for me, touches the core difference between experimentally-supported science, which would suggest consciousness is emergent (in relationship of parts), and religious thought derived from Plato which suggests consciousness preexists on its own (with no parts).

        5. One common thought about consciousness today is that the brain is more like a receiver of consciousness than a producer of it. That would mean the universe exists within consciousness, and as organisms become more complex they are able to resonate with and bring into the universe a more sophisticated level of consciousness. I think Unification Thought acknowledges the pre-existence of a creator, and so if one sees consciousness as a totally emergent phenomenon, it would certainly bring a different paradigm to Unificationism. Do you see the emergence of consciousness as the actual creation of something entirely new, or would your model accept a pre-existent consciousness? If it is entirely a new creation that emerges, how do you see the directionality within evolution?

        6. Alison,

          No time to address all your questions. In his view of cosmic consciousness Dr. Lee in Unification Thought does indeed regard the cells in our body as “picking up” consciousness. However, this seems to me to merely be a reworking of Plato’s ideas. In other words, far from being a new paradigm, it is an epicycle on a very old one.

          Perhaps this is the difference between Whitehead and Teilhard de Chardin? Teilhard de Chardin suggests that though the base for consciousness is in all particles, consciousness itself is emergent in complex systems of particles. He goes so far as to say that God does not yet exist (and acts backward in time). I wouldn’t go that far, but you get the idea.

          It is true we tend to regard God as preexisting this universe, but if we accept Divine Principle, that preexistence cannot just be disembodied consciousness. Sungsang does not exist by itself, and God too has hyungsang. It is Divine Principle itself that offers the new paradigm. This even goes beyond Teilhard de Chardin.

          Now, for me, the preexistence of God hinges on whether we accept a multiverse or not.

    2. British philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre observes in his book After Virtue” A Study in Moral Theory, that there was no Greek word for “morality.” It was the Romans who started the discussion of morality (moralis) and how morality played into the human condition. Plato and the Greeks emphasized “ethics” and how ethical behavior was the way to become a good citizen. However, the Greeks did not focus on the concepts of salvation, redemption, the incorporeal realm, and the need for a “savior” to deal with fallen nature. This is an important factor because in the Judeo-Christian cultural sphere these issues are salient and they became the basis for establishing a moral framework to guide all human endeavors.

      Pierre Teilhard de Chardin asserted we are not human beings on a spiritual path, but rather spiritual beings on a human path. As such, recognizing and manifesting our divine attributes is a vital aspect of our growth and maturity. Through this process we can begin to have greater insights as to how our consciousness assists in our understandings of spirituality and love and our pursuit of betterment. Because intentionality and motivation are central in that pursuit, our understanding of what constitutes God-centered morality is critical. UT may be deficient in certain respects, but our intuition leads us to believe that our relationship as children of our Heavenly Parent can be of great consequence in providing the necessary insights to solve many of the “mysteries” of the universe. But then Einstein believed “there is beauty in the mysterious.”

      1. David,

        I believe that Divine Principle itself is the key to resolving this issue between science and spirituality. It seems to me that Unificationists often tend to look outside of Divine Principle for solutions to problems. Even Dr. Lee’s Unification Thought assumes the primacy of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. If Divine Principle is a new truth, and I believe it is, and that one of the missions of this new truth is to unite science and spirituality, then the answer to this particular problem is not to be found in any other thought.

        Divine Principle does not seek to change science directly, but rather provides a new ontological framework for understanding spirituality. The Principle of Creation is the key chapter. If it is correct, it may in the future change scientific understanding too. That Father asked WRIST to develop technology to communicate with spirit world suggests to me the potential of a solution based in Divine Principle.

    3. I’m not a scholar but I believe many of you know me. God and creation can have no direct communion. Consciousness in my opinion is God’s projection into the cosmos, an early, elemental form of to-be God’s children, mankind. Only we have the ability to communicate with God.

      For consciousness to grow it needs to first create its habitat. First give, then take. It would then have give & take (receive) with that habitat and develop.

      In other words, what I’m saying is that God embodied as consciousness, prehuman elementals, and together created the cosmos. God alone cannot create & develop horizontally, which takes give and take (receive), trial and error. TP said God had to grow. This takes experience. Experience is about learning which comes through give & take (receive).

