THE LIVING AND THE DIVINE
Part 3: Human Consciousness and the Hall-Mark of the Divine
Chapter 7

Application and Development of the Field Theory
Human Consciousness as Tension Field

The emerging of an 'Ur' pre-indication of life, an event of cosmic dimensions, may have taken place in the course of a number of stages in the transition from pre-organic, living 'Ur' matter to something that comes closer to the concept 'organic' (as, e.g., life forms and world bodies, viewed as originating 'after' or 'out of' cosmic physical structures as yet undifferentiated). That event marks a turning point for knowledge, a stage between world epochs. This is so because, prior to the emerging of an 'Ur' form that encompasses all living and drives towards form. a rich and multifarious cosmic landscape of living is available to research; its features can be evoked and copied. Anything prior to that event is so markedly less clear that it seems right to envision the sphere of the ultimate original general features of world-reality and of being live only by a transcendent going back from the event.

The emerging of an 'Ur' draft, an 'Ur' form of life, in the sense of a field constitutes a special marker in tracing back the development of living beings because, for the first time, we then encounter something in the flow of endlessly changing life forms that 'stands still' and also manages to persist. Let us clarify.

Going from the cosmic biological field towards us, the path leads to all branches and forms that life has since assumed; going back from there and beyond, we reach a situation defined by the question of the relationship of life to consciousness as such, that is in the cosmos. There is thus an objective intersection showing both the close actual relation between entities such as 'field' and 'consciousness' on one side and, on the other side, the actual relation of entities such as 'field' and (empirically experiential) biological formations. And, as already mentioned, it constitutes something that divides epochs because, from then on, there is persistence throughout the changing manifestations that follow.

We have already pointed out a number of times that the field structure of living matter in the process of acquiring form ( a process which, if it were to be explained in physical and chemical terms would require an explanation that does not simply apply the chemistry involved in the functional interaction of organs) must be able to persist as agent active in that living process of assuming form as long as any living thing is still in the process of developing, i.e., until it has attained its final form. We have also emphasized something that is not to be understood as the same thing, namely that everything that is to attain a higher or highest form in the course of the unfolding of life, must have been there from the outset, i.e. in the original design of he form. Lastly, we also pointed out a close connection between the field and the consciousness factor, at least as far as the original cosmic and biological field tension and structure are concerned. As we put it then: "the latter should be seen as the spatial, dynamic expression of that which consciousness wills".

We now have three assumptions: the property of the field indicating the direction of the development of matter in its layers and movements, guided by its impulses; the property of the field implying that the ultimate and highest form of development was already present initially; the property of the field as projector of the structure of consciousness. Given these assumptions, we can move to a more specific description of the conception which, we believe, offers the most understandable picture of the process by which living form came into being, not of its reproduction but of how it came to be. We need hardly point out that a first cosmic dynamic form of 'Ur' matter cannot have meant individual form in the sense of later living creatures, though the first contour, which comprised all of life in the world, brought about something individuated, compared with unindividuated 'Ur' matter. The principle of individuation was thus established. However, that 'individual' of cosmic matter carried within itself the potential for reproduction; the latter had yet to develop a structure not only for the continuity of its own self but for the continuity of all living species.

We must now ask, what became of that original design of living, the dynamic projection in space imaged in consciousness, once living matter began to be active, in the sense of taking certain directions? What of the structure itself, once matter filled out its tracks in response to the impulse to become an organized whole? We can confidently reply: As long as living matter was in the process of becoming structured, differentiating itself from the world outside of it at certain contact points, as long as it was in control of all these separations (nascent conditions for organisms) from inside, maintained an equilibrium, indeed made that equilibrium possible (no organism can 'form', differentiate itself unless all others do so at the same time), so long will that inner structure tension of a nascent organism remain present and active. One might say that a field ceases to exist when the substance of life has reached its intended direction, i.e., once the organism is 'finished'. However, even that is questionable. We do not intend to pursue this line here.

