Updated 6/22/2021

Introduction

Something amazing and very important is happening to the human species. It is a transformation – a metamorphosis that some say cannot be explained in terms of science. That, I submit, is because most people interpret what we know in science in terms of physical substance. The purpose of this website is to express exactly why I submit this and to explain how we need to change that interpretation in terms of a model that is transparent, or at least as transparent as I can make it, without the overtones that make it appear to be purely physical.

First, let me say that I consider physical reality to be real. It is where we have to start in order to develop a foot-hole, a firm foundation in the form of a materialistic worldview, because it makes us feel stable and grounded in reality. It’s the reality of physical substance that gives us something substantial to wrap our minds around. We feel comfortable thinking objectively because objective refers us to objects and objects are firm and solid. We develop a distinct set of thought patterns and approaches to solving problems and once those thought patterns are proven to work, we do not want to let go or change them – they are our paradigm. Yet as we live in physical reality, we know in our minds that there is something else going on behind the scenes. We hear about other people who claim to have changed their paradigm as a result of some sort of great realization that made them “see the light” yet even if we ask them, they can’t explain it – not in terms of material science. Some of them accuse science of being wrong, that science itself needs to change.

They may be right, but perhaps it’s not science that is wrong. Perhaps it’s how we interpret what science has proven to be right. We have already had one paradigm shift in physics, which is the science that forms the roots of science. It happened back at the turn of the 20^th century when the quantum nature of light was discovered, bringing in the age of what we call “modern science.” But it seems that we are experiencing another shift because more and more people are having some sort of great realization about something else going on behind the scenes. The fact is that a new paradigm shift has already happened. Actually, it’s the second half of the one that started over a hundred years ago. The first half served to divide science into two schools of thought; the new paradigm is more subjective but the old one is still very mush alive and still very objective.

The problem with getting onboard with the new paradigm is not in the science itself, but in one’s ability to grasp it. The “quantum nature of light” means that light can be expressed in particle-like form, so the objective interpretation is that it is a particle, which is physically solid in nature. That implies that light can be solidified into a permanent physical substance with a definitive, unchanging position like any other solid object. But when we try to nail it down so that we can “grasp” it, we feel like a cat trying to catch a laser light. It’s like some trickster is playing with us because just when we think we caught it and try to look at it, it’s gone.

We know for a fact that expressing light as a particle-like form is correct because it works! We know it works because all of our modern technology is based on that approach. So objective thinkers ask, “What’s the problem?” The problem is, it doesn’t answer the question about what’s going on behind the scenes. It is true that light can be expressed as particle-like, but that doesn’t mean that it is a particle. Think about that for a minute. If a person dresses up like a surgeon and expresses himself as if he were really a trained and certified professional, that doesn’t mean he is a doctor. If we are impressed enough to believe that he is a doctor, then we are fooled and from his perspective, we are fools. But let’s not get so personal. If a cat sees a spot of light moving around on the floor and it thinks it is a bug, then the cat was impressed by it. The laser made an impression on the cat’s memory; the cat reflected on that memory and it grasped it as a thought, which captured a collection of events when it had previously caught a bug. From our perspective, it would be safe to ignore what happened in the cat’s mind and say that the light was expressed as a bug. It was only a projection of light and the cat had to reflect on its own stored information, which we call its memory or knowledge. To us, it’s a joke and we get it. But the cat doesn’t get it.

That is exactly what happened in physics. Objective thinkers just don’t get it and they will never get it until they can have something solid to hold onto so they can hold it up, look at it from different perspectives and see the underlying process. Think about the process illustrated by this fooled cat. The problem is not with the physics; the problem is with the models chosen to represent or re-present the underlying process. Speaking of cats, Schrodinger’s cat is the model that objective thinkers use to illustrate uncertainty, but it confuses the issue by directing our attention to the cat and our perspective on life and death, so it is a poor model. We need a model in order for us to have something firm to grasp, but it has to be transparent because when it is impressed upon us, the observer, viewer, or listener, we have to be able to see right through its surface – the chosen form of expression – to see the underlying meaning. That’s what’s going on behind the scenes.

The holomorphic process model is an expression of what is present (definitively) behind the scenes and it is presented (as an action) to provide a solid structure for grasping the new paradigm of science. It will be re-presented as an objective block diagram of a generic control system to help translate it into other forms of expression, even artistic expressions, which are not the same subject as science. As such, it is subjective.

About this website

This website is a web log (or blog) that I am using to project my thoughts as expressions of the holomorphic process. I expressed it as a four-phase process: separation, projection, reflection and reintegration. I envision my thoughts as organized patterns of energy, like a holographic projection in my mind. I separate them from my mind, project them onto the page, and reflect on them to see if they give me the feeling of satisfaction that I had when they were still in my mind. If they do, then I feel a sense that the page is properly integrated with the intention of my thoughts. If they don’t then I feel that they have their own intension and it doesn’t match or resonate with my intention. Notice that the intension is different from the word intention. Intension, with an “s” refers to the word or sentence as a single (particle-like) unit and how it has its own inherent “spin” or a meaning that is implied. If the intension doesn’t match my intention, then I have to go back and modify it.

