PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So when a person suffering from a phobia is confronted with the object of their fear reaction they could be more fearful than usual, experience their usual amount of fear, or feel less fearful than usual. Each time circumstances allow a lesser degree of fear to be experienced, the realisation of not being so fearful when exposed to the phobic stimulus, as in the past, is a rewarding experience. This results in an increased probability that the next time the phobic stimulus is encountered a lesser degree of fear reaction will occur.
TINNY: That's true. The more definite the phobic person can be that their fear is decreasing, the greater the significance of the reinforcing experience. The ability to make a clear distinction between tensed and relaxed body conditions is one of the objective indicators of the degree of the fear reaction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this purely a mechanical process? Is it simply the reinforcement of successively reduced fear levels which eliminate the phobic reaction?
TINNY: There are few, if any, purely mechanical processes involved in human consciousness. When people see themselves as being less fearful in the presence of the phobic stimulus the belief develops that they are perhaps not so phobic. As the shaping process further reduces the phobic person's fear response, the belief that they are becoming less phobic increases. The greater the belief of freedom from phobia the lesser the phobic reaction. The lesser the phobic reaction, the greater the belief in the freedom from phobia.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears there is a complex interrelationship between behaviour change and its effect on the beliefs which are held.
TINNY: And that same interrelationship exists between beliefs held and their effect on behaviour change.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do those relationships between beliefs and behaviour have a name?
TINNY: In their fullness such relationships are unnamed. The nature of those relationships is too broad to be covered by any presently existing name. Probably the area of study in psychology called 'cognitive dissonance' comes as close as any to describing the nature of those relationships.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does the term, cognitive dissonance, refer to?
TINNY: Simply put, the concept refers to the fact that when there is a discrepancy between what we believe and what we do there is a tendency for our beliefs to move in the direction of our behaviour. There is also a tendency in such a situation for our behaviour to move in the direction of our beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would those changes occur?
TINNY: The word, dissonance, can also be thought of as a disharmony. Cognitive dissonance is a disharmony of the mind. When there is a discrepancy between what we think and what we do, a condition of discomfort is created in the mind. The mind, which feels more comfortable with order and harmony than with disorder and disharmony, seeks to overcome the experienced discomfort. Since it is the discrepancy between the beliefs held and the behaviour performed which causes the discomfort, the obvious way to remove the disharmony is for the beliefs and behaviour to be one. To achieve that harmonious condition beliefs tend to move toward behaviour, and behaviour tends to move toward belief.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That all sounds quite reasonable and simple.
TINNY: It is quite reasonable, but the implications are very complex. In the broad sense the effects of cognitive dissonance would be felt in many areas of our lives.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we complete the discussion of phobias, I'd like to ask some more questions about cognitive dissonance.
TINNY: That's fine. We tend to drift from one point to another at times, but we always seem able to keep the discussion headed in the same direction. It is the nature of conversation to jump and drift.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In this way we can address the holistic body of truth we are seeking more completely than we could in any more formal discourse.
TINNY: I feel the manner of our discussion represents the freedom of mind which is itself part of the truth we seek.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was very insightful of you to realise that. You are right; the message of truth expressed in this discussion exists not only in the words themselves. Just as there are many levels to existence, there are many levels to this discussion.
TINNY: Well, I have found our talk very enjoyable and enlightening so far. I feel I have learned much; but, I also feel I have always known most of the thing we have discussed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As I said in the beginning, I would be helping you to better understand that which you already know. Every person in the world knows more of the true nature of reality than that of which they are aware. When humanity takes the next quantum leap of consciousness, minds will be opened to a fuller realisation of that which is held within.
TINNY: Knowledge of truth is the natural condition of human consciousness, isn't it?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is indeed.
TINNY: You can ask me those questions about cognitive dissonance now if you want.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One of the things we discussed earlier was the self-fulfilling prophecy. The resulting effect of the self-fulfilling prophecy was that anything a person believes will happen becomes more likely to happen. Does cognitive dissonance have anything to do with the self-fulfilling prophecy affect?
TINNY: Consciousness at the human level becomes complex almost beyond present understanding. There are many factors which result in our beliefs becoming more likely to be our reality. Some of those factors we are aware of, and some we do not yet understand. Among those factors of which we are presently aware, cognitive dissonance is a major influence in the occurrence of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are people always aware when they are in a state of cognitive dissonance?
TINNY: Although I described cognitive dissonance as a discomfort of the mind, we are most often not consciously aware of the condition.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems as if we would be quite easily aware of any mental discomfort and the causes of that discomfort.
TINNY: It is well within human potential to be fully aware of the condition and the circumstances of cognitive dissonance. As in many realms of human endeavour, most people fail to realise their potential. While the mental discomfort is invariably perceived, the causes are seldom known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When we fail to be aware of the reality of our circumstances it greatly increases the chance of making wrong decisions in our lives.
TINNY: That's right, we must know truth in all things to maximise our developmental progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it only individuals who experience the effects of cognitive dissonance?