What if the development leads us to see an originally unified tension-form in matter, leading to a development of several organisms, physically separate in space? What of the original design? Does it disappear? Or, might it divide into several potential beings? It cannot exist without matter and it can only be thought of as actual within or between physical structures, physical impulses of direction within or between sections of matter. Undoubtedly, something is constantly happening to the tension-form in matter in so far as movement of matter accompanies it. The tension-form fulfills its function and thereby 'un-tenses' in some sense, changing. It must, however, as we have said, persist in some way or in some section so long as there is development of some kind in the relevant structures.

Now, what if that development takes place astride individuals, extends across a number of individuals or across a series? 'Within' what matter can the field then persist? Here we need to keep separate the application of the concept to a field of the functioning of the system of reproduction and its application to the actual process of reproduction of living forms. We are here concerned only with the latter. It must be clear that, as regards actual production, i.e., where it is not like created from like, but something unlike created at an earlier stage, we can speak of a pre-formation in a first organism. This does not apply to the area of pure reproduction, as already explained above. In terms of the activity of a field, there is thus no visible difference between the structuring of a single organism and the structuring of several organisms that are biologically connected but physically separate. In either case, development must have proceeded from the form-tension implicit in an initial organism. The field now wends its way, altering from organism to organism, from stage to stage; it changes as it unfolds from the implicit original. We do not propose to enter into the time aspect of the field, since that is a cosmic phenomenon and cannot simply be equated with the time structure of something that developed from it later.

Let us now look at the field structure, not as it concerns the sequence of separate individual forms only, but also in terms of individual forms in relation to others that exist or come into being concurrently. The clearest instance of this is the emerging of varying types of structures that appear in the course of the development of a system of reproduction, living creatures related to one another biologically and differentiated by gender. As we have noted, the origin of gender forms that serve the wider origin of reproduction can only be understood as a division and separation in space of an originally unified organism. It is not possible to assume that there always existed a duality or a multiplicity of types or that there was a 'complementary' development of interrelation in gender differentiation. Even in the event of the latter, as in the event of gender differentiated forms that originated from an organism that possessed the tendency to split, we have to see an originally unified tension-form in a unified organism, persisting after the emerging of physically separate, living creatures. It persists in those reorganizations of types, re-combinations of living matter within a gender type, determining the physiological relationship of types to one another; it determines the movement and organisation of matter within organisms. The causes for this must not be confused with their physical and chemical reactions. Even when a physical and chemical reaction is present, it will necessarily be a secondary kind of physical and chemical order of phenomena. (1)

(1) Incidentally, that is exactly what the much discussed Vitalism indicates: a subdivision of known and unknown physical and chemical reactions, where a secondary category would lead into specific functional directions.

So here, form-tensions are active as between individual organisms separated in space; the supra-individual field - manifest, for instance, in gender attraction - persists so long as inter-individual relations continue. All of this applies only to the occurrence of a reproduction development, the first appearance, as it were of reproduction in natural history terms; not the first appearance of multiplying, but the emerging of a natural process of the reproduction of living beings. The fact that repetition and cycles are features of the most elementary forms of life does not yet mean that that repetition assumes a specific form, as does, for example, sexual multiplying. Repetition has a lesser need of the impulse of direction i.e., the field potential, than did the earlier process; the direction impulse is already there in repetition; it was received in an earlier cycle to which matter had been subject and which that matter had handed on.

We now come to the most significant stage in our considerations of the original cosmic field, the stage of splitting up into myriad individuals, linked to one another by belonging to a specific species. Necessarily, all species of living must derive from the first cosmic organism. We shall focus on only one species, the one we deem entitled to the highest rank: the human species. True, mankind also divides into countless sub species, but from a cosmic, biological perspective, there is a similarity that holds for all of them. We shall limit ourselves, for the sake of simplicity, to a single common type of phenomenon, the human being.

The subject now is the relationship between the original form-potential driving the 'Ur' organism and the wealth of single, individual forms brought into being by the system of reproduction that ensued since, a relationship that exists concurrently in the rhythm of continuing generations. The actual 'Ur' organism as such disappears. It has split up. The development, however, does not stop and so, in its place, we find the myriads that constitute one generation of mankind. What has become of the original model of life? That question, as we saw, is mainly relevant when the driving development alters the genus, the species. In accordance with the principle: the dynamic of the original form-tension will function as long as development and new formations continue', we need to ask about the presence of that tension, e.g within a human group, in order to understand it as a stage in the process of changing forms that spans the generations.

