{"id":620,"date":"2018-10-12T22:35:54","date_gmt":"2018-10-12T22:35:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/?p=620"},"modified":"2019-07-23T21:03:24","modified_gmt":"2019-07-23T21:03:24","slug":"martin-buber-and-building-a-cosmic-theology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/martin-buber-and-building-a-cosmic-theology\/","title":{"rendered":"MARTIN BUBER AND BUILDING A COSMIC THEOLOGY"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\n MARTIN BUBER \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n AND<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BUILDING\nA COSMIC THEOLOGY<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n by<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n Frank W. Andres<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a9\nCopyright, Frank W. Andres, 2018. All Rights Reserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nis a Minibook…..Instead of expressing an idea and then blowing the\nnumber of pages up, up towards three hundred just so we can charge\n$25 as is currently the fashion, we are presenting the kernel of an\nidea….in the hopes that ideas can be transmitted more rapidly and\nbreakthroughs can occur now, not next century. There is a fifty\npercent chance that humanity will not make it through this\ncentury….it is important that we make as much progress as fast as\nwe can…so as to avoid an untimely demise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n Visit\nus at:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n CFTheater.\ncom<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n Andres.Frank@Yahoo<\/a>.\ncom<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n Introduction<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tMartin\nBuber thought about theology in a very serious way…to the extent\nthat he felt that existing religions were just not doing the\njob…After World War I, he felt the need to examine religion from\nscratch…in ways that made sense to him…perhaps he felt that just\ntoo many horrible things had happened…Where was God?…Obviously\nwhat had broken down…was the ability for human beings to\nconnect…He was young and somehow his head was filled with many\nideas…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tHe\nsays in the Afterword to the second edition of his book, I and\nThou<\/em>…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘When\nI drafted the first sketch of this book…I felt impelled by an inner\nnecessity. A vision that had afflicted me repeatedly since my youth\nbut had always been dimmed again, had now achieved a constant clarity\nthat was so evidently supra-personal that I soon knew that I ought to\nbear witness of it.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen\nthe book was published, people scratched their heads and called him\nsome sort of mystic…his words seemed sort of poetic. He had read\nKierkegaard and agreed with that great theologian…that\nsomehow…God was in every human relationship….Well, witness World\nWar I… rebuilding mankind must start with human contact,\nconnection…with the human relationship…How else is humanity to\nsurvive?…Somehow, God must be woven into all of this. Working\nfeverishly he published a thin book, entitled Ich und Du,<\/em> in\nGerman in 1923…which later was translated into English… as I\nand Thou,<\/em> in 1937. His thinking has been accepted mainly by\nProtestant sects…and has always found its way into their sermons. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIt\nis the twenty-first century now…it now has been established at one\nhundred percent probability that man and woman are animals. In the\nyear 2000, the human genome was delineated…and then by the year\n2003, this genome had been compared with those of the great\napes…and it was found that humans possess DNA that is 99 percent\nthe same…as chimpanzees. Suddenly the words of Buber are\nresonating…as people now are attempting to create a theology that\nis consistent with this new world….As it turns out, he was one of\nthe first to think in a new, modern way…As Walter Kaufmann, the\ntranslater of the volume I am using…has said in his book, Religion\nfrom Tolstoy to<\/em> Camus<\/em>…Leo Tolstoy criticized the populus\nin general for just accepting doctrine and religion that they knew\nwas no longer applicable to their lives…The mediaeval Church may\nhave made sense, may have been a necessary part of the Dark\nAges…but those days are gone…Why can’t people be authenic and\ntake actions consistent with their beliefs? Existential truths came\nfrom his profound thinking and tremendous novels. The problem with\nthis is that…one cannot merely discard…one must begin to build\nthe new… One must have something to take the place of a piece of\nhistory…that was so essential to people’s lives…Tolstoy\nessentially said we must all be kinder to one another…or\nsomething…He was just as guilty as others in not accurately bearing\nwitness to his authencity…Humans need theology…and their theology\nmust be of a Cosmic scope…even if it doesn’t truly reflect the\nthinking of their age any more…even if a person is ahead of his or\nher times…After all these years…it is time to regroup…It is\ntime to start thinking seriously about building a new Cosmic\ntheology…and Martin Buber was one of the first to be brave enough\nto start this process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tSo\nit is…that the Western world is now in 2018, at another seam in\nhistory…moving from a century of cheap oil and ‘things’…a\nmaterialistic frenzy that is now quietly subsiding…into the\nunknown…into a world fraught with problems…There is a fifty\npercent chance that humanity will not make it through this\ncentury…I maintain that we must now prepare ourselves for a new\nphase in humanity…wherein human relationships must play more and\nmore an important part in our lives…The creation of this new world\nmust be guided by new ideas…even it they seem ‘dangerous’…taboo,\nfor some. I have been working on a Cosmic theology now for twenty\nyears…and much of Buber’s thinking is consistent with what I have\nfound…In the following pages, we shall look at some of his ideas\nand some of mine…and see how far we can progress…how far these\nideas can progress…together in this challenging quest. My ideas\ncome from my book, Man and the Cosmos… The Science of<\/em>\nEverything, <\/em> in which a theology that is consistent with the\nentire cosmos of mind…that is, with the entire world of thought\nand disciplines of mankind.. as it exists today…is presented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n Ich\nand Du<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tBuber’s\nbook is divided into three parts…as a conquering Caesar, on a super\nimportant quest… would say… ‘omnes divisa partes tres<\/em>‘…The\nfirst part has to do with Buber’s ideas concerning the I and\nYou…and I and It. Notice that I did not say I and Thou. I and\nThou is probably the most famous thing about Buber that people\nremember. We can just change this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWell,\nthe translation of’ I and Thou <\/em>that I am\nutilizing is, as I have said… by Walter Kaufman…which was\npublished by Simon and Shuster in 1970. Kaufman in a prologue\nquarrels with earlier translations and insists that what is addressed\nin this book is not actually ‘I and Thou’, but instead ‘I and You’. \nKaufman just doesn’t see much God in what Buber is talking\nabout…even though Buber devotes Part III, the longest of the three\nparts..to exactly this topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tKaufman\nsays:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nworld of Thou has many mansions. Thou is a preacher’s word but also\ndear to anticlerical romantic poets. Thou is found in Shakespeare\nand at home in the English Bible, although recent versions of the\nScriptures have tended to dispense with it. Thou can mean many\n\tthings, but it has no place whatever in the language of direct,\nnonliterary, spontaneous human relationships.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tFor\nthe most part I agree with Kaufman…Buber really does not wrestle\nsatisfactorily with the spiritual aspects of I and You…I feel that\nthere is one exception where I and Thou could be relevant in the\nrelationship of two people, which I shall address later on…after\nall it was Kierkegaard’s interest in the fact that he thought God was\nsomehow in every relationship…that intrigued Buber to begin\nwith…However, in accordance with Kaufman’s decision, I shall use I\nand You, generally…throughout this book. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tPart\nI of Buber’s book has to do with the I-It and the I-You and the\nlaying out of the conceptual framework for his theology. In this\nsection of my book, I shall concentrate on this first part of Buber’s\nbook…In subsequent sections I shall lay out my theology in two\nsections…then we shall address Part Two of Buber’s book, which is\nabout going beyond the individual I-You…to where more than one I is\ninvolved…namely, I-World… and then in the next section, we shall\nmove on to Part III of Buber’s book… which is about I-Thou…that\nis, I and God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tFirst,\ncome the first paragraphs of Buber’s book with those famous words…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nworld is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nattitude of man is twofold in accordance with the two basic words we\nspeak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nbasic words are not single words but word pairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘One\nbasic word is the word pair I-You.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nother basic word is the word pair I-It; but this basic word is not\nchanged when He or She takes the place of It.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘Thus\nthe I of man is also twofold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘For\nthe I of the basic word I-You is different from that in the basic\nword I-It.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tKierkegaard\nsaid that the relationship of human with human…was of God….This\nidea intrigued Buber…What does this idea mean?…It takes a lot of\nwork to find out what these words mean and Buber did a lot of\nwork…with some progress…However, before one can speak of human\ninteraction in a spiritual way… one first must understand the\n‘relationship’ of a person with another human being iin every day\nlife. As Buber says…’The life of a human being does not exist\nmerely in the sphere of goal-directed verbs. It does not consist\nmerely of activities that have something for their object,,,the realm\nof You has another basis…The relation of human being to human being\nis different from an ‘interactiion’ between an I and an object.’ \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen\ntwo people meet and interact…God is there?…Well, something\nspecial seems to be there…What is this special thing?…Buber\nexamines every aspect of this dilemma…and in the end, comes up with\nmetaphors for truths that I think, at that basis…are biological…\ntruths that are really concrete….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