TINNY: The effects of cognitive dissonance are experienced not only by individuals, but by social groups of all sizes. Indeed, all of human society can be affected by this type of disharmony of the collective mind. When there is a discrepancy between any widely held belief in society and the behaviour of society in respect to that belief, then the collective mind of society experiences discomfort. The result is the same as in the individual. Social beliefs tend to move toward the ongoing behaviour patterns, and social behaviour tends to move toward the widely held beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't times of discomfort to the collective mind of society result in major changes in beliefs and behaviour as an attempt was made to bring the two into harmony?
TINNY: Depending on what beliefs and behaviours are causing the disharmony in the collective mind the social changes may be small or large. Through the course of human history some of those states of cognitive dissonance, affecting the collective mind, have been resolved in ways which have brought about major social upheaval.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that cognitive dissonance results in behaviour moving toward belief, and belief moving toward behaviour. Does the movement of behaviour toward belief equal the movement of belief toward behaviour?
TINNY: There is no fixed proportion of change that either makes toward the other.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then determines whether behaviour moves more toward belief, or belief moves more toward behaviour?
TINNY: There are many factors which determine whether it is behaviour that changes most in the direction of belief, or whether it is belief that changes most in the direction of behaviour. Chief among those factors is the influence of the social environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me an example of that social influence?
TINNY: As usual, I don't want to claim the examples I give are actually the way things happened. It is the understanding of a general process which is of importance, not the specific example.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean your example will not be an actual account of social change?
TINNY: No, it only means there is no obligation for examples of this type to be factual accounts. With that said, I'll use the example of women smoking. There was a time when the belief was widely held that it was quite a terrible thing for a woman to smoke a cigarette. Most people accepted that restriction, and virtually no women smoked. In that case, there was little effect from cognitive dissonance since beliefs and behaviour were in harmony. Then behaviour changed as some women began to smoke. The behaviour changed while social beliefs remained the same. Then the effect of cognitive dissonance became a reality in the minds of many. Some women who smoked felt guilty about it. Some women who, seeing other women smoke, would have liked to smoke, but didn't because they thought it was wrong. And, men and women both experienced discomfort because women they saw or knew were smoking. By that time there was considerable discomfort present in the minds of many people. This discomfort was due to the various discrepancies which now existed between beliefs and behaviour, in regard to the issue of whether or not women should smoke. There were two ways in which that condition of disharmony could have been resolved. Behaviour could have moved back toward beliefs, and women could have quit smoking. Or, the other option was that beliefs could have moved toward behaviour, and people could have generally acknowledged that women smoking was acceptable. The second option was the one chosen. The influence of the social environment soon heavily supported the acceptability of women smoking. It became almost socially unacceptable to doubt the rightness of women smoking. Belief changed from general disapproval of women smoking to the widely held belief that it was acceptable, perhaps even desirable, for women to smoke. Behaviour and belief once again established a harmony, with a very large proportion of women smoking and that behaviour being widely approved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was that the end of the process of cognitive dissonance regarding women smoking?
TINNY: No. That wasn't the end of it, further changes were to take place. This time, rather than behaviour changing and bringing disharmony, it was beliefs that were to change first. A general public awareness developed that cigarette smoking was a very unhealthy thing to do. That was true for both men and women; but, because women have the special role as bearers of children, it was discovered to be worse for women. By smoking cigarettes women were not only harming themselves, but were also damaging their unborn children. As health, physical fitness, and realisation of responsibility to unborn children became important and widely held beliefs within our society, the collective consciousness once again began to experience cognitive dissonance. This renewed experience of cognitive dissonance in society came about because the behaviour of the many women who smoked was once again coming to be in opposition to the widely held beliefs. As always, there were the same two ways to reduce that conflict. Behaviour could move toward belief, women could quit smoking. Or, the belief could move toward behaviour, women smoking could once again receive wide public acceptance. This time the first option is the one being chosen. Many women, and happily men also, are beginning to give up smoking. Once again, a position of harmony is being approached where there will be less effect from cognitive dissonance because there will be less discrepancy between belief and behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That example you gave is only one of many which have taken place during recent times, isn't it?
TINNY: During recent times much human behaviour has strayed far from society's long held system of beliefs and values. Vast numbers of the world population suffered great mental trauma as that discrepancy between beliefs and behaviour widened. So great was this emotional pain that, virtually overnight, long held social beliefs and values shifted to keep pace with changing social behaviour. In that way cognitive dissonance was reduced, mental pain was eased.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds like human society has found a successful strategy to avoid discomfort of the collective mind.
TINNY: No, it was not really a successful strategy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why isn't that a successful way to reduce the mental trauma brought about by human social behaviour moving away from long held beliefs and values?
TINNY: The cost was far too great.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain what you mean?