In every development or happening that has a goal, the end-product is, in some way, present from the outset. Where, then, is that process and that end-product now, since it is not yet there, not yet realized and since it must be present as activating agent? Logically, it should be looked for in some dynamic combination, present in and among the countless individuals, the driving impulse for those countless single individuals that now represent the 'Ur' organism (or rather, one specific aspect of it) and, in fact, links them to one another. This connection now repaces the original material and dynamic unity of the 'Ur' organism. What and where, however, is that driving impulse that exists 'in' and 'among' human society (or one human society) and to which we can ascribe the ordering of life?

We need here to insert a consideration bearing on the general principle of the development of life from a human perspective. Humanity, as distinct from every other species of life, has a history beyond its natural history and its seeming end point. It is apparently not subject to a circular, repeated transformation that it has brought about and which strives after meaningless goals. History is a societal happening and the transformation of that societal happening. The meaning of such a history can only be seen as a process of intensifying human possibilities, a process that stretches through the world epochs of mankind, with all its twists and backslidings, dead ends and new openings, i.e., something that the pure biologically conceived life strives after. Except that, outside of humankind, there is a limitation, a boundary reached by forms, the organic end-forms that we witness in natural history, the end-forms of a species beyond which there is no further development, only a circular progress, a repetition of something that existed previously. Such is the history-less life of the animal world and the history that came to a stand still, or perhaps reached a stand still at the beginning of the history of erect man.

Different is the progress of history of a certain variety of erect man who, alone, can really be counted as belonging to the human race. Here there seem to be no bounds to the increasing potential of life, or at least, we do not know of any such bounds.

Bergson, in his Evolution Creatrice, describes man as the breakthrough of a wave of life into freedom, whereas every other form of life seems to have been halted by some boundary. Wherein, then, lies this remarkable freedom and this boundless increase in life potential - which means, in some sense, an increase in natural potential and a dominion over matter? It is based on two features: one, that in man, and in man alone, there is a development beyond the conclusion of his development in terms of his natural history, going beyond the rise of the consciousness that he alone is endowed with, over and above other forms of life. It is through this lofty consciousness, itself a product of nature, that the progress of man's natural history, in the wider sense, is seen not to be closed off and to step over into the actual history of mankind. The second feature is that the development does not, at least for now, apply to the biological natural form in the natural history of the human individual, but rather to the intensifications of life attained through the activity of groups. Briefly put, the potentials depend on two factors: consciousness and the handling of the consequences of group capacity.

Progress beyond the current stage of the development of man does not take place via the form of the individual, but via the group form. We need to take into account the fact of an actual ability to connect between the individual and a living whole that is more than an individual, a group organism that is not yet in existence (whatever sociologists may say) or, if it is, then only in a fragmentary and shadowy way, but which can only be brought about with the help of that higher consciousness; also the application of a supra-individual factor of energy needed to achieve an intensification of life. These are determining factors in the history of man and in the on-going, open-ended progress of his natural history, in the wider sense.

We now realize that these two factors, consciousness and group are basically one and the same. Man's conscious awareness of the process of conceptual thinking and of language seems to nothing other than that particular reality that binds individuals together, not only in a metaphysical or spiritual sense but, literally, in accordance with the physiological laws of life. In the single human being consciousness is something supra-individual. It is not, or not only the sub-conscious (as Jung said) that is collective. The conscious state of a single individual can be understood as a mass of threads and filaments, as it were, coming from the individual and going out in every direction. They are conditioned to connect, or rather to merge with the threads coming from other individual human beings, so that each individual in a group appears as if embedded in a network of which he forms the kernel. The network is the 'group consciousness'. It is the cultural consciousness of a group and it is already collective in nature in the individual. It is a connection even while it still belongs to the environment of a single individual. We do not propose to enter into the question whether and in what quantity consciousness needs to be allotted to the individual alone. Suffice it to say that, from a biological collective point of view, consciousness is a bond linking individuals, a sum of umbilical cords that still belong to each individual. Its function is partly intentional, but in large part unintentional. Consequently, many of these incipient links between individuals are inadequate or faulty or not connected; they may atrophy or never develop. This is not just an 'image' that applies to the extent that consciousness has a biological group significance: Spirit is a group medium in accordance with the laws of nature that govern life. The consciousness of a group literally regulates mutual relationships and the spatial relation of location. It, or rather the consciousness of the participants, determine the arrangement of the group. The significance of consciousness in terms of awareness and the content of knowledge are part of a different question. In both cases, however, consciousness is an 'intermediate' reality, a given 'between' other things given.