for\ntruths that are scientific…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tBuber’s\ntheology possesses a dualistic thesis like Ren\u00e9\nDescartes. Descartes said…’I think; therefore, I am.’ \nBuber describes this entire question as the great I-It question. The\nfirst question Buber asks is…What is a person thinking about?…He\nasks…’We are told that man experiences the world. What does this\nmean?’ Well, what Descartes meant was that a person ‘perceives’ and\nsuch perception involves an ‘object.’ \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThen\nthe second question is of course…what is this I in Descartes\ndeclaration that is conducting this thought? The thing that is\nthinking is the great mystery of life…that which is thinking is\nconsciousness….I would say that inside of my head is something\nreally strange…there is something… ‘looking out’…Buber doesnt\nreally consider this mystery very much…his I is an abstract I.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tI\nam very curious about this thing ‘looking out’. I have a hypothesis\nas to what this I really is…when I speak about an I as a physical,\nbiological entity…I refer to it as…’I’. I realize that this ‘I’\ncan do three things…it can perceive, think, and act…thought is\nassisted by a memory of sorts, which can be hardwired by DNA…or as\nin humans, can be very malleable…new data can be received and\nrecorded…when new ideas are created, these also are saved…I shall\nreturn to my conception of things… in the next two sections of this\nbook…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tBuber\nmaintains that perception occurs with no impact between I and It…I\nask…How about touch, taste? We can do these things…at a\ndistance? Still Buber maintains…’Those who experience do not\nparticipate in the world. For the experience is \u201cin them\u201d and\nnot between them and the world.’ This is indeed magic…how humans\ncan do so much without interacting physically with anything…Is\nthere interaction if I am running away? Is there interaction with an\nobject if I think about it? However, regardless of whether these\ninterpolations of interactions count as being ‘real’ or not… the\nwhole point of perceiving is to think about something…and then\nperhaps ultimately decide to impact that world about us. So we are\nnot perceiving an object just for the fun of it…possible, potential\ninteraction with an object is foremost in our mind…even if at first\nwe do not touch it…Our lives may be at stake here!\t<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen\nBuber considers an object that is perceived by the I…he quickly\nunderstands that one object that can be perceived is …another human\nbeing..<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buber\nquickly maintains…that this object is different from other\nobjects… Thus, the I-You becomes different from I-It…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nthe process of the I interacting with other things…the I changes…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

an\nI that confronts an object is an entity of force…of\nmanipulation….the I is directed outwardly only…The I which\ninteracts with another human…is aware that it is reflected\nback…upon itself…this interaction moves two ways at once…\ntowards the consciousness we behold…and back at our own\nconcsciousness…that we are necessarily made aware of now….With\nobjects we are, we move….With humans we grow…we are able to\nrealize potentialities that will increase our powers on earth….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThus,\nit appears that the main difference between Buber’s I-It and\nI-You…is that a You….perceives back….One I recognizes another\nI…I maintain that an I-You relationship is actually an I – I\nrelationship…one consciousness recognizes another. Because of\nthis, Buber says that one has an ‘interaction’ with an object….\nhowever, one has a ‘relationship’ with another human being. \n‘Interaction’…’relationship’…what is the difference?…this is\nthe crux of what Buber’s slender book is about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen\none speaks of an object, it implies that an I has perceived that\nobject in the external world…An object may be present in the\nexternal world, but not be perceived by any I. Bishop Berkekey has\ngone through much of this. The object which has not been perceived\nexists, but it is not a part of human knowledge…Then Buber\naddresses the I… he maintains that when one says I, he is really\nsaying I-It, I-You or I-Thou…the I cannot stand alone… The I’s in\nthe words are the same in this one respect…That is, he says that\none cannot describe consciousness without describing what it is\ndoing. I disagree…I think you can have cataracts and not actually\nsee an object… you can be blind, just standing there not touiching\nanything…only feeling yourself…the flexing of your\nappendages…Okay..then you are gaining knowledge about\nyourself…that you have consciousness…but you are receiving no\nknowledge concerning objects external to your body….if one closes\nhis or her eyes, he or she realizes there is something in his or her\nhead …that Buber would say you are aware of… just like any other\nobject … You become aware of your I…I have an I…as I say, one\nhas actually encountered the I – I…The I has a relationship with\nitself. Al other animals are not so self aware… \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen\nBuber considers objects in the external world….he quickly\nunderstands that some objects are different from the others…some\nobjects are special…some objects are human beings…Buber\nimmediately examines how humans are different from other\nobjects…that is, how the I-You is different from I-It…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen\nit comes to I-You…Buber says…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘There\nare the spheres in which the world of relation arises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nfirst: life with nature. Here the relation vibrates in the dark and\nremains below language. The creatures stir across from us, but they\nare unable to come to us, and the You we say to them sticks to the\nthreshold of language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nsecond: life with men. Here the relation is manifest and enters\nlanguage. We can give and receive the You. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nthird: life with spiritual beings. Here the relation is wrapped in\na cloud but reveals itself, it lacks but creates language. We hear\nno You and yet feel addressed; we answer…creating, thinking,\nacting: with our being we speak the basic word, unable to say You\nwith our mouth.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nthe life of nature…when animals perceive objects in the external\nworld, they can perceive other animals and recognize\nsimilarities…they can recognize ‘friend’..or at least, ‘that there\nis something that I see that probably will not eat me’….But they do\nnot understand that a consciousness is ‘looking back’ at them…And\nas Buber says…animals are different from humans in the use of\nlanguage…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nthe life of men…Buber speaks of language as if it is almost a\ndefinition of what it means to be a human being…\tBuber says that\nbeing I and saying I are the same thing…Humans can say I because\nthey understand that I am something different from the objects about\nme…An animal, on the other hand… is just going about its\nbusiness…an animal moves here and there and all behavior is\nprogrammed in its brain…there is no real I…Life is just doing and\nacting in an instinctual manner…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tSo\nwhat is the difference between I-It and I-You?…I-It is the world of\nobjects and man and woman’s Will is used to devise tools to utilize\nthese objects to his or her advantage…He or she first defines\nobjects…A definition…such an idea is a tool…the first step\ntowards impacting the world outside of us…is to create an\nidea…Then he or she takes that idea…and develops axes, saw mills,\nhammers…ideas become physical tools with which to utilize a tree\nfor habitation and commerce….In this work, the object does not\ncommunicate back…there is merely an interaction here…there is\nonly a one way dealing between man and tree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tBuber\nsays…’When I confront a human being as my You and speak the basic\nword I-You to him, then he is no thing among things nor does he\nconsist of things…I stand in relation to him in the sacred basic\nword,’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThat\nis, for humans, relation is reciprocity…I-You…consciousness\nspeaking back to consciousness…For animals, I-You is an idea\nprogramed by instiinct in their brains, probably similar to a\nrudimentary understanding that a bear has…there is an object out\nthere that is similar to me…thus it probably will not harm me…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhat\nis consciousness?…At least…how is it expressed? In my thinking,\nthe ‘I’ is expressed two ways…(as I have said…in my\nthinking…’I’ with quotation marks…refers to a biological entity\nin my brain)… First, the ‘I’ can be an expression of Love…that\nis, connection…Second, it can be an expression of Will….’I’…can\nperceive, think and act… ‘I’ can impact something…In my thinking,\nan ‘I’ is endowed by the Cosmos…the capital ‘C’ here designates a\nuniverse with consciousness… it is endowed with Cosmic Love and\nCosmic Will…the power to connect with other ‘I’s…and the power to\nimpact objects about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tI’s\ncan connect…can Love…Buber maintains that this is the major\nsignature of the I-Thou…there is a ‘relation’..a consciousness\nconfronts my I right back. Buber says…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘-What,\nthen does one experience of the You?