TINNY: We once discussed the fact that all levels of material form, including the human level, must act in harmony with natural law. It is possible to vary to some degree from that natural order, but if the degree of variance is too great there is a penalty. The penalty, if the divergence becomes extreme, is the termination of that particular line of material development. Natural law must be followed. If the divergence of the human race reaches that disastrous extreme, the result will be the extinction of the species. Many of the human behaviours which strayed from society's long held beliefs and values also diverged from the natural order. It was bad enough that behaviour violated natural law, but when belief followed behaviour in order to reduce mental discomfort the future of the human species was put at dire risk.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see now why you say the cost was too high. We cannot afford to put the human race at risk to eliminate the mental trauma of cognitive dissonance.
TINNY: And neither could humanity continue to exist in that state of mental trauma.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why did human behaviour in recent times begin to stray so greatly from the long established beliefs and values of human society?
TINNY: Those long held beliefs and values underwent scrutiny and reassessment based on a newly emerging worldview. They were found wanting. Those cherished beliefs and values did not appear to fit in the grand scheme of that newly emerging worldview. Which would not have been so damaging if the emerging worldview had been correct, but unfortunately the emerging worldview took humanity further from an understanding of the true nature of the reality of our existence than we have perhaps ever been.
[In August of 1987 it appeared that that there would probably not be time to complete either Volume Two or Volume Three of the Unified Theory of Existence, which were being written simultaneously, due to circumstances in my life. This is what remains of a shortened ending written at that time. The final pages of this ending have been lost. This shortened ending has been included in the publication of Volume Three in Indonesia at that time. Muhammad al'Mahdi, 1987]
(NOTE: I was going through some very difficult times during that period, which was reflected in the seemingly unfortunate inability to complete the Unified Theory of Existence trilogy. But sometimes things are not as they seem from our limited human perspective. I now believe that it was important for me not to finish the trilogy at that point as I had much more to learn before I would be capable of even coming close to successfully achieving so important and momentous a task. Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)
(TINNY: I ...I can't go on.)
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
TINNY: I had thought we would have unlimited time to complete our discussion; but, I suddenly realised it could end at any moment now.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's true.
TINNY: You will be leaving the material world soon, won't you?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Circumstances have changed, as they tend to do in the material realm; so I must answer, yes. It is highly probable that I will be leaving soon.
TINNY: That's not fair. We have so much more to talk about; I have so much more to learn from you.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Whatever must be, must be; whether it seems fair or not. Our discussion must now change direction, even though it is not quite finished yet. Since my time in the material world may end at any moment, I would suggest that we spend the rest of our time together talking about anything you would like. It would have been nice if we could have continued our discussion in the carefully planned series of small developmental steps toward a full understanding of the knowledge of the unified theory of existence; but, since that is not to be, we must make the best of that changed plan. Besides, in reality, you have nothing left to learn from me that you couldn't find already present in your own consciousness if you had to.
TINNY: Have I really progressed that far?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are in constant contact with perfected consciousness. There is no knowledge which is not yours if you seek it.
TINNY: Am I unique in having this constant contact with perfected consciousness?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No, everyone is in constant contact with perfected consciousness. Unfortunately, many are not yet fully aware of this contact and therefore receive only part of the knowledge of absolute truth.
TINNY: Now it seems like you are being very mystical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that bother you?
TINNY: Not really. Mystical knowledge is spiritual knowledge; and, the world can surely use a lot more spirituality. As long as we don't diverge from truth then the distinction between the spiritual and the material is only a matter of language. All truth is connected as part of the unified whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Your openness to truth is one of your greatest assets. Sometimes the same truth can be expressed in scientific terms, or in spiritual terms. If a person's mind is only receptive to scientific language then they might fail to see truth when presented in spiritual terms; or, if a person's mind is only receptive to spiritual language then they might fail to see truth when it is presented in scientific terms. Such limits on understanding are not necessary, and only serve to hinder our progression to perfection.
TINNY: As we continue our discussion can we feel free to inquire into, and speak about, truth in many different ways?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Our minds have reached a degree of harmonious union where I am sure we will have no difficulty understanding each other no matter how we speak of truth.
TINNY: Can we also be free to jump quickly from topic to topic, and move swiftly from idea to idea?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since our discussion may fast be coming to an end we should set no more limits on how we should proceed. What is now most important is that we leave nothing unsaid.
TINNY: I like that feeling of freedom.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are deserving of that freedom, it is your heritage.
TINNY: Now that we are not limited to the formal discussion of the laws of learning, I would like to know how all of human society can come to understand the new worldview presented in the unified theory of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As with many of the questions we consider, this one has no simple answer. As we attempt to find the answer to how all of human society can come to understand this new, more correct worldview, we must first determine how the consciousness of the individual develops. We often refer to that unique consciousness developed by each individual as their personality.
TINNY: I see your reasoning. Once we know how individual consciousness, or personality, develops we will be better able to know how individual consciousness can change. And, after we know how individual consciousness can change, then, since human society is made up of the consciousness of billions of individuals, we would be better able to understand how all of human society can change and come to hold this new worldview.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Right. Once we know how one person develops and changes then we will have a pretty good idea how society develops and changes.