We can see consciousness, or the consciousness of a connected plurality in one generation as the means to develop an intensification of life in the sense described above; that it can create the atmosphere that impels constant modifications in cosmic humanity, in order to realize goals so far not attained. We can also see the sphere of consciousness that originated in the 'Ur' organism and co-exists in individuals as the manifestation of the tension-field that has wandered through time ever since the emergence of the original unit organism. This provides an answer to our questions, what became of the tension-field that had steered living matter, how was it transformed after it had initiated the first living organism, how, then, on the basis of the principium individuationis to which it owes is existence and its identity, did this cosmic creation, this comprehensive organism, split into a mass of individuals.

We assume that all the parts of the 'Ur' tension-field that were transformed into existing forms of life, were un-tensed ,i.e., disappeared inasmuch a the 'Ur' organisms disappeared; we see before us their distant descendents, transformed into thousands of living forms. Wherever a reproductive development is barred and only a cyclical development is available, the empirically observable process of seeds unfolding to fully developed organisms will prevail time and again. There is no need to refer here to the cosmic field-potential, except to mention the connection, namely that field phenomena of reproduction must naturally have originated in the (re)productive form-tension. In this context, we can view these as having fulfilled their function for every form of life - with the exception of the human species, which is still in an on-going process of productive development, not, at least not for now, in terms of its individual organism form, but in terms of the laws of plurality life. The form-dynamic in the creative, cosmic organism is effective in the mass of its human descendents as consciousness between individuals and that is the path of further development that all of humanity takes.

As far as humanity is concerned, consciousness in mankind and in its sub-entities constitute the current state of the dynamic 'Ur' draft.

The 'Ur' form-tension, in the form of consciousness of nations, cultures, control of knowledge and of matter, wanders in this way through the generations of mankind to an unknown end-point of its potential development.

In order to have a proper understanding of the developing and current relation between the cosmic and the empiric experiential in terms of empiric experiential time and in terms of empiric cosmic time, we need to keep in mind a number of points: The 'Ur' form-tension of living world matter that circumscribed 'humanity' within a unitary form still persists in a way. 'Ur' matter has adapted to the 'Ur' organism unit that represents humanity and has, itself, disappeared. Its place has been taken by the countless individual organisms that have appeared since the 'Ur' time of the cosmos and are likely to appear in the foreseeable future. The form-tension that led to the 'Ur' organism as also to its disposition to produce and reproduce and to the multiple splittings, continues to be active. Apart from its connection to the emerging individual biological fields of reproduction from the dynamic 'Ur' form, consciousness, which links together the plurality of human groups and ultimately all of humanity, is the format in which the 'Ur' form-tension surfaces and thus becomes active now and it will continue as long as there continues to be a development. The consciousness of the individual must here be seen as a biological factor, in so far as it is needed for action and for the motivation of activities that are only possible in or by means of a community (even the consumption of food depends on a distribution of labour).

'Ur' form-tension is thus a supra-individual field, individual in the sense of an empirically experienced individual. On the other hand, 'Ur' form-tension (as impulse to movement) is the first projection that affects world matter, a first, consciousness-like 'stirring towards humankind'; unhindered by anything, it realizes every possible form in matter, i.e., in the existential possibilities of a field. That potential of matter extends endlessly far beyond that which humanity up to the present time can dominate in terms of biological matter, far beyond that which it has reached through conscious planning in terms of capacity of life and control over matter.

That which is realized as form begins in the lowest state of consciousness and is impelled towards realization, i.e., towards a development in every generation of mankind. Here, as everywhere, the beginning that follows on the form-tension is the goal of the physical development. We, the human species, see this in the first instance as a future development, a multiple life potential or, if you will, a multiple organism.