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘-Nothing\nat all. For one does not experience it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘-What,\nthen, does one know of the You?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘-Only\neverything. For one no longer knows particulars.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nthe I-You… I is reflected back. It is essentially I – I. I am at\nhome…with a consciousness like myself…I am with parents, friends,\ntribe, nation…. at its base…all of this relation…is the same\ngreat I. This is where all human life must start…before anything\nelse can be done. The I-You is the only place where\nconsciousness…can grow. Buber says…’The concentration and fusion\ninto a whole being can never be accomplished by me, can never be\naccomplished without me. I require a You to become; becoming I, I\nsay You. All actual life is encounter.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tOne\nis raised, nurtured…is able to grow… in Love, in connection…but\nonce he or she is on his or her own…is old enough to be\nindependent…One is often face to face with a human whose I is not\nrecognized…he or she might be the enemy…an object to be overcome\nor be freed in space from…there is no connection here, no encounter\nhere different from that of the human with a wolf or bear….Thus, a\nfundamental I – I must be established…recognition of friend, an\nother with conciousness…in peace…before concrete connection can\nbe made in I-You.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThus,\nthere first must be recognition of another I…there is a first\nI-You…Then there arises the possibility of a connection, relation\nwith that I… at which point a second I-You is able to emerge. This\nsecond I-You may then express Will…be creative…be able to make\ntools, and impact the world about him or her. In creativity there is\nalways an I-You… This, I maintain!…An infant has been taught by\nhis or her parents…or his or her elders….and this instruction\nremains as language, as tools in one’s memory….frozen, ready at\nhand to be instant You…one must possess You… either in person or\nfrozen in memory, writing, or culture…to grow… to move…to\nsurvive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThere\nis a melancholy when one realizes that the status quo is always in\njeopardy…Once an I-You relationship is established…it must be\nreplenished with energy, attention, kindness, coordination,\ncreativity…for the I-You to endure at full brightness…all light\ndims continually and ultimately…and must constantly be\nre-energized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIt\nis time to stop talking in metaphors and start considering what all\nthis means in real terms, in concrete terms, in biological terms, in\nterms of science, in terms of the Cosmos…even if some of these\nideas are not allowed by the scientific community today… even if\nsociety is not ready for a new Cosmic theology…For we know\nnow…that our lives…that the survival of humanity…depends on\nthis work!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n The ‘I’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhat\nis an ‘I’ particle?…I believe that every atom has an ‘I’…Just as\nyou have something ‘looking out’…I believe that every atom has a\nparticle within it…capable of…’looking out’. Scientists are\nforbad contemplating such things…However, six different disciplines\nI have studied…point toward such a hypothesis….The fight against\ncancer has been throttled because crucial steps have been blocked…I\nbelieve that this fight can gain renewed vigor…if the power of the\n‘I’ particle is allowed to open the way….I know this ‘I’ particle\nhypothesis is surprising….but science is being slowed in recent\ndecades because of the futility of our instruments…things are\neither too small…or too fast to be measured correctly…or be\ndiscerned at all. I have proposed the use of an interdisciplinary\napproach to overcome the inadequacies of our instruments. When we\nutilize such an approach…we uncover surprising things….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tLet\nus start with philosophy and theology….In my book, Man and the\nCosmos.<\/em>..I have a chapter entitled…’Man and a Cosmic\nTheology.’…a chapter which begins with the following ideas…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThe\nstrategy of the seventeenth century French philosopher, Ren\u00e9\nDescartes\n(1596-1656), is important in organizing my book, Man\nand the Cosmos<\/em>…He\nbelieved that one should begin with what is most ‘clear and distinct’\nto his or her mind…and then proceed outwards into the world…When\nhe considered what was most ‘clear and distinct’ to his mind…he\nproclaimed…’I think; therefore, I am.’ What he began with…was<\/em>\nhis mind…things in his mind were most clear…most distinct to him.\n Therefore, when I re-examined the social sciences…well, we know we\nare animals now… we look at DNA…we are 99 percent the same as a\nchimpanzee…so the social sciences must be redone…they must be\nplaced on a biological base…So I utilized Descartes’ approach…and\nstarted with philosophy…moved out to psychology…then to\nanthropology, sociology, economics..out, out to theology…beginning\nthe conversion process in the grand project of viewing<\/p>\n\n\n\n

humans\nas animals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThere\nis a second thing he probably meant…with the proclamation …’I\nthink; therefore, I am’…The second thing that Descartes probably\nmeant here was…that he was making an empirical observation!…He\nwas making an empirical observation that sneaks up on a person…then\npow!…suddenly, you realize that this observation is hard\nevidence…And just as he was able to deduce a whole philosophy from\nthis one hard fact…this one sentence…this one syllogism…we too\ncan start with it…we can write a book reworking the social\nsciences…and we can hypothesize amazing things.\t<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThe\nstartling observation that Descartes made…was new…Somehow, no one\nhad really noticed it before…Each person on earth is in a position\nto make this observation…we all do…yet in a sense we shrug it off\nand continue on our way. What he observed was...I<\/em> am\nthinking, I<\/em> am seeing, I<\/em> am acting…I <\/em>am\ninspecting the world around me. That I<\/em> is different from my\nordinary I…it is an I coupled with an idea…a revolutionary\nidea…that idea is: I have empirical evidence that there is a part\nof me…that is different from everything else around me…at least\nto begin with…There is a part of me that is surprisingly\nimportant…This is an idea that lives in my private thoughts…I\nwould never share such an egotistic thought with even my closest\nfriends… There is a part of me that can elevate me to the lofty\nseat of a king or queen…maybe like a small god…Gee…what is this\nthing?… We all could use a thing like this…and we all have\nit…Okay… what it is…is an idea…that idea is…that there is\nsomething inside of me…that is Cosmic… probably eternal. Why\nwould I think something like this?…because ‘I’…I<\/em>…dammit…am\n‘looking out! I.<\/em>..am the center of the world…of the whole\nCosmos!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tI<\/em>\nam…I <\/em>exist…and this is not merely an illusion caused by a\ncollection of neurons. I am ‘looking out’…and this fact is\nincontrovertible. As I say…I <\/em>am the center of the world. I<\/em>\nam like a god. Such a realization obviously leads to an enthusiastic\nacquisition of self respect…All of this is a bit blasphemous \u2026\nno, it is a whole lot blasphemous!…500 years ago…I could well\nhave been burnt at the stake for having the audacity to say such a\nthing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tHowever,\nit appears that the whole thing is true…and, the whole thing is\nstartling. Why are we so humble? We each think…know<\/em>…that\nwe…I<\/em>…am the eyes of the universe. If we are\nextinguished…if all ‘I’s are extinguished…the universe would\ndisappear…Bishop George Berkeley went through all of this…but he\nmissed the most important part…Yes, as he said…everything is<\/p>\n\n\n\n

relative\nbecause our ‘I’s are all in different positions with respect to the\nworld around us…and all perception must be adjusted for differences\nin perspective…But he missed the most important thing…what\nDescartes saw right there…at the beginning of his\nphilosophy…Everything is different from me<\/em>…from my\nperspective…because I have an ‘I’…quotation marks refer to a part\nof the brain…that is ‘looking out’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWe\nare humble, but our experience tells us we should be otherwise…\nwell, we should be proud of ourselves…based on that experience…we\nare certainly very special…Of course, we can look around, see\nthings and make generalizations…We can conjecture that other\norganisms, such as our friends, may have ‘I’s also…so maybe we\naren’t so special….As for those other organisms…we can never be\nreally certain…What I mean is…I<\/em> am the center of the\nuniverse…each of my friends…feel the same way!?….This is\ncrazy…We can never be fully in another person’s shoes…because,\nyes, he or she has an ‘I’ just like mine…but she, he…thinks…he,\nshe…is the center of everything, too….I would have never\nthought…That person!…thinks he, she, it…is as important as\nI…the nerve!