I’ve tried to update this Introduction page so that it reflects the most accurate and precise image that I am trying to express. Unfortunately, there are a lot of pages that I have not updated, so if you read them or any other publications that I have produced, you are likely to see a bit of repetition and they will still have words that may give you a different impression. For example, you will find the word “reintegration” written as “reunification”. I realized that reunification implies unity, an expression that implies a unit or singularity. Then I realized the importance of emphasizing the difference between unity and wholeness, so I decided to start saying reintegration to imply wholeness. Reunification still works for those who already think in terms of wholeness, but when I got into the weeds of mathematics and thought like an objective reductionist, the way I was trained to think in science, I realized that “integration” is a better word for my intended audience. It is the word we use in integral calculus – the part of math that follows differential calculus. The word “differential” is another one that caught my attention. It implies separation, so I thought about changing the model to differentiation, projection, reflection, and reintegration. But to me, separation has the exact same intension as differentiation and it is a little shorter and easier to say, so I left it alone. It may be risky to leave it because mathematicians may consider it to be a defect, but I think that physicists will see right through the defect and be comfortable with the word separation.

The word “holomorphic” is intended to communicate meaning with its intension, like the word “green” communicates an implicit sense or affect of greenness. (Affect, pronounced with a short a, like hat is a word that refers to something that moves you emotionally.) I can only assume that you experience the same affect as I do when you hear or read the word green, but I don’t know that for certain. In order to increase the level of confidence (increase certainty or decrease uncertainty), we would have to experience the same green thing and reflect on that shade of color. If we did, then the affect of the word green is what we call meaning. I think that it is safe to assume that the affect of the word “holomorphic” communicates my intended meaning if I tell you that “holo” means whole and “morphic” means that whatever we are talking about automatically changes or morphs into something. Explaining it like that also serves to illustrate the process. The next time you see the word, it will separate in your mind, each part will project an image that you can reflect on and then they will reintegrate into one whole word. That word will have greater meaning than the sum of its parts.

I have labored to separate this website and other articles and books that I have written into different parts to illustrate the same process. Forgive me if I belabor the point, but I’m trying to give birth to the new paradigm of science, which is in its third trimester. I wouldn’t be so anal about it if I was certain that every time I said that something is “separated”, you would think, “Ok, if it separated then I need to envision two particle-like patterns that are automatically projected away from each other.” This separation/projection phase is what gives the model its power. In physics, we call that “potential” because the word potential is from the Latin, potentia, which means just that, power. Ironically, the same power that makes it work can maintain the separateness and prevent it from working.

The birth of a new paradigm

As I explained above, Quantum Physics initiated the first trimester of the paradigm shift in physics. It shifted from one of objective certainty to one that required the acceptance of subjectiveness and uncertainty. It served to advance our understanding of reality to a certain degree, but it separated us as scientists into two groups. Some people recognized that everything in reality could be expressed as a single word – “Energy” (capitalized to represent an undifferentiated affect). That gave a lot of people, characterized by a different separation of science vs. religion, a way to reflect and integrate their different perspectives about the non-physical aspect of reality.

However, Energy itself must be separated and expressed as a duality – as potential energy versus kinetic energy. Even quantum mechanics didn’t solve that problem. This duality was re-presented as the particle-wave duality. In this form, it was considered to be a paradox – a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement. It created another separation/projection that expressed a need for reflection/reintegration. Some chose to hold onto the particle-like form and claimed that Quantum Mechanics proved what they already believed: that reality was indeed physical. Other people who were not so attached to the physical perspective were moved by it and switched to a purely non-local wave-like illusory or ethereal description of reality. These two separate groups of people represent a whole group that needs to find a way to communicate with each other. They need a new model that will give them a common structure, which they can build upon that is still grounded in the same old proven paradigm.

In order to use the holomorphic process model, we need to envision that group of people as a circle.