TINNY: You're not going to come right out and tell me the answer to my question, are you?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As usual there is really no need to. So far you have always proven to have the answers yourself, even if you didn't know at the time that you did. I only helped you to unlock the treasure chest of knowledge which already existed in your mind, using questions as the key.
TINNY: It's certainly a lot more fun to learn that way; so go ahead and ask.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I would like you to begin by giving me a good, comprehensive definition of personality.
TINNY: Personality is the complex of characteristics that distinguishes a particular individual, and includes that individual's tendencies to interact with, perceive, react to, or otherwise meaningfully influence or experience their environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is an excellent definition of personality. It is very objective and very accurate. Your definition of personality also fits very closely with the definition you gave of consciousness. You described consciousness as the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the environment.
TINNY: I guess that's not surprising, since personality is a word we use to describe the expression of individual consciousness at the human level of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does your definition, which sounds very scientific, do justice to the beautiful diversity of the expression of human personality?
TINNY: As we seek to perfect our understanding of all things, the objectivity of scientific inquiry can be of great assistance to us in that quest. We can better understand even that which is beautiful by objective contemplation without losing the tiniest bit of our recognition and appreciation of that beauty.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm glad of that, because I wouldn't want to lose my deep appreciation of your delightfully charming personality just because I am being honest and objective in my perception of you.
TINNY: You say a lot of very nice things about me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is extremely important to the development of a healthy personality that we hear good things about ourselves, and that our positive qualities are recognised.
TINNY: The development of personality must be a very complex process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does individual consciousness, personality, just develop haphazardly, or does personality develop according to some specific set of rules?
TINNY: Since all development on the material plane of existence follows certain rules or laws, then personality as it develops must also follow some set of rules.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What set of rules governs the development of our personality?
TINNY: The development of human personality is governed almost entirely by the laws of learning which we discussed earlier.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that the amazingly complex and diverse range of characteristics which go to make up each unique human personality are determined by the same set of rules that you once used to teach a chicken to turn circles while standing on one leg?
TINNY: That is exactly what I am saying. All behaviour, regardless of whether it is extremely simple or unbelievably complex, is determined by the same set of rules, the laws of learning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You just said that all behaviour is determined by the laws of learning; but, our personality isn't only our actions, it also includes our thoughts and our feelings.
TINNY: As we discussed earlier, behaviour refers to all activity, to all our responses. If we wave our arms that is a directly physical behaviour with a small mental aspect. When we speak that is also a behaviour, although less directly physical because speech has a considerable mental aspect. When we think a thought or feel some emotion that also is a behaviour, although it is almost entirely mental having virtually no observable physical component. Thinking and feeling are considered to be mental responses.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any physical aspect to our thoughts and feelings?
TINNY: Our thoughts and feelings are very much physical activities.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If our thoughts and feelings are physical activities then why can't they be observed?
TINNY: The answer to that question goes back to our earliest discussions about the nature of physical existence. Our bodies are made up of physical matter. Our physical bodies are made up of an extremely complex grouping of subatomic particles; mainly protons, neutrons, and electrons. When large groupings of those subatomic particles, say for instance those subatomic particles which make up an arm, all move together then we have no difficulty observing that movement. Our brains are also made up of physical matter. Whenever we think any thought or experience any feeling there is, because of the way that the mind works, a movement of an infinitesimal number of subatomic particles in the brain when compared with the multitudes which make up an arm. Not only are there many fewer particles of matter involved in thinking a thought than in moving an arm, but the subatomic particles of the brain, involved in thinking a thought, move distances which are much less than the smallest we are easily capable of perceiving.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the reason we cannot see thoughts or feelings as they occur is not only because they take place inside the brain. We cannot see them because of the small size of the groupings and the relatively small number of subatomic particles involved, and the small distances they travel.
TINNY: That's right; although thoughts and feelings are in reality behaviours just as much as moving the arm is a behaviour, they cannot be seen because thoughts and feelings are made up of groupings of subatomic particles which are too small and too few to be seen, moving distances which are too minute to be noticed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All right, I must agree that thoughts and feelings are indeed behaviours; but, since you say that the development of individual human consciousness is determined by the laws of learning, this would mean that our personality is learned. Surely we are more than the sum total of our past learning experiences.
TINNY: I understand the concern you are expressing. It would seem to devalue the importance of the individual human being if our most unique characteristic, our personality, were nothing more than the combined effect of our past interactions with our environment. That very understandable concern doesn't change the reality of our true nature. The physical body of each individual is a grouping of subatomic particles, those particles being no different from the subatomic particles which make up the body of any other individual. It is the particular learning experiences which each grouping of subatomic particles making up a human body undergoes that sets each individual apart as unique, different from all other human beings. This fact of our existence does not in any way diminish our unique importance as an individual. Without the effect of learning experiences as we interact with our environment we would have no exciting, creative, and beautiful differences between individuals. Without the effect of learning experiences we would not even be dull, boring, identical human beings; we would be nothing more than meaningless blobs of protoplasm, having no more personality than an amoeba.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It always seems hard to give up setting the characteristics of human beings apart from all other aspects of existence in the physical universe.
TINNY: It is very difficult for us to realise and accept we are truly part of the material existence, that our essential nature is identical with the nature of the universe around us. We are one with the universe. Whatever we come to know of the universe around us, we come to know of ourselves. We are subject to the same influences which affect all other aspects of the physical universe. We are affected by the laws of physics, we are affected by the laws of chemistry, we are affected by the laws of biology, and we are affected by the laws of learning. Because we had for so long mistakenly believed ourselves to be separate from all that existed around us it became important to create a belief system which set us apart from the world around us. To maintain these beliefs in our separate, even special, nature in the face of a great deal of contradictory evidence we accepted conventions of thought which required a different language and a different conceptual basis to be used when describing ourselves. It is the remaining effect of this long history of perceived separateness which, even now, makes us sometimes feel uncomfortable using objective scientific terms to describe a human characteristic such as personality as having been determined by the sum total of the individual's past learning experiences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It will be good when we are no longer limited by beliefs which require us to deny truth to maintain an illusion. As we seek to attain perfection in every aspect of our being we must give up all illusions so that we can be fully open to the true nature of our existence.
TINNY: So we should now have no difficulty accepting that each human being becomes a unique individual as determined by the sum total of their interactions with the environment, their past learning history.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I noticed that you included the laws of learning with the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. It would seem that learning has a different essential nature than physics, chemistry, and biology. Are you saying that even though learning seems so different from the rest they are actually all of the same essential nature?
TINNY: Chemistry seems very different than physics, but chemistry is based on physics. Biology seems very different than physics and chemistry, but biology is based on physics and chemistry. And, while learning seems very different than physics, chemistry, and biology, learning is based on physics, chemistry, and biology.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is fairly easy to understand the relationship of chemistry to physics, and even possible to understand the relationship of biology to chemistry and physics; but, it is extremely difficult to conceive of the relationship of learning to biology, chemistry, and physics.
TINNY: The most basic relationships between matter and energy in the physical universe are described by the laws of physics. These laws of physics are seen clearly when we look at how simple subatomic particles unite together to form the various elements, atoms, which make up all physical objects. Atoms do not always remain alone, but often unite with other atoms to form the various molecules. These somewhat more complex relationships between matter and energy are described by the laws of chemistry. Just as atoms do not always remain in isolation, neither do molecules. Molecules, when they unite with other molecules, form the various plants and animals of our world. These very complex relationships between matter and energy are described by the laws of biology. At each of these three levels of material development, the atomic, the molecular, and the biological, there are distinctly different degrees in the ability to perceive the environment, and there are distinctly different patterns of interaction with the environment. At the atomic level it is the laws of physics which generally best describe those abilities to perceive and the patterns of interaction. At the molecular level it is the laws of chemistry which generally best describe those abilities to perceive and the patterns of interaction. And, at the level of plants and animals it is the laws of biology which generally best describe those abilities to perceive and the patterns of interaction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have to stop you before you go on. It seems clear from what you have said about physics, chemistry, and biology what you must next say about learning. It would appear that the next step in the logical progression you have been presenting, since you have already stated that learning is based on physics, chemistry, and biology, is to say that just as atoms and molecules do not always remain in isolation, but unite to form some new form of material existence, biological life forms will not always remain in isolation, but will also unite to form some new form of material existence; and, that these still more complex relationships between matter and energy are to be best described by the laws of learning. While there was a clear logical progression from the laws of physics and atoms to the laws of chemistry and molecules, then on to the laws of biology and biological life forms, the plants and animals, it seems that at this point the logical progression breaks down. While we were expecting a new form of material existence, to be the result of biological life forms joining together, we find that new level in the long developmental progression to be the human species. It seems obvious that human beings are not made up of a collection of plants and animals as atoms are made up of a collection of subatomic particles, as molecules are made up of a collection of atoms, or as plants and animals are made up of a collection of molecules. The physical bodies of human beings are made up of a collection of molecules in the same way that the physical structure of plants and animals are made up of a collection of molecules.
TINNY: You are right, of course, in saying that the bodies of human beings are made up of a collection of molecules just as are the bodies of all different biological life forms. I hope, that besides questioning the correctness of the logical progression of material existence I have been presenting, you will not also be trying to make the point that human beings must be animals rather than a new form of material existence just because the physical bodies of both animals and human beings are made up of a collection of molecules.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We already satisfactorily established that human life constituted a new level of material existence, separate from the animal level, when we earlier discussed the process of envolution. I can have no doubts on that issue. I only question the reasoning by which you reached the conclusion that the laws of learning are related to the laws of physics, laws of chemistry, and laws of biology. It seems that the line of reasoning which you took requires you to conclude that human life is made up of a collection of biological life forms, the plants and animals. So, how can you hold to that line of reasoning while you admit that the physical bodies of plants, animals and human beings are all made up of collections of molecules?
TINNY: What you saw to be a flaw in the developmental progression of material existence, which I was presenting, turns out not to be an error at all; but, instead, is one further piece of evidence illustrating the special role that human life has in the overall development of material existence. Just as human life is at the turning point where freewill for the first time has the potential to exert a greater influence on the further development of material existence, than does the imposition of will by force, human life is also at the turning point where the process of material development changes direction. According to the unified theory of existence, the basic material, the subatomic particles, of the physical universe exist for a certain purpose. The purpose of material existence is to progress toward perfection in every aspect. It is through the process of envolution that all physical forms progress toward perfection. From the beginning of the physical universe, when light is first transformed into subatomic particles, the process of envolution is constantly working to ensure that those simple particles of matter eventually unite together in such a way as to become self-aware, to become conscious of their own existence and of their true nature.
It was when human life developed on our planet that this milestone was reached. After human level, self-reflective consciousness is attained the final goal of the process of envolution remains the same, perfection in every aspect; but now, material existence having become self-aware, a different path to perfection must be traveled. No longer is it necessary for the process of envolution to gather together and mould increasingly greater numbers of subatomic particles into combinations of increasingly greater complexity. The further progression toward perfection of material existence, once self-reflective consciousness developed in human life, no longer takes place through the development of physical form. Self-reflective consciousness is the first step in the new direction which material existence must take to achieve the ultimate goal of perfection in every aspect. Subatomic particles could not, given the limits of their consciousness, approach perfection through the exercise of free-will. So, envolution required that those basic particles of matter form into groups, becoming atoms and expressing a greater degree of consciousness.
Atoms still could not, given the limits of their consciousness, approach perfection through the exercise of free-will. So, envolution required that those simple atoms form into groups, becoming molecules and expressing an even greater degree of consciousness. And, neither were molecules, given the limits of their consciousness, able to approach perfection through the exercise of free-will. So, envolution required that those increasingly complex molecules form into groups, becoming biological life, the plants and animals, and expressing a much greater degree of consciousness. Even the comparatively very high degree of consciousness expressed by biological life forms was not sufficient to allow perfection to be approached through the exercise of free-will; but, before envolution was required to once again seek higher consciousness, through organising biological life forms into groupings of greater complexity, the long sought after self-reflective consciousness was brought about, far surpassing even the highest levels of biological life. Finally, after billions of years of material development, the degree of consciousness expressed at the human level of existence had reached the level which was necessary to allow perfection to be approached by the exercise of free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Now that self-reflective consciousness, capable of continuing the quest for perfection through the exercise of free-will has arisen out of human life, will envolution have any further role in the development of material existence?
TINNY: Envolution is the name of the process by which material existence progresses toward perfection. Before physical form reaches the level at which free-will can take responsibility for continued progress toward perfection, the effect of envolution is expressed through the imposition of external forces. Examples of these external forces are described by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. After physical form reaches the level at which free-will can take the responsibility for continued progress toward perfection, the effect of envolution is expressed through allowing internal direction. An example of this internal direction is described by the laws of learning. Envolution is not an external process or an internal process, the particular influence of envolution at any given time is determined by the particular stage of development material existence has achieved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that learning is the way that human life, freed from reliance on external control, can progress toward perfection through the exercise of free-will; but, isn't it true that animals, still bound to progress toward perfection through the imposition of external control, are also influenced by learning?
TINNY: Yes, that is true; all animals can learn.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have said that animal life was governed by the laws of biology, and that human life was governed by the laws of learning; but, if animals are also influenced by learning then how can you say that learning is special to the human level of existence?
TINNY: Atoms, while predominantly governed by the laws of physics, are also influenced by the laws of chemistry. Molecules, while predominantly governed by the laws of chemistry, are also influenced by the laws of biology. And animals, predominantly governed by the laws of biology, are also influenced by the laws of learning. Atoms cannot fully utilise the potential of the laws of chemistry. Molecules cannot fully utilise the laws of biology. And, animals cannot fully utilise the laws of learning. It was not until self-reflective consciousness became manifest in human life that the laws of learning could achieve their fullest potential. It is for that reason I said that the laws of learning were special to the human level of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears that there is no very clear distinction between the laws which govern the progressive development of the different levels of physical existence.
TINNY: Time and again when we humans give a name to some particular aspect of reality which we have perceived, we come to believe that name truly describes some part of existence which is separate and distinct from all else. In reality, there is no separation between the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry, the laws of biology, and the laws of learning. The only separation between those laws exists in our minds.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that instead of being separate the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and learning are actually all part of one greater law?
TINNY: True, there is only one primary law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would you describe that one primary law?
TINNY: That given the opportunity, all matter will seek to organise in such a way that the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the environment progressively moves toward perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why then do we see the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and learning as separate?
TINNY: Every bit of matter in the physical universe acts in accord with the one primary directive, to progress toward perfection. Atoms act in accord with their unique nature; and, since atoms act faithfully in accord with their true nature, we describe that behaviour as following the laws of physics. Molecules act in accord with their unique nature; and, since molecules act faithfully in accord with their true nature, we describe that behaviour as following the laws of chemistry. Biological life, the plants and animals, act in accord with their unique nature; and, since plants and animals act faithfully in accord with their true nature, we describe that behaviour as following the laws of biology. And, I would like to say that human beings also act faithfully in accord with their true nature; but obviously I can't, because we don't.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't the laws of learning affect human beings in any predictable manner?
TINNY: The laws of learning are totally predictable in their affect on human beings. The reason that we do not always act faithfully in accord with our true nature is not because the laws of learning do not affect us. We don't act in accord with our true nature because we use our free-will to create an environment in which we learn very effectively to act in opposition to our true nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That seems like a very foolish thing to do.
TINNY: It is indeed a foolish thing to do. At every level of material existence, the only successful path to follow is to faithfully act in accord with the true nature of that level.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there some point where the laws of physics stop and the laws of chemistry begin? Likewise, is there some point where the laws of chemistry stop and the laws of biology begin; and, where the laws of biology stop and the laws of learning begin?
TINNY: There are no exact beginnings or endings to any of those so-called laws. The lawful activity of material existence, as it progresses toward perfection, follows one continuous, though diverse, path. When the application of the laws of physics reach the next higher level of complexity they are perceived as a new set of laws, the laws of chemistry. When the laws of chemistry reach the next higher level of complexity they are perceived as a new set of laws, the laws of biology. When the laws of biology reach the next higher level of complexity they are perceived as a new set of laws, the laws of learning. The same lawful activity of matter which we describe as the laws of physics becomes part of the laws of chemistry. The same lawful activity which we describe as the laws of physics and chemistry becomes part of the laws of biology. And, the same lawful activity which we describe as the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology becomes part of the laws of learning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is even human learning based on the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology?
TINNY: Yes. It is through the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that human learning takes place.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true to say that human learning has its ultimate origins in the laws of physics?
TINNY: That's true; all learning, at its most essential level, is based on the laws of physics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since learning, at its most essential level, is based on the laws of physics, would it be possible to explain learning in terms of the laws of physics?
TINNY: Learning could be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, just as it can be explained by the laws of learning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you explain learning according to the laws of physics, chemistry, and, biology?
TINNY: I might be able to; but, I don't think I could do a very good job. Given the present state of human knowledge, not all that much is known about how learning takes place regardless of which set of laws are used to provide an explanation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have several times during our discussion gone to, and beyond, the present limits of human knowledge. I would like you to try and explain learning according to the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. To do so will help us to better understand the laws of learning. Just do the best you can given what you already know. I won't expect you to have perfect knowledge of this new and complex subject. You have already provided some insights into the basic physical processes of learning when you described holistic analysis as a way to understand the workings of the mind. Let's first try to analyse a simple learning experience in terms of what happens at the subatomic level.
TINNY: Are you sure you want me to do this? I know already that the answers I must give to such questions may not be very accurate.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As the search for truth enters uncharted waters there will always be difficulties in describing what has been found. I can accept that these early attempts to describe learning at the most basic physical levels will be less than totally accurate. Those attempts will though, I'm sure, provide the beginnings of a framework upon which later seekers after truth, viewing the lawful activity of material existence at all levels, can build a comprehensive understanding of the learning process.
TINNY: If you can accept that the specifics of my answers may not be highly accurate, then I will feel more comfortable answering questions concerning the basic physical processes which underlie all learning. Although I don't feel great confidence about the specifics of learning at the basic physical levels, I am quite certain that my understanding of the physical processes underlying learning is generally true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Often that which is generally true is of more value than that which is specifically true.
TINNY: I know what you mean. Often when I am discussing some subject I will give only general examples, staying away from specifics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is often claimed that to do so, offering general examples rather than specifics, is not a fair way to debate any point.
TINNY: Whether offering generalities is considered to be a fair tactic or not depends on the purpose of the debate. If the debate is in reality a contest, with the participants desperately desiring to win this contest, then it would indeed seem unfair to those participants if general examples were used, because it requires very powerful evidence to successfully attack a general example. The very nature of general examples is to be strong; while the nature of specific examples is to be weak. General examples are strong because they must have a very broad base of support in order to become general examples. Specific examples are weak because of their comparatively narrow base of support. But, if the purpose of debate is, as I firmly believe it should be, purely to achieve a greater understanding of truth, then the use of general examples is both fair and right. General examples bring with them supportive links to a wide range of other areas of knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well then, let's find out what you can tell me about learning as a basic physical process. Let's analyse a simple learning experience in terms of what happens at the subatomic level.
TINNY: I'll do my best.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We can use the circumstances of your first learning experiment with a chicken called Aphrodite as our example. If you had Aphrodite in an experimental learning chamber, what would be a very simple behaviour you could teach her using positive reinforcement?