…But it must be the case…All of these ‘I’s…and\nwhat it must mean…is inexplicable! \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWell,\nthat is a conundrum we must leave alone…because like Descartes,\nthere is only one truth we really know is true…really, really know\nis true…and that…is that…I<\/em>…anyway, for sure…am\n‘looking out’. Yes…that is for sure…The rest of you….God bless\nyou… are on your own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tLet\nus move on to a second point we can address more confidently…We can\nsee that all life dies…always…so we shall, also. Thus, it\nappears that our ‘I’ will be annihilated…and there is nothing we\ncan do about it. What we are forgetting is that we have empirical\nevidence of another possibility…another truth. We have an\n‘I’…and we are the center of everything. If this ‘I’ were expanded\ntrillions and trillions of times…that great ‘I’…would be a god. \nIt seems that an ‘I’ is too important to be extinguished…it is a\ngut feeling that we have…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tGiven\nthe startling realization that every animal on earth has an ‘I’ like\nmine…’looking out’…this gives us a hunch…that we can\nempirically verify our hypothesis…about the ‘I’…Well, we know\nthat everything in the cosmos is composed ultimately…of\nparticles…Thus, we have reason to believe that this ‘I’ in our\nbrain is a particle…Yes…because of this, there is a possibility\nthat we can prove our hypothesis scientifically at the Large Hadron\nCollider at CERN…What do we know about this ‘I’…so that we shall\nknow what we are looking for when we start running experiments on\nparticles….If we are looking for particles…then we are not\nlooking for some kind of ‘spirit’… like the shamans came up in\nhallucinogenic trances…What else do we know about this ‘I’?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tCould\nit be …that if we learn enough about this so called ‘I’…we might\nknow enough to solve major problems in the world…like cancer?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n A\nCosmic Theology<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhat\nscientists do know…is that all of the cosmos…everything in the\ncosmos…is made of energy…and the amount of this energy is\nconserved… is preserved…energy is never destroyed…there always\nhas and always will be the same amount of energy in the\nuniverse…Energy in the cosmos is displayed in different\nforms…Energy is expressed as forces…Energy is encased in parcels\ncalled particles….So all matter and force is composed of\nenergy…encased in particles…Therefore, if there is something\ninside my head…’looking out’…it must be a particle…let’s call\nthis an ‘I’ particle or an ‘I’ …for short.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tSo\nI have an ‘I’…does all life have an ‘I’…No!…Animals do and\nplants don’t. The change, the difference began with bacteria…That\nis, at first, bacteria were plants…they floated on or beneath the\nsea or in other bodies of water…they all were passive. Suddenly\nsome bacteria became active…they began to search for food…they\nbegan to avoid predators…According to scientists today…bacteria\nsuch as these…that move…are not really animals…because they are\nnot eucaryotes…they do not have nuclei… However, this change from\nnon-movement to movement…to being propelled! …this movement was\nastonishing…It was the first indication that something…in the\nwall of the bacteria…was, is in charge. Of course, the fact\nis…that something was in charge of the internal activity of\nbacteria…all along….This tremendous outward change in behavior\noccurred with little change in bacterial DNA…Something was added\nthat was of major significance in itself…What was added must have\nhad abilities, capabilities of its own..it had to be able to\nperceive, think, and act…it required only the addition of a few\nappendages in a plankton to empower these innate abilities…to\ntransform these abilities operating in a minute way into a way that\nwas larger…probably not a whole lot larger to begin\nwith…Evolution allowed these potentialities to be transformed…\nthese minute abilities became empowered ones….potentialities were\ntransformed…into the outward behavior of an organism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThe\n‘I’ in bacteria somehow ‘called forth’ …allowed the formation\nof…brain. It allowed the evolution of the brain around that minute\n‘I’… it allowed plant-like things to change into animal-like\nthings…it allowed organisms to become active, aggressive…instead\nof passive…It increased organisms’ chances for survival. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen\none commonly speaks of cognition, one says that it is like ‘turning\non a light’…when one speaks of intellect…of knowledge…we\nsay..let there be light! That is why at first it was tempting to\nconjecture that ‘I’s are photons. This possibility is even more\ninteresting…as photons are able to combine and become one…which\nwould allow us to jump ahead in our thinking… individual ‘I’s might\ncombine to become god-like consciousness… in ‘I’s in stars and\nnebulae… Our heads were spinning with the possibilities that light\nmight have…if photons were ‘I’ particles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tBut…photons\ndon’t have the components necessary to perceive, think, and act…the\nabilities that ‘I’s impart to bacteria…It is more likely that ‘I’s\nare in atoms, and that every atom has one…If this is true, then\natoms cannot become one larger atom…they can combine to form\nmolecules but not one larger ‘I’…thus, all atoms and ‘I’s…were\none…only at the moment…of the Big Bang…before there were\natoms….This is the conclusion you come to…when you look for a big\n‘I’…for a God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tSo\nlet us think this through…if a particle is to be an ‘I’ particle,\nthen it must do more than sit there…’looking out’…It must\nperceive, think, and act. Thus an ‘I’ particle must have components\nlinked to it that can perform three functions. Perhaps quarks in an\natom could perform these functions. So an atom could have a particle\nyet to be discovered…maybe like a p<\/em> particle…that could be\n‘looking out’…and is empowered by the three quarks in the nucleus\nof every atom…three quarks for Master Mark!…No… now scientists\nhave come up with six quarks and six anti-quarks that exist in every\natom…These quarks may perform different functions….thus, each\natom may have the potential to do a lot…if the conditions are\nright. Why don’t we notice more of these powers…when we examine\natoms?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWell,\nfor one thing…all of this operates at a level beneath the radar…\nbeneath the power of our instruments…that is why quantum mechanics\nhas not progressed very much since 1925…We have a whole lot of\ntrouble… studying the nuclei of atoms. We have made progress…we\nhave discovered a lot of particles by using cyclotrons…that is, by\nsmashing nuclei to pieces…we have ended up with a lot of particles\nbut we have no idea what these particles do in the nucleii of\natoms…Could an ‘I’ particle be hiding in the debris?… Does the\ncosmos require a prodigious amount of energy to produce one?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThe\nquestion is…how can an atom express itself…display and utilize\nits powers…if electrons are in the way? The nucleus of an atom\ncould communicate with the world around it…if the electron cloud\naround it…could be removed. This leads one to consider the\npossibility of ions…that is, atoms where electron fields have been\nstripped away…such stripping would be easier to secure completely\nin the instance of a hydrogen atom that has only one electron to get\nrid of…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tA\nhydrogen ion!…The ‘I’ may be a hydrogen ion!…If this is\ntrue…then immediately…things come to my mind…If one is looking\nat a plant…a vegetable plankton…there are already a lot of\nhydrogen ions at hand… primarily in the compartments and activity\nof photosynthesis… if one of these hydrogen ions in the\nphotosynthesis compartments could have become ‘activated’\nsomehow…could have been ‘revealed’…could have become ‘in\ncharge’…it would already have been connected to an ‘axon’…a\ncolumn of hydrogen ions conveying energy through the\nmodules….converted to convey information instead…this column of\nhydrogen ions would have already been connected to other\nphotosynthesis light receiving areas…thus, this hydrogen ion would\nalready possess a rudimentary ‘eye’!… The conveyance of\ninformation by means of hydrogen ions in plankton would thus predate\nand be precursors for the courier ions in our brain…calcium,\nsodium, potassium, and chloride ions…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nparamecium<\/em>…a spike of a brain has developed in its cell wall\nabout what we can hypothesize to be an ‘I’ particle…From the time\nof paramecium<\/em> on…brain continued to evolve to augment the\ninnate powers of the ‘I’ particle…until it reached the extent of\nthe wondrous mind of man and woman…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tHow\nis an ‘I’ added to living material to make an animal now? We don’t\nknow…but it must be relative easy to do…witness: that each of\n600 million sperm in one human emission all seem to possess an ‘I’. \nDo human eggs have ‘I’s? We know that human eggs can produce viable\noffspring without sperm…although they are barren. So each egg must\npossess an ‘I’. Therefore, the sperm and egg must both have\n‘I’s..why doesn’t the baby have two ‘I’s? Perhaps the two ‘I’s\ncombine to become a single ‘I’ at an early state…which would have\nproblems empirically…because two atoms cannot become one…More\nlikely one ‘I’ is eliminated…by giving it an electron.