• Imagine the old paradigm as a point at the bottom of the circle and the new paradigm as a separate expression of a particle as a point at the top. The purely objective thinkers are on the left side of the circle and they see their idea of “the particle” at the top. They believe that it is no different than the old paradigm, a physical projection of energy. That confirms their belief and ends the first trimester.
• The next phase of the process involves the purely subjective thinkers who were not committed to the old paradigm. They might not even have been professional physicists and only learned about the conundrum and wanted to help. Their presence initiates the second trimester and they form the right side of the circle looking up at the same projection. They see the new paradigm at top of the circle as a mirror and believe that what they see as a particle-like form is an ethereal reflection, and that seems to confirm certain of their beliefs that they had that were unrelated to physics, or so they thought. As a result, they want to create an entirely new form of expression and completely destroy, crush and burn the old paradigm. Unfortunately, their new idea has the exact same God-like intension and religious affect as the paradigm that preceded science itself! Neither paradigm has recognized that what they see as a particle is a circular opening through which the right paradigm, the one that will reintegrate the two as a whole and work as a model to express life, must pass through in order to be born.
• Fortunately, there is a third group of scientists who initiated the third trimester when they recognized the duality as a clue that reality must be expressed in a way that captures it as two sides of the same coin. As far as the first group is concerned, they are outsiders and the last thing they want is someone from the outside that might take sides in the argument. They may also be scientists but they are separated from the first circle by their subject matter. They may not be welcome, but it is important that they do because they had recognized a similar paradox in systems that presented a duality, re-presented as simultaneous order and disorder. In their case, the systems they studied were easier to work with than quantum particles and they produced patterns that could be seen at the macroscopic level as bifurcations – the branching pattern that is characteristic of all living and many non-living things. By focusing on the bifurcations as patterns in phase-space rather than the tiny particle-like patterns in time-space, these studies led to a “systems view of life.” (Capra and Luisi 2014)

The systems view is the fully developed new paradigm that we need. It may be hard for some to accept because it expresses reality as a living process. Therefore, it may need a lot of help from everyone who “gets it.” I can go on and on with different ways of expressing it, and that is what I’ve done here as well as in my articles, which you can freely download from https://vixra.org/author/theodore_j_st_john.

I have also written a couple of books that I am formatting to self-publish on Amazon.com. If you would like a free PDF copy of the current version,

- Introduction to Holomorphic Engineering How to use the new science of wholeness, which has emerged out of modern mainstream science, to engineer harmony in the world, or

- Holomorphosis and the Hologenetic Universe,

all you have to do is ask. In return, I only ask that you provide feedback by expressing your opinion about the information presented in these pages. If you enter a comment in the LEAVE A REPLY block below, then I will read it and decide if it will be helpful for other readers. Feedback is a critical part of the holomorphic process and I need it so I can reflect, learn and possibly make changes to the blog or the next edition of the books.

I’ll try to remember to update this page with links when the books are ready to purchase. I’m not in this for the money, since I am retired and living on my military pension, but if I happen to earn a little through the sale of books, it will serve as positive feedback that would be appreciated. I might even decide to give live public presentations.

Bibliography

Afshordi, Niayesh, Claudio Corianò, Luigi Delle Rose, Elizabeth Gould, and Kostas Skenderis. “From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology.” Physical Review Letters (American Physical Society), Jan 2017: 041301: 1-6 .

Baker, A. K. F. Val, N. Haramein, and O. Alirol. “The Electron and the Holographic Mass Solution.” Physics Essays 32 (2019): 255-262.

Bekenstein, Jacob D. “Information in the Holographic Universe.” Scientific American, April 2007.

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. 1980.

Bullard, Theresa. The Game Changers. Social Alchemists in the 21st Century . Self published, 2012.

Campbell, Joseph. The Hero With a Thousand Faces. 3rd. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973.

Campbell, Thomas. My Big TOE. Lightning Strikes, LLC, 2003.

Capra, Fritjof, and Pier Luigi Luisi. The Systems View of Life, A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Grof, Stanislav. The Holotropic Mind. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc, 1993.

Haramein, N., and A. Val Baker. “Resolving the Vacuum Catastrophe: A Generalized Holographic Approach.” ournal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology 5 (2019): 412-424.

Hariharan, P. Optical Holography, Principles, techniques, and applications. 2nd. Press Syndicate of University of Cambridge, 1996.

Jaynes, Edwin. “Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics.” Physical Review (American Physical Society (APS)) 106, no. 4 (1957): 620-630.

Monroe, Robert A. Journeys out of the body. Harmony Books, 1971.

Ogata, Katsuhiko. Modern Control Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1970.

Overgaard, Morten. “The Status and Future of Consciousness Research.” Frontiers in Psychology 8, no. 1719 (2017).

Renard, Gary R. The Disappearance of the Universe. Hay House Inc, 2002.

Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. The Fourth Turning. New York, 1997.

Suskind, Leonard. “The World as a Hologram.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 36 (1995): 6377.

Sutter, Paul. “Are We Living in a Hologram?” Space.com. Jan 29, 2018. https://www.space.com/39510-are-we-living-in-a-hologram.html (accessed 2018).

t Hooft, Gerald. “The Holographic Principle.” Research Gate. 2000. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2046405_The_Holographic_Principle (accessed July 11, 2018).

Talbot, Michael. The Holographic Universe. New York: HarperCollins, 1991.

Unterseher, Fred, and Bob Schlesinger Jeannene Hansen. Holography Handbook, Making Holograms the Easy Way . Berkeley, CA: Ross Books, 1996.

von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. “The Mind-Body Problem: A New View.” Psychosomatic Medicine XXVI, no. 1 (1964).