Human consciousness that is based on a plurality reaches into the empirical and experiential. It is an indication, a remnant which represents an originally literal form dynamic and organic unit, the original embodiment of which, a germ disposition, has long disappeared, while its dynamic aspect persists. It manifests itself, as we have said, in the consciousness of man.

Objections may be raised to the view of a 'single' consciousness of man, a real entity that does not necessarily consist only of many individual states of consciousness that could not be connected to a consciousness of groups or even of mankind. It should be pointed out that the alternative, individual/collective does not necessarily apply only between individuals, but obtains just as much within the consciousness of a single individual. It depends whether one understands individual consciousness as part of a particular body or whether one takes into consideration the fact that countless particular bodies exist at the same time. We do not propose to enter into the question here. We shall simply state our view, namely that whatever consciousness is attributed to a single body, there will always remain part of his individual consciousness that is not, as it were, his private possession; it is, literally, the consciousness of a plurality, even though it is manifest as connected to an individual body.

Spheres of consciousness (the individual, small collectives, gender, family, local and occupational groups) are, or certainly can be, distinct within a single consciousness. We need to insert here that, exceptionally, an individual consciousness can turn out to be the consciousness of mankind - not that humanity is its content, something that is frequently the case, but that it functions as the consciousness of mankind. Such cases are restricted to individual forerunners of some particular significant development. To speak of a consciousness of mankind becomes even more clearly justified where there is a real commonality of effort, contributions that can be assembled and added to. Then there is no doubt that a collective works as a unit. What we can say is that in the consciousness of every generation there appears something of the original form-dynamic; it is both the beginning and the end-goal of man, that which it was determined that he should become. There is a fluid infrastructure, the purpose of which is to allow the life of mankind to rise to the greatest possible heights.

However, when we say that the form-dynamic of the human origin appears in the consciousness of man, we do not mean to say that it is now or that it has become that consciousness. Consciousness simply represents the way by which the earliest and lowest form of driving impulse towards the development of the human being has come 'to the surface'. That impulse is essentially to be understood as a concept of a given in life rather than as a given of consciousness. In this context, the function of consciousness must be seen as an index, an organ in the processes of living, most of which do not occur in consciousness; it must be seen as the ongoing driving dynamic of the origin which, one might say, has not become part of empirically experiential time; it has its own time-frame. To a large extent, that time-frame compares with the process of anticipation of developments seen in the form-tension, in that there is a potential 'storing' of a boundless wealth of change(in a time scale), actually containing every phase of human development. Much as the reproductive field of an individual organism, it contains all the potential phases of development; or, better, it contains the structural answer to and also a selection of all form possibilities, in accordance with the laws of nature and the multifaceted substances of matter, in a series and from a given perspective, namely that of the end-form.

Time is, in a sense, determined by the rhythm of change; the time of consciousness is thus dependent on the biological time-frame, which is itself provided by the duration of the existence of an organism, the wealth of experience, the stage in the organism, which time allocates internally between the limit points of that organism's existence; - thus time for man is not measured in the same way as it is for mammals, say, or for insects. Consequently, we need to accord a specific time frame to the biological facts of a structural field that comprises, so to speak, the entirety of mankind. Let me leave this aside.

Consciousness, in its self-conscious sphere, is only a very incomplete reflection of life's events. i.e., it only offers a fraction of the total dynamic out of which it arises. It is only this fraction that constitutes the consciousness of any generation of mankind. The human wave, being a cosmic biological phenomenon, necessarily contains the form-dynamic of the entirety of mankind from the beginning to its distant development, bearing in mind that the factors here entail creative production, i.e. a development that does not simply mean reproduction.

Admittedly, we only 'know' about that function through our consciousness, in the sense that we become conscious of biological needs, impulses of the will in the human order of things and its control of matter: aims, ideas, the experience of catastrophes, etc. However, that awareness is highly defective because the means and ends go well beyond the confines of consciousness within one human generation. Only the 'relevant' stage can be brought into consciousness or even into the reality of human existence, and even then only with many gaps and clumsy stops and starts. Our consciousness is the only access that we have to the form-dynamic. That does not prevent it from revealing itself as a manifestation of life, which it is; the form-dynamic, however, goes way beyond just becoming conscious; it presents itself not as an unconscious but as a mis -conscious, a mis- interpreted manifestation, interpreted as something else.

