A lot of what David Icke writes about is quite spiritual in nature. When I read his book I could get the conspiracy theory ‘stuff’ – at least it made sense from a rational perspective – although I did have to seek out a lot of corroborative evidence. However when it got to his spiritual ideas it was much more difficult to accept. He was talking about different planes of reality – different ‘frequencies’ as he put it. He seemed to indicate that these frequencies were electromagnetic in nature – but outside the range of our sensory perception. Having read a lot more since then the term frequency is used a lot – but I believe it is in an entirely different realm of reality than the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. EM is quite a good analogy – but not the reality. I think this is one problem with non-scientists trying to explain spiritual things. They almost invariably get the science wrong which then discredits what they are trying to say. Often the underlying spiritual truth is accurate – but because they have described the science poorly it is immediately rejected by the scientific mind.
So the genre of books I read to start with was some of the more Eastern religious books talking about Spirituality in Indian or Buddhist terms. They would talk about different levels of being, again, levels of spiritual growth. Some would say there are seven distinct stages, others would have a different number. They would talk about different aspects to us – e.g. physical bodies, etheric bodies, astral, higher-self, etc. Being a scientist I tried to find an exactness to this – after all if this is real it must be either 6 or 7 levels – you can’t have both. What I didn’t realise was that spiritual writers are imposing a structure on something that is inherently without structure. The spiritual world is diffuse and variable and is actually quite subjective in that it only exists in our apparently objective reality when it is being perceived. It’s as though the objective reality doesn’t exist without the perceiver.
This type of thinking is very much in line with quantum physics. Basically in quantum physics things only exist in a potentiality until they are observed. That sounds a bit ‘jargony’ so let me use an example. Physicists talk a lot about photons and electrons which are tiny ‘particles’ (actually to say they are particles is an oversimplification – but it will do for now). We are taught to believe that if an electron exists then it is there all the time, in some place or other, maybe still, maybe moving. It exists whether we are looking at it or not. If we see it some place then turn away it will still be there. However quantum physics says that if it is not being observed it does not exist in the sense of being a thing in one place. If we do not observe it then it becomes a probability function (or ‘wave function’). It’s as though it vaporises into nothingness and only when you look at it does it condense out of the ether into one place. I won’t go into it more here – but the point of this little diversion was to give an indication of how the physical world is dependent on an observer and the spiritual world is just the same. It’s as though everything is a combination of an observer and the observed – neither existing without the other.
Another brief diversion here. You cannot have an observer without some ‘thing’ to be observed. In other words the definition of an observer is that he/she/it is observing something which is not the observer itself. If we accept the quantum physicists view that nothing exists unless it is observed then we have the observer and the observed as totally dependent on each other.
Consider for a moment a situation where there is no observer and no observed. The obvious conclusion is that there is simply nothing. But supposing following this state of no observer and no observed suddenly something is created and immediately there is an observer and an observed. This is essentially the theory of creation. Prior to the creation there was simply a potential – like a thought or an idea. One could conceive of this as God. The creative act was to create observer and observed – an intertwined ‘duality’, as it is termed in religious philosophy.
My spiritual reading included all sorts of material that I’ve tried to explain in the previous paragraphs. To me as a scientist/engineer my approach was to read as much as possible until I had it all worked out. Then I could decide whether to take any practical steps to follow a particular religious path depending on my rational evaluation of it. Unfortunately (or fortunately) no matter how much I read all that I kept finding was different opinions on essentially the same subject matter. So although I was growing intellectually I was still stagnant spiritually.
In masculine feminine terms I was stuck in the masculine and Christine, the feminine, was locked away patiently biding her time.