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThere\nis so much to think about…We have reason to believe that ‘I’s are\neternal and that there is such a thing as conservation of ‘I’s…This\nis because it now is apparent that ‘I’s have something to do with\nenergy…Perhaps energy is composed of ‘I’s…an ocean of ‘I’s in\nwhich nodes may form…called atoms…If this is the case…then ‘I’s\nhave the characteristics of energy…they are eternal…they are\nconserved, preserved…’I’s are never lost…They can be\n‘constrained’…that is, their power can be limited by electron\nfields around the atom…or they can be ‘revealed’…perhaps\npartially when electron fields are partly removed…or completely\n‘revealed’…when no electrons are left at all…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIf\nan atom has more than one electron…things may end up in an\n‘in-between’ situation…As one or more electrons may be\nremoved…some electrons may still remain…that is, the nucleus…is\npartially ‘revealed’…This partial revelation may leave one with\nions..such as exist in the human brain…like sodium, and potassium\nions, and the like…which may result in partial ‘revelation’ of the\npowers of the abilities of the ‘I’. Instead of being ‘in\ncharge’…an ion, with its associated electromagnetic wave…may have\nthe power…to move information along neurons…transfer,\ndeliver…ideas…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThe\nfact is…if ions possess consciousness that is ‘revealed’…then\nions in a star…can come close to being one consciousness…one\ngreat ‘I’… yet they have nuclei, therefore, they can never really\nbe one…perhaps they can flash back and forth…from the ability to\n‘look out’ as one…to individual points of consciousness…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThis\nwould mean that the cosmos…is full of consciousness…is composed\nof consciousness…we shall refer to such a cosmos as\n…Cosmos…with a captial ‘C’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAll\nof this is very exciting…there are so many possibilities to think\nabout…The major thing is…if every atom possesses an ‘I’…then\nour entire concept of ‘materialism’…has changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n \tI and World<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘However\nthe history of the individual and that of the human race may diverge\nin other respects, they agree in this at least: both signify a\nprogressive increase of the It-world,’ \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t\nIn this manner, Buber begins Part II of his book…concerning the\nI-World. Following Buber’s lead…we are moving in a simular\nfashion…In this section…we are changing our focus…from the\nindividual and how his or her relationship with another human being\ncan be fundamentally different from his or her interaction with an\nobject in the external world…we are moving from the individual…to\na world where there are two or more people. Man and woman are seldom\nalone in this world…there are always parents, extended family,\nfriends, band, tribe, community, nation, a world of people. How is\nthe I-You manifested with more people involved?…How can\nconceptualization on our part on this level assist in our endeavor to\nfind God somewhere in the universe…perhaps in a relationship with\nanother human being?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t\nEating bananas is instinctive…Creating tools is of a Cosmic\nnature…In the second instance…an ‘I’ is in charge…a brain is\nnot just on ‘automatic’…I believe that the dynamics of creativity\nmoves from the ‘I’…wherein the ‘I’ understands that it is unique in\nNauture in its ‘looking out’…then the ‘I’ finds another…one other\n‘I’,.. which the first ‘I’ recognizes as possibly being a\ncosnciousness such as he or she…’looking out’…It is here that\nconnection may occur…Love can come into existence…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tLove\nis possible because each ‘I’ is embued with Cosmic Love from its\norigins in the Cosmos…With connection, the I-You emerges…Once\nLove is present..then the couple may move to the next step…that of\ntogether confronting the I-It…It is at this point that Cosmic Will\nemerges…each ‘I’ also possesses Cosmic Will from its origins in\nthe Cosmos…These entities…these ‘I’s… possessing Cosmic\nWill…may merge strength through connection and thus confront the It\nwith increased power, with combined strength of their Will…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tTwo\n‘I’s may unite quickly…and then move to many ‘I’s united..,’I’ +\n‘I’ + ‘I’…which are able to be a sort of great ‘I’ from which the\n‘spriit’, as Buber terms it… may emerge…that is, an engine of\ncreativity emerges…creating new things..’I’s working, thinking,\ncreating together,…creating ideas, creating tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tConglomerations\nof I-You, such as this…have led humanity from the Darkness of the\nMiddle Ages…to an age of Industrial Revolution …an age on earth\nproclaimed officially by the strains of Beethoven’s Third Symphony…\nMan and woman had stood in the splendor of the great Roman\nEmpire…followed by centuries of despair in the shadow of their\nlord’s castle…with only a mediaeval Church to connect indivduals\nand different peoples…Now man and woman are in charge of things\nagain…They can move the earth…create their own destiny…each\nspeck of humanity possessing a spark of what might be construed of as\na piece of God…Humans are now united…I’s united again…in a\ndimunitive way…as they were at the time of the Big Bang…again\nbecoming like gods….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nhuman beings there is an ‘I’…as I have said…these ‘I’s were once\npart of a large agglomeration of ‘I’s at the time of the Big\nBang…This great agglomeration was a God…one immense ‘I’. As I\nsay…on earth…when many I’s are connected with Love, and are able\nto combine their Will…it is a reinactment of that initial oneness\nin a diminutive form…it is as if a re-creation of God in a proxy\nmanner, artificial manner, yet immensely powerful manner has been\nrealized …Darkness in human life on earth…has become…through\nthe process of ‘I’+ ‘I’ + ‘I’… a blinding Light!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tCosmic\nWill …is the making of new tools…it is about a world in which\ntools cover all like a blanket…When this first happens…the world\nis imbued with Cosmic wonder…Tools are Cosmic Will embodied within\nan object… tools change over time and become more powerful…’I’ +\n‘I’ + ‘I’…equals corporations …Tools do not evolve…they must be\ndeveloped…by ‘I’s…There is nothing automatic in all of\nthis…Humans must constantly exert themselves and not become\ncomplacent to ensure that tools are constantly being developed…Just\nas all the ‘I’s were once one…in a Cosmic God at the time of the\nBig Bang… many ‘I’s are able to be united on earth in a mechanized\nstar of community with its own power. When ‘I’s are united on\nearth…a sun of power is created in the engines of industry…by the\nunited efforts of great corporations…the earth is covered with\nCosmic Will embodied in tools and creation of products.\t<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nBuber’s words this process is described in this way…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘The\nbasic relation of man to the It-world includes experience, which\nconstitutes this world ever again, and use, which constitutes this\nworld ever again, and use, which leads it towards its multifarious\npurpose…the preservation, alleviation, and equipment of human life.\n With the extent of the It-world the capacity for experiencing and\nusing it must also increase. To be sure, the individual can replace\ndirect experience more and more with indirect experience, the\n\u201cacquisition of information,\u201d and he can abbreviate use more and\nmore until it becomes specialized \u201cutilization\u201d: a continual\nimprovement of capacity from generation to generation is nevertheless\nindispensable. This is what is usually meant when people speak of a\nprogressive development of the life of the spirit.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhat\nis missing in Buber’s disquisition is the fact that each ‘I’\npossesses Love and Will which leads to connection, aggregation of\n‘I’s… then aggregatrion of connection leads to empowerment of Will,\nand development of tools…Tools are the symbol of human Will acting\nin the past…a tool is frozen creativity, innovation created by\nWill…creating factories, mountains of machinery made by ‘spirit’…\nthat is, creativity…moving the earth…tools are fozen…because\nthe new is no longer new…it has become commonplace… creativity\nhas become frozen into the form of tools…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThe\nproblem with all this might is…melancholy….The I-You as Buber has\nsaid…must be diligently and continually tended…lest it drift into\nI-It….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

workers\nare utilized in factories, at first as part of bustling, excitng\nproducers of food, clothes and shelter which makes life better,\neasier for all…yet with time…workers, humanity become(s) embedded\nin an artificial world of his and her own making…embedded in a\nworld of machinery…alien to their bodies and their pysches…which\nbecomes a prison…and a Dark Age emerges all over again..<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAs\nBuber says…’The obstacle: for the improvement of the capacity for\nexperience and use generally involves a decrease in man’s power to\nrelate…that power which alone can enable man to live in the\nspirit.’ So it is…that the I-You explosion in tools…tends to\ndie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAnd\nso Buber admonishes us to be vigilant. Creativity…is Cosmic Will\n…it is the making of new tools. wherein the Cosmic becomes objects,\nin which we can be qjuickly smothered… both as workers…and as\nconsumers…So it is…that Buber’s melancholy can quickly settle in\nagain…All You degenerates over time..it must be continually\nreinvigorated… Creativity is stifled by\/with a plethora of tools\nmade objects and inevitably will slow down…In time the It-World\ntakes over…people think less…they text and twitter…Hope lies\nwith a chunk of You which is captured in books…reading is actually\nYou frozen in print…energy, ideas from the past that a person may\ngrab at any time to revitalize him- or herself and society…and\nstart the creativity, the expanding and developing again…in this\nway, print can spring instantly to Cosmic life if the right ‘I’\ninteracts with it…that is why putting ideas in writing is a Cosmic\nact…creativity is Cosmic act…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThere\nare three types of creativity…physical, intellectual, and\nCosmic…Physical creativity is reproduction of life…Intellectual\ncreativity is conceiving new ideas…and Cosmic creativity is taking\nthose ideas…and moving the world…impacting the Cosmos…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tCreativity\nis the only thing that imparts to humans…joy and happiness…All\nanimals get a ‘kick’…a joy that gives one a reason for living..from\nprocreation…Well, that reward helps ensure that a species will\nendure. For some reason, in some way…humans receive the same\n‘kick’ from creating ideas and new objects or systems…that can\nimpact the world around us….