  6. As we know, the concept of Intelligent Design is based on an intuitive basis that suggests that there might be a grand design and a “designer” in the creation equation. In his book, By Design: Science and the Search for God, Larry Witham alludes to the renewed interest in the old metaphor of “reading the Book of Nature,” which suggests that there is a chief author and propagator of truth, or “at least a text imbued with meaning” that we might benefit from if we chose to be open to its contents. Jonathan Wells has also been one of the leaders in promoting this idea though his work at the Discovery Institute.

    Both Witham and Wells are featured in Ben Stein’s 2008 documentary, “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed,” in which Stein chronicles the attempts of the anti-God factions within academia to keep the ID narrative out of the conversation. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, Wikipedia refers to Stein’s documentary as a “propaganda film” that promotes a specious conspiracy narrative regarding ID being squelched by the anti-God advocates.

    This points to Gordon Anderson’s referencing the threat of the postmodernist view that truth is fungible and as such the reliance on any sort of “absolutes” or transcendent morality is considered anathema to the secular Darwinian views touted by much of academia these days. With such closed-mindedness being pervasive in academia, we certainly face a “top of the growth stage” moment with regard to acknowledging the possibility of a higher consciousness being a part of our understanding of how science and spirituality can be, and ought to be, harmonized.

  7. Very insightful and well-written, Alison. I listen to a 60-second science podcast by Scientific American. They take the complex and make it simple/understandable. And keep it relevant, why you/average people should care. Can this be done for what you are proposing? If we work at combining big/complex ideas, will anyone notice or care? This is where the kind of thing can have broad reach, IMO. Finding the right questions to ask is always the hardest part, more than just supplying answers.

    1. The thinking of “average people” is strongly influenced by the current paradigm within science at any time. Many people today think that science somehow has proved that God doesn’t exist, because they’re still strongly influenced by the materialistic worldview that has dominated in the past, and has been reborn via the multiverse idea (parallel universes exist so as to avoid the problem of the apparent design of this one — we just happen to be in the one where the laws of physics by chance support the emergence of life).

      Then on the other side there are also many people who look at the Hubble telescope pictures for instance and “see” God. They just need an intellectual basis for their thought.

      I don’t think I see us as using UT as a base for outreach as such, but rather the way I look at it humanity still has much to discover, and UT provides us with a much more exciting and hopeful perspective than science itself might still choose. All those philosophers in the early 20th century were no doubt caught up in the providential time of preparation of the world for massive change, then got silenced as the providence essentially stalled for a long time. I think that’s why we are seeing a resurgence of their ideas at this time, post-Foundation Day. Time to move forward.

      Scientific American is great at presenting ideas to the public, and you are totally correct that ideally we could be too, but first I think we need a few meetings and discussions on what UT is telling us about the nature of reality, consciousness, what is a human, etc. Our second gen is great, they see us as a little stuck in an old paradigm, so we first need to catch up with them if we as a movement want to flourish in the future, otherwise they might just go ahead without us, and without our informed support. I tend to think we still have something to offer, although I also think we have baggage we need to throw out.

  8. It goes without saying that our thinking and behavior have the effect of shaping out neural pathways and thus our consciousness is changed in some fashion. In his book, “Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain,” the notable neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio posits that reason and emotion are integrated in ways that were previously thought to be untenable.

    Damasio points to what he calls “somatic marker hypothesis,” whereby chemical records (markers) stored in our brain from previous experiences are either consciously or subconsciously accessed and assist in our decision-making. These somatic markers have the effect of overriding pure reason and allow for emotion to direct us to the best choice among a variety of alternative choices. Damasio does not assert that that all of our choices are the result of our emotions dominating reason.

    He refers to the idea of ‘high reason’ in relation to “choices that are made on the basis of weighing logical considerations, without allowing emotion to interfere with the process.” Still, if Damasio’s hypothesis is valid then it can be construed that reason and emotion are not contingently related, but in fact the relationship between them is fundamental to our decision-making process and behavior.

    We know that when we experience beauty whether created by God (nature) or humankind (art), our consciousness can be transformed. Kant couldn’t easily explain why that happened, but he understood that the transcendent aspect of the aesthetic experience was real and universal — everyone is affected by beauty and thus can be changed. True Mother alluded to this in her Rally of Hope address on November 22, 2020.

Use the box below to submit a new comment (To reply, click "Reply" within a specific comment above)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: