Ancient Physics, Modern Myths: Paul LaViolette’s Pathbreaking “Genesis of the Cosmos”
Page 1 of 5 pages 1
- Full Article
For those who are open to a new and unfamiliar theory of microphysics, an unusual understanding of cosmogenesis, a serious consideration of a host of conventionally-red-flagged, status-quo-tabooed, lunatic-fringe topics (including ancient metaphysics, the Tarot, astrology, Atlantis, and the I Ching), a comprehensive and alarmingly specific correlation of subquantum physics with ancient creation myths, and an across-the-board, no-holds-barred rejection of every significant tenet of twentieth century relativistic cosmology, there is probably no better place to begin.
by Raymond Lynch
For those who are open to a new and unfamiliar theory of microphysics, an unusual understanding of cosmogenesis, a serious consideration of a host of conventionally-red-flagged, status-quo-tabooed, lunatic-fringe topics (including ancient metaphysics, the Tarot, astrology, Atlantis, and the I Ching), a comprehensive and alarmingly specific correlation of subquantum physics with ancient creation myths, and an across-the-board, no-holds-barred rejection of every significant tenet of twentieth century relativistic cosmology, there is probably no better place to begin than Paul LaViolette’s very original “Genesis of the Cosmos: The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation”.
In Part 1 of his book, LaViolette lays out his theory of subquantum kinetics. Using precisely the kinds of rhetorical devices —namely, imagery, metaphor, decree, and supposition—that are employed in almost all standard scientific models of “physical reality” (whatever that is), he offers us an open systems theory of continuous creation rooted in organic processes of self-organization. Absolute Newtonian space and time are reinstated, along with the ether of nineteenth century vintage (the long-thought-to-be-discredited prime substance said to pervade this boundless Euclidian space and “infinite” time). LaViolette doesn’t entertain the notion of “creation ex nihilo” because he views space, time, and the ether as the precursors of creation, regarding them as essentially uncreated. The elements and processes necessary for LaViollette’s creation story arise “spontaneously,” which is to say “unpredictably,” which is to say “inexplicably.”
LaViolette is clearly aware of the irreducible mysteriousness of this entire creation business, as were the ancient mythographers we now discount as hopelessly naïve. All creation schemes, scientific or otherwise, are unavoidably metaphorical. LaViolette’s metaphors, however, have two virtues: (1) they are more-or-less coherent; and, (2) given the suggested correlations, they seem to conform well with some of our important ancient creation narratives. Relativistic cosmology, on the other hand, employs metaphors that are as incoherent as those of modern mathematics, and they conform to nothing (except perhaps the God of the Old Testament, an apparent, part-time psychopath).
The second part of “Genesis of the Cosmos” is, among other things, a fascinating and very specific mapping of various mythological characters onto LaViolette’s scientific “continuous creation” theory of microphysics. Special emphasis is granted the Babylonian “Enuma elish,” starring the hero Marduk (order) and the villain Tiamat (the saltwater ocean, entropy, uniformity, disorder). The central Egyptian myth of Osiris, Seth, and Horus is also featured, along with the Greek pantheon of humanized deities. LaViolette sees all of them in terms of his essential creation context or theme of the emergence of order from disorder, the endless battle against incipient entropy. Although this is certainly a fundamental issue, and quite appropriate to the material examined, not all (or even most) archaic narratives frame creation in these terms. Other prominent contextualizations include the perennial concern with the arising of multiplicity from Unity and more contemporary interests such as, for example, Spencer Brown’s investigation in Laws of Form of the consequences of making a “First Distinction”. When all is said and done, however, it is hard to disagree with LaViolette’s conclusion that the ancient world’s scientific and mythically-encoded creation theory puts modern physical theory to shame.
Elsewhere in the book he probes both the Tarot and ancient astrology and concludes that they provide us with a coherent, plausible, and complete theory of the microcosmic/sub-atomic processes involved in the creation of the physical universe: “…the Tarot metaphorically encodes the same process-based creation metaphysics conveyed in the myth of Osiris… [With an understanding of] the emergence of ordered patterns in non equilibrium systems, we can now for the first time resurrect the Tarot’s ancient wisdom”.
Page 1 of 5 pages 1
- Full Article
Great article Ray!
I find this subject matter fascinating, and have read a few books on it. I have a particular love of Andrew Collins and Graham Hancock. Andrew’s recent book The Cygnus Mystery is one of my favourites.
It also fascinates me how closely some of the Hindu/Buddhist mythology echoes quantum physics, and astrophysics too. I remember being blown away when reading Capra’s Tao of Physics.
Us modern westerners are so arrogant, aren’t we, to think that we are the first ones to have found the answers.
Being an Aquarian, I am Saturn-ruled, and love structure and order! That goes contrary to what most people believe about Aquarians. I guess our idea of it jsut differs from the rest of you.. ;-)
Posted by Chandira
on 10/08 at 07:50 AM
Ancient Mythology is extremely interesting. Ever since I started playing mmo community type games I find myself wanting to know more about mythical beasts and creatures that the games put up against us. God of War really sparked my interest.
Page 1 of 1 pages