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tOne\nway to put ideas to work or have the potential of working is to put\nthem in print…the You is made object…yet eternal…You…made\nculture… petrified ready to spring into You in a second of\nreading…a piece of I just sitting there as an object…waiting to\nrelate…As I say…tools do not evolve…they are developed…from\nconstant attention and exertion by creators of ideas, tools,\nproducts…constantly taking the frozen and making the new….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThen\nthere are the social tools, institutions, which are as powerful as\nearthly gods…. Yet these too can become frozen in\nplace…increasingly preventing further progress to\noccur….constraining, holding back the ‘spirit’ of human\nendeavor…slowing innovation to a crawl. These institutions are the\nChurch, Government Bureaucracy, the Corporation, the University, and\nMarriage and Family…these social tools were created during\nmediaeval times in and for other conditions…and are beginning to\nhold back progress in a new age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThus,\nhumans are embedded in social institutions as well as\nmechanization…Institutions are controlling and impersonal. In\nBuber’s words…’Feelings are what is \u201cin here\u201d where one lives\nand recovers from institutions.’ Machinery plus institutions add up\nto a global prison in which some people are immersed in material\nwealth, some are starving…and all are left in a virtual\nexistence…as Jean Baudrillard would say…a Simulacrum of life. \nThus arises a substitute world in which connection is superficial on\nI-phones in isolated suburbs, divisions arising, indifference towards\nothers is rife…the I-You is lost in a worldly flood of things…of\nI-It.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tBuber\nsays…’Man’s communal life cannot dispense any more than he himself\nwith the It-world…over which the presence of the You floats like\nthe spirit over the face of the waters. Man’s will to profit and\nwill to power are natural and legitimate as long as they are tied to\nthe will to human relations and carried by it. There is no evil\ndrive until the drive detaches itself from our being; the drive that\nis wedded to and determined by our being is the plasma of communal\nlife, while the detached drive spells its disintegration.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAnd\nso at any moment..if conditions are right, and attention is again\nplaced upon the I-You…the humanity of ‘I’s can emerge again to\nrebuild a world…Most important is the rebuilding of institutions\nthat are constraining progress…the secret to this rebuilding is the\nformation of new patterns around the primitve organization of the\nband, the affinal group in which I-You was<\/p>\n\n\n\n

initially\ncontinually present…first because of instinct..and then\nintentionally by the development of tribe and custom….a world\nremade in this image is displayed in my book, Omicron Blue.<\/em>..in\nwhich all institutions are remade with the primal band woven in their\nfabric…However, a combined resolve…a combined decision is\nnecessary and commitment to a great transformaton in ways of doing\nthings is required…to wrest humans from the prisons they have\ncreated for themselves. This is not a repudiation of democratic\nprocesses or rule of law…It is obvious that the direction of the\ndevelopment of tools is towards automated cities…with a handful of\npeople in charge…It is just that such a Change must be anticipated\nand the transformation be made in a smooth…intelligently guided\nmanner…without falling into the grips of dictatorship…with\nindividual communities ultimately in charge of their own production\nand reaping the bounty produced by machines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThus\ncan it be…that a society can become a Thou society…all work given\nsignificance by a Cosmic ‘I’…However, a society must maintain its\nfocus upon climbing its mountain…refrain from greed and satiation\nof the senses…be wary that a world of tools that initiates with the\nCosmic…may quickly fall into Darkness…Creativity must continually\nbe renewed to maintain its Cosmic core…to keep Cosmic power from\ndevolving into a pile of tools and things…into a Simulacrum of\nlife..<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAs\nBuber says…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘It\nis only from the presence of the spirit that significance and joy can\nflow into all work, and reverence and the strength to sacrifice into\nall possessions…and that all that is worked and possessed, though\nit remains attached to the It-world, can nevertheless be transfigured\nto the point where it confronts us and represents the You.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n I and God<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tPart\nIII of Buber’s book is entitled I and Thou… it is a search for\nspiriuality in the I-You,,,that is, it is a search for God…so I\nshall entiitle this section… I and God…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tTo\nparaphrase what the translater, Kaufman, said above…Buber\nthoroughly sought God in human relationships…but his quest was not\nfruitful…I say, this was because one must identify two spheres in\nthe universe before a complete investigation of the I-You can take\nplace… the sphere of the ‘plant’ and the sphere of the Cosmos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tFirst,\nthe sphere of the ‘plant’. The Cosmos was operating very well for\nbillions of years…without life. Life is merely plant..which is\nmerely cycles of chemical reactions repeating, repeating, and then\ncreating duplicated cycles that all repeat and repeat…the\nrepetition is very slow at first…perhaps over hundreds of years for\none cycle…then with the addition of things like catalysts…and\nthen with the insertion of ‘I’s…the cycles reoccur at a faster and\nfaster rate…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tLife\nis an accident…there may be all kinds of cycles of circular chain\nreactions on earth…that you wouldn’t call life…certain kinds of\nrocks go through certain cycles of lava, hardening, burying, heating,\nliquifying, lava, hardening, burying…on and on….This repetition\npossesses as much life…as a plant does…However, some of these\ncycles seem to be more alive to us…than others…This\nrepeating…has evolved over millions of years…all of this has\nhappened without ‘I’s in charge…without something yelling at the\nrest in a mass of chemicals…at least, at the top level…at the\nlevel that leadership controls our whole body…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThere\nis ‘Life’…and there is existence…’Existence’ can have two\nmeanings….One is that a thing is present<\/em>…in\nthe universe…The second is that there is consciousness<\/em>…in\nthe universe…that is…that there are ‘I’s…in the universe…In\nthis book…the word ‘existence’ refers to the presence of an ‘I’. \nFor example, scientists and non-scientists have been interested in\nwhether Life exists in other parts of the universe…when in\nfact…there is ‘existence’… all around us…everywhere …in each\natom. This is something that should have been recorded as a fact by\nnow…but we are talking about phenomena that are incredibly small.\nThe Large Hadron Collider at CERN should, must, have ‘existence’ high\non its list…of things it must find…The problem is…a collider\nmay annihilate the evidence it is seeking to find…At this stage\nthere are few other ways to examine things at the subatomic level….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tSecond,\nwhat is the sphere of the Cosmos?…Every atom comes from the\nCosmos..it is inherently endowed with Cosmic features in its\nconscousness… It has an innate knowledge of Equality…all atoms\nare equal…but with different personalities…all atoms adhere to\nattributes of Cosmic Beauty…which includes Cosmic Law…and which\nis somehow related to earthly mathematics…There is Cosmic\nWill…the power to impact things about it…There is Cosmic\nLove…What is this Love? \t<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tA\nGod created all that there is….at first…all was Connection…all\nwas Cosmic Love…This God gave herself and mothered the\nuniverse…she gave a piece of herself to each mote of dust…this\ndust is not Dead!…’perchance to dream’!…In this way…there was\nCreation from the start… Speaking more in scientific terms…In the\nbeginning…all ‘I’s were one…then there came the Big Bang in which\nthe Cosmos was flung out in a violent explosion…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAt\nthe present time…there is a piece of ‘I’…a piece of God in each\natom of the universe…each atom has the power of connection…that\nis, it possesses Cosmic Love…It also possesses the power to impact\nthat about it…that is, it possesses Cosmic Will… We look out at\nspace…and see everything blowing up…this is Will…somehow…As a\nconsequence…each atom that arrives on earth…possesses the\ncapability to create…through Cosmic connection and Cosmic power…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tOn\nearth atoms are ‘in charge’ of human beings…and somehow creativity\nis rewarded psychologically here on earth…with the greatest\nrewards…of joy and happiness… As we have said…there is physical\ncreativity…having children…and here the Cosmic meets the\nplant…we must reproduce for Life to continue to exist…and the\nCosmic ‘I’ facilitates reproduction…it causes the cycles of plant\nlife, plant existence to reoccur…at very fast speeds…For humans,\nthere is also intellectual and Cosmic creativity…intellectual\ncreativity produces ideas…and ideas made manifest…create tools,\nwhich are Cosmic in the sense that they allow the ‘I’ to impact the\nworld…to impact the Cosmos…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAll\nLife is built upon Death…yet there is the capability for \nconnection… for Love…On an earth filled with Darkness and\nhardship…there is the capacity for impact, power…for Will…for\ncreativity… for Light…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tScientists\nknow… that the Cosmos that can be seen…that is, the Cosmos that\nis Light…is only 3 percent of all the matter and energy in the\nuniverse… 97 percent of the universe is ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark\nenergy’…perhaps ‘I’s come to earth for ‘connection’…intense\ncoupling with another ‘I’…and thereby increase their probability of\nremaining in the Light after earthly Life is over….existence,\nconsciousness is eternal…however, most of the ‘I’s in the\nuniverse…are alone….