We need to explain the term 'mis-interpretation'. That which penetrates into consciousness consists of the reflections of life's happenings, with urges that follow the indicators of desirable and undesirable sensations, in specific directions, in the conscious behaviour of individuals. The indicators are not unequivocal. The same line that evokes a desirable reaction in consciousness with a positive response, will frequently - on account of subsequent events or complications arising from other activities in life - turn into undesirable sensations and, as such, become unwanted. The confusion created by these indicators is nearly impenetrable. Human behaviour tries to balance matters with endless, ever new attempts to arrive at an order of things that is bearable overall and more or less manageable, even though it entails accepting a mass of seemingly unsolvable catastrophes and apparently unavoidable suffering, all opposing the will to live.

All of this, all of the 'evil' in the human world, penetrates consciousness in thousands of ways. However, just like physical pain, it directs us to the sick part of an organism, but it does not tell us anything about any of life's processes or about the scientific approach to specific areas of an organism's functions - those being subconscious. Likewise, no evil in the human world tells us anything about the dynamic structure of human life, nor anything about that form-tension that drives man towards the end of a development, towards a reality free from evil or one where it is minimized. Every evil creates a collision within human matter, its myriad parts constantly alternating between division and progression; its movement is away from the original form-tension because of the specific laws determining matter or because it is on a course that results from following previous, faulty directions. The desirable/undesirable orienting here proves to be highly inadequate. Only a conscious, comprehensive evaluation of the desirable/undesirable indicators can show the potentially true structural line that is properly suited to the cosmic form-tension of humankind.

Let us, then, present mankind as a cosmic organism in the process of development, with constantly modifying parts. It should not be seen in terms of quantity, all of its individuals. The 'field' is the dynamic progression that appears in consciousness only dimly through thousands of aspects of suffering; also, of course, through desires as well as a relative being free from suffering and, lastly, through the questioning and interpreting of bold, really unrestrained imaged wishes. On the whole, the cosmic image of the real form-tension and structuring of humanity is present and active in every generation of man. However, it presents itself to a generation as a mosaic of countless cases of things desirable and undesirable going in every direction; each is concerned with its own aims and objectives and from these can be traced more or less isolated lines of causality, without these ever coming near to the last root, the structure of human life in its cosmic setting, i.e., without the indicators of form-structure ever being properly understood. That is why we termed the reflections in consciousness of the tension-form of humanity a mis interpretation. We must now correct this and say: a mis interpretation only in the higher sense, measured in terms of ultimate, potentially knowable reality. Notwithstanding, the structure and direction of the real design of the true 'man' or 'humanity' are largely absent from consciousness; vast epochs of the world that are yet to complete the stages of development are not yet 'due' and are not present in terms either desirable or undesirable; they are simply not documented, although they are as real as the potential end stage of a development is in the initial stage.

The form-tension structure of 'man', thus, does not resemble the Platonic Idea of man at all' It is not a one time man, either at the beginning or at the end. Rather, it is a given order so extensive and complex that throughout its entire existence only spare fragments and shadowy indicators of the construing task of perceptive consciousness ever become manifest. To clarify this, one might say the following: We understood inorganic nature from the properties and behaviour of inanimate matter, which we also understood as providing the basic structural elements suited to life and embodying life; we saw the properties and relationships being thrown helter skelter in an endless 'puzzle' of parts which, were they to be set correctly, would signify life. Similarly, we can understand being live as applied to the actual condition of the human form of life as an endless muddle of constituent elements, its capacities and individual organisms in relation to the form-tension of the intended order for mankind.

We might say that that which man really is and can become is related to that which he is in empirical experiential terms just as the inanimate relates to the animate. We need to add, however, that that which is literally inanimate was brought into being for the sake of the animate, whereas the animate, which has not attained its highest potential, does seek to transform itself and to attain that potential.