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tFor\nall animals…’connection’…a form of Love…leads to mating and\nreproduction…For man and woman…the same is true…But Love of the\nband, the tribe…leads to inspiration, to songs sung, to crying to\nthe heavens…to fashioning of weapons for hunt…for warmth, for\nfood….For the band…if there is no Love…there is no\nStruggle…if there is no Struggle there is no Will…no creation of\ntools. When strangers meet, there is the potential for Love…yet on\nearth, the first steps are always in darkness…In the stranger, we\nmust be able to see ourselves…before there may be Love…before\nthere is capability to work together in the Struggle…before Will\ndoes appear…before creation may occur…creation of babies, ideas,\ntools, a new world…Love gives us the greatest rewards on\nearth…creativity yields joy and happiness…Love, if pursued\nvigorously…may yield the greatest Cosmic reward…the Light…\neternal existence…perpetually…in the Light…with those we love.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘I’s\ncome to earth for ‘connection’…Sex is where plant and Cosmic meet. \nPlant is compelled to reproduce…sex is the engine of\nreproduction…yet sex is intimacy…intimacy means the possibility\nof very close ‘connection’…close enough for the possibility for\neternal Light…One man and one woman are bonded by sex…they are\nclose…Now the challenge comes…for them to feel compelled to\nbecome ever closer every day…Sex is dangerous…it can be\nselfish…the two must be equal in their couple…they must strive to\nbecome the same ‘I’… ‘looking out’…a couple should strive to be\none trillion times closer…than marriage…it is only then…that\nthe possibility of Cosmic ‘connection’ may occur…In Buber’s\nterminology…two I’s must become so close…that they become almost\nthe same I….then a return to the Light is possible…to continue\nfor an eternity in the Light of God….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tCloseness\nin a couple is made possible by means of the female sex organ…it is\nthe organ of intimacy…the male organ is irrelevant in this…When\nman and woman are naked…without the sex act…it is the female\norgan that bonds both into one…intimately, psychologically…and\nsimultaneously… Cosmically…as man and woman strive to be\nactually, intensely ‘one’…the female organ must always be\nnearby…In primitive cultures…the female organ is always\naccessible…he desiring every two minutes…she making\naccessible…every two minutes…not for sex…instead…for\nintimacy…for ‘oneness’….In thiis way, sex becomes Love… becomes\nLight…In the darkness before a fire, a community filled with real,\nintense Love of couple…becomes a community of Love…of Light…a\ncommunity that may exist together forever…in the Light of the\nCosmos…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tLet’s\nexpress Buber’s search for God in the I-You relationship in his\nwords….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tBuber\nfeels the spiritual aspect of a relationship…there arises as he\nsays…’the notion of an agent behind\n<\/p>\n\n\n

[an]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

action. Only then does it become possible for the You that\noriginally could not be an object of experience, being simply\nendured, to be reified and become a He or She…it has been\ndesignated as a supra-sensible, superrnatural force in a human\nbeing’…\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nthe paragraph above…Buber is feeling intuitively that there must be\nsomething of the spiritual in a relationship…there is the ‘I’ in\neach person of a relationship…so the Cosmic is there…but it is as\nthe two become more closely connected…in different degrees of Love,\nand then with Will..that the Cosmic is felt and expressed…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tPerhaps\nmarriage is important…Buber says…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘Marriage\ncan never be renewed except by that which\nis always the source of all true marriage: that two humans reveal\nthe You to one another. It is of this that the You that is I for\nneither of them builds a marriage.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tYes,\nBuber feels there is something about a married couple that is closer\nto God…this is because the I-You is becoming more of an I \u2013\nI…What he missed is…if the couple works at it every day…this\nclose relationship may lead to an intensity of relationship that may\nkeep them together for an eternty in the Light.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tLooking\nat marriage Buber can see that \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘Extended,\nthe lines of relationships intersect in the eternal You.’ and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘Every\nactual relationship to another being in the world is exclusive. It\nfills the firmament…not as if there were nothing else, but\neverything else lives in its light. As long as the presence of the\nrelationship endures, this world-wideness cannot be infringed. But\nas soon as a You becomes an It, the world-wideness of the\nrelationship appears as an injustice to the world, and its\nexclusiveness as an exclusion of the universe’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tThis\nis as close as Buber comes to God in a relationship. Buber seeks\nseeks and seeks for God in relationships…He looks at magic, the\ndoctrine of Sandilya, Judism, Christianity, Buddhism, mysticism,\nHindu, cults…he ends up staring into the eyes of animals…all in\nfutility… to find God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAs\nBuber laments…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘We\nhave come close to God, but no closer to an unriddling, unveiling of\nbeing. We have felt salvation but no \u201csolution.\u201d’ \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t\t\tA\nCosmic Theology and the 21st<\/sup> Century<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nConclusion, I would like to address a couple of topics…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tFirst,\nabove I have maintained that a spiritual relationship between two\nhumans…I-Thou..as Buber would say..is possible and even desirable\non earth…I maintain that it leads to the best life on earth…as\nwell as allow two to exist together…perhaps with other close loved\nones…in the Light…forever… Does every animal that mates have a\nchance for eternal existence in the Light?…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAll\nI know is that in human relationships…man and woman can be married\nand yet be in a habitual, oh-hum relationship…There are many more\nof these couplings than most would admit…I feel that an intensity\nof relationship between man and woman must be nurtured daily….not\nonly because of the possibility of ensuring good things after\ndeath…but because such intensity ensures good things during our\ndays on earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAn\nimportant question is…can the I-thou be extended from one intensely\nadhered couple to other humans in the extension of family relations? \nCan a community feel the I-Thou? And does that mean that a\ncommunity might be lifted as one…after Death… into eternal\nLight?….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tI\nsuppose that there is God in community only if intense I-You is\npermeated, ‘soaked-through’ all the people… continually…\nface-to-face. How would these relationships differ from those of\napes?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAs\nI have said above…I feel that the I-Thou is centered…on\nLove…I-Thou exists when two ‘I’s become the same person, one ‘I’…\nOnce there are two ‘I’s bonded tightly…more ‘I’s may be\nadded…building towards the ‘I’+’I’+’I’…to the innumerable..which\nis one great ‘I’…until what is built is similar to that of a\nGod…but each ‘I’ also has a Cosmic purpose on earth which seems to\nindicate an interaction with the Cosmos with the activities of\nearth…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWe\nhaven’t addressed this fact…but it is true that each person not\nonly is on earth to find another…and couple intensely…but\nintuitively we know..that each of us…has his and her Mountain to\nclimb…has her and his work to accomplish here on earth…which is\nstrange…this would imply that there is an ability for the Cosmos to\nenter into the work of humanity somehow…and that there may be some\nsort of building up of Cosmic Truth, Knowledge, somewhere …way out\nthere…for some reason…out there…where everything just seems to\nbe a lot of monotonous blowing up and spreading out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tA\ncommunity can feel Love, commitment in climbing a Mountain\ntogether…in a primitive, affinal band, tribe of connectiveness and\nLove… there exists communal life that is collectively commited to\nclimbing a Moutain together…Is it possible to take such Love…such\nWill…to a higher level…Is it possible for one World of\nhumanity…to feel this same closeness of connection…and commitment\nto World progress?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAll\nI know …is that the religion of the past that advocated a retreat\nto a closet to pray…that the monk who is one of the most religious\nof all…must retreat from the world and contemplate on Godly\nthings…it appears…that that world, that religion…is gone. As\nBuber says…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\t‘People\nspeak of the \u201creligious man\u201d as one who can dispense with all\nrelationships to the world and to beings because the social stage\nthat is allegedly determined from outside is supposed to have been\ntranscended here by a force that works entirely from within. But two\nbasically different notions are confused when people use the concept\nof the social: the community built of relation and the amassing of\nhuman units that have no relation to one another….the palpable\nmanifestation of modern man’s lack of<\/p>\n\n\n\n

relation.\n The bright edifice of community, however, for which one can be\nliberated even from the dungeon of \u201csociability,\u201d is the work of\nthe same force that is alive in the relation among others; it is the\nuniversal relation into which all rivers pour without drying up for\nthat reason. Sea and rivers…who would make bold to separate here\nand define limits? There is only one flood from I to You, ever more\ninfinite, the boundless flood of actual life.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tCan\nwe ever hope…for one blue whirling celestial rock… of I-Thou?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tPeople\nask…If every atom possesses an ‘I’…why haven’t the ‘I’s\ncommunicated with us?…Well, I maintain that the ‘I’ does talk to\nus…they call it a ‘field’ in physics…I venture…that it is the\nfields of ions…that carry information along neurons in the\nbrain…’I’s are crying out…with no ears to listen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n .\tThus,\nwe are emerging from an empirical age…Up until this time since the\n17th<\/sup>\ncentury, we have been able to conduct science upon the bedrock of\nlaboratory experimentation and investigation…but those days are at\nan end…empirical work now is stymied by the fact that scientific\ninstruments that Britain once was so proud to supply the bulk of…\nare not able to measure things that are too fast or are too\nsmall….cyclotrons are utilized to probe the mysteries of the atomic\nnucleus…yet they are able to do so only by smashing things to\nsmithereens…a practice not well suited to examining the interaction\nof particles as they go about their business every day…Most aspects\nof physics that can be empirically verified have been examined\nthoroughly and are utilized very completely in the engineering of our\ndaily lives…we have, one might say, claimed most low hanging\nfruit…now we must reap knowledge another way…we can’t just stop\nin our tracks right here right now…some most crucial breakthroughs\nare necessary now…it is necessary to conquer some of our greatest\nfoes…like cancer…I am proposing to allow the incursion of science\ninto these uncharted waters by new means…two of which are…first,\nthe utilzation of the left and right hemispheres of the brain, the\nstudy of which I have devoted a large part of my life…and second, \n‘The Science of Everything’…wherein we take the social sciences,\nplace them on a biological base..add them to all of the other\nsciences…and with this enlarge platform examine phenomena that are\ntoo fast or too small from several directions at once…utilizing\nmany disciplines at once to create hypotheses… and then increase\nthe probability of these guesses being correct by using a\nPicasso-like approach of attacking a problem from many sides at once,\nutlizing every dimension…and finding consistencies in conclusions\ndrawn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tSo\nindeed… there is speculation here…but as I say… from now on…\nspeculation is the name of the game…the challenge is to maximize\nthe probability that a guess, a hypothesis made by a scientists\nworking in the dark…may be correct. When we have incresased the\nprobability of a hypothesis as high as possible…then we can try to\nconcoct experiments to test these hypotheses…If we think that the\ncentrosome of a cell is hiding an ‘I’ which can be used to kill a\ncancer cell…Well, heck go ahead and try to use that\ncentrosome…just say it is in charge of the cell…it peceives,\nthinks and acts and uses DNA as a memory…if you annihilate the\ncentrosome and the cancerous cell is dead…you have cured\ncancer…you may have also proven that an ‘I’ exists….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tHow\ncan we increase the probability that guesses are good guesses?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well\n, first… people are dominant in one side of their brain or the\nother…I have a lot experience with these studies…I have a 200\nI.Q. right hemispheric dominance in the brain…with the highest\nscore ever attained on the Wechsler-Bellevue Block Test…the only\ntest that presently exists to measure the abilities of that side of\nthe brain…At the present time, these abilities are deprecated in\nscholarly climes, although they are an important part of creative\nthought…this neglect is one reason research in many areas is\nproceeding so slowly…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAn\nanalytical mind uses deductions to find truth…An analytical\nperson…if he were trying to cure cancer…would be thoroughly\nversed in general biology…then he or she would zero in on one\naspect of cell activity and discern its role in developing\ncancer…The right side of the brain creates syntheses…I began\nreading extensively when I was in college during the 1960s…I have\ndegrees in economics and economic history with a Masters in Economic\nHistory…How dare I conduct research in any other area?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhen\nan analytical person finishes one focus of study, he or she then\nfocuses on another…The right side of the brain is different…by\nmeans of analogy, causation, conceptualization…my mind has been\nbuilding one immense synthesis…I have studied philosophy, physics,\nneuroscience, theology, biology, all of which have bearing on the\ntopic in this minibook…The thing is… the instruments we use to\nexamine phenomena are running into trouble…they cannot examine\nthings too little or too fast…we can make intelligent conjectures\nabout things we cannot examine…but we are heavily reliant more and\nmore upon circumstantial evidence…when it comes to circumstantial\nevidence, we can increase the accuracy and speed of forming\nhypothesis if we bring knowledge from other fields to bear on a given\ntopic…such as cancer…Thus, we need to utilize both sides of the\nbrain in attacking problems from here on out…the right side of the\nbrain ties the whole world together into a\nsynthesis…interdisciplinary research is second nature to it…When\ntwo people with different hemispheric dominance in the brain work\ntogether…you add I.Q.s…think John Lennon-Paul McCartney….<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tSecond…there\nis the Science of Everything….The use of several disciplines to\nattack a problem is called, of course, ‘interdisciplinary research’. \nNow that it is confirmed that humans are animals, I maintain that the\nsocial sciences must be placed on a biological base…and utilize the\nsame methodologies as the natural sciences…as biology, chemistry\nand physics. When this is done…the disciplines will be able to\ntalk to each other and attack problems together. In my book, Man\nand the Cosmos<\/em>…I took first steps towards making such\nchanges…From these efforts I was able to make progress in several\ndirections…I call this…working with…The Science of Everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tPhilosophy\nfirst gave us ideas about the ‘I’ particle…after all philosophy is\nactually a way to examine the human brain from the inside out… \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tPhysics\ngave me the idea about the hydrogen ion being a candidate for such a\nparticle in the brain…and that all atoms probably possess such a\nparticle! \t<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tNeuroscience\ngave me the idea that information from sensory apparati in the brain\ncommunicate with the ‘I’ particle not with on and off currents inside\nneurons…but instead with the analog waves that accompany flows of\nions in neurons..whereby information is passed from wave to wave very\nrapidly by means of ‘entanglement ‘ not of particles, but of\nwaves…The only way this made sense…was if there was an entity\nsomewhere in the brain…that was too small to discern easily…yet\npossessed the capability to process wave after wave…of data…of\nperception…from flows of ions…from waves of waves of\ninformation…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tTheology\nmakes clear that what we are looking for is something ‘looking\nout’…something that is eternal, once part of something\n‘greater’…although these ideas were confused by shamanic\nhallucinations that gave an illusion of ‘spirits’…when in actuality\nparticles were the instigators,…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tBiology\ngives us ideas concerning evolution…how the ‘I’ may have entered\ninto plant organisms over time and accelerated the development of\norganisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tAnother\ntype of biology…gives us a model for how the cell may operate…I\nhave examined how ‘I’s may have developed in the walls of one celled\norganisms…I have looked at the internal acitivity of cells…and\nhypothesized how this activity may be ‘run’ by an ‘I’…In looking\nfor a cure for cancer….we need only look for gaps in the research\nof the cell…where progress has been stymied to see if the\nhypothesis of an ‘I’ particle can assist in this research….See my\nminibook, The ‘I’ Particle and Fighting Cancer.<\/em>‘<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIn\nthis way…we are using a Science of Everything to accelerate the\npace of research…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tMoving\nfrom three centuries of Industrial Revolution and tremendous gains in\nmaterial wealth in Western countries…and now the eruption of\noptimism and power in the Far East…I, of course, am referring to\nChina…it would seem reasonable that centuries of Cosmic Will now\nmust alternate with a 21st<\/sup> Century of pay back,\nregrouping, concentration on matters pushed to the side in the rush\ntowards lucre….There is a fifty-fifty chance…that humanity will\nnot make it through this century…We need to concentrate upon a\ncentury of human Connection on earth… .the raising of all the\npeoples on this spinning blue dot in the universe…to the highest\npotential possible…in the embrace of Cosmic Love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n THE END<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MARTIN BUBER AND BUILDING A COSMIC THEOLOGY by Frank W. Andres \u00a9 Copyright, Frank W. Andres, 2018. All Rights Reserved. This is a Minibook…..Instead of expressing an idea and then…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":621,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-mini-books"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/620","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=620"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/620\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":622,"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/620\/revisions\/622"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/621"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cftheater.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}