TINNY: Since the experimental chamber has a light behind a clear disk which acts as a switch when pushed, I could teach her to peck at that light whenever it is turned on. Each time Aphrodite pecked that light a food tray in the wall under the light would pop up, giving her access to some grain to eat.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be positive reinforcement of a continuous schedule.
TINNY: Right. In that particular example of operant conditioning the response to be reinforced is pecking at the light. The reinforcing stimulus is the grain, which is given contingent on the light being pecked. Since access to the grain is provided each time the light is pecked the schedule of reinforcement is continuous.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The scientific language by which learning is described can be quite hard to get used to.
TINNY: Any new language is hard to get used to at first; but, once we become used to that new language, it becomes as easy and as comfortable as the old language.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I would like you to keep using that scientific language when you describe the learning process. Even though that scientific language is a bit difficult to get used to I greatly appreciate how accurately and objectively the process of learning, which seems so hidden and subjective, can be described.
TINNY: Even when I think about my own behaviour and learning, or that of others, it helps me to use those scientific terms in my mind. By using that objective, scientific language I find I can better understand the influences upon my behaviour; and then I have much greater control over the direction my life takes as I develop into adulthood.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As always, the greater the amount of knowledge the greater the ability to exercise free-will. It is for this reason that I want you to understand how learning takes place at all different levels. And, when this greater understanding of how learning takes place becomes widely known throughout human society, then humanity as a whole will be better able exercise free-will. Once the human race has achieved this greater ability to act out of free-will, rather than be pushed around by external forces, we will be able to live more fully in accord with our true nature, which is peaceful and loving.
TINNY: In my own life I can see that happening. The more I come to know of the true nature of reality the more I desire to be a peaceful and loving person; and, the better able I become to use my free-will to choose peaceful and loving thoughts, peaceful and loving words, and peaceful and loving deeds. If I find my desire to live in a peaceful and loving manner increasing as my knowledge increases, and if at the same time my ability to exercise my free-will also increases, thus allowing me to more successfully choose to follow the path of peace and love, then what happens to me as an individual must be expected to happen to all of the human race as soon as this new, more correct worldview permeates the consciousness of humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It can be no other way. If the collective consciousness of human society comes to possess a new, more correct body of knowledge then humanity will move further along the path to perfection. Any place further along the path to perfection from where we are now will definitely be more peaceful and loving. In fact, any place further along the path to perfection from where we are now will necessarily be better in every positive characteristic.
TINNY: With all those wonderful things coming in my future, if only I will do my part to progress as an individual, it gives me a great deal of motivation to better myself.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well then, let's get back to our discussion of the basic physical processes which underlie learning. Using the conceptual tool of a holistic analysis to provide some insights into the mind of a chicken, explain how the circumstances in Aphrodite's environment resulted in her learning to peck at a light to get food from the perspective of physics, chemistry and biology.
[The following is a very short ending written for publication in Nigeria. Muhammad al'Mahdi, September, 1990]
Due to circumstances in the life of the author, this volume of the Unified Theory of Existence has once again been published incomplete. Volume Three was to have consisted of two parts - an overview of the laws of learning; and, a discussion of the process by which the knowledge presented in the Unified Theory of Existence could be used to help usher in the more peaceful, loving world which is our destined future. The material included in this unfinished work is, though, a very complete and accurate presentation of the first part, an overview of the laws of learning.
Luckily, the means by which the unified theory of existence can be used to help us transform our human society into a virtual utopia can be generally described in only a few words. All that need be done is to teach the positive, more objectively accurate worldview presented in Volume One of the unified theory of existence trilogy, and the understanding of the laws of learning presented in Volume Three, to a social group of any size (up to and including the whole of the human race); and, that social group will move naturally and inevitably toward the more full expression of everything which is good and right, to the perfect manifestation of all positive characteristics. The larger the size of the social group, and the more effectively the knowledge contained in the unified theory of existence is taught, the quicker and more significant will be the progression toward all things good and right.
The knowledge presented in the unified theory of existence, although being of a high intellectual level, can be taught in a way that is made easily understandable to those of any age or academic background. Anyone who understands the unified theory of existence, at whatever level, can impart that knowledge to others in a way that will have some positive benefit. Obviously, the better the understanding of the unified theory of existence, and the more skilled the teacher, the greater will be the positive effect.
Through an understanding of the laws of learning we can become more able to exercise our free will. This can be done by the conscious exercise of the holistic analysis, whereby every input from the total environment can be measured against an objective standard, the positive, more accurate worldview presented in the unified theory of existence. By understanding the affects upon our development of interactions with the inner and outer world, we can enhance the effect of those influences which move us toward that which is positive, and diminish the effect of those influences which move us toward that which is negative.
We can use the process within our consciousness, referred to as holistic analysis, to evaluate our every thought, word, and deed. In the simplest of terms, the criteria for that which is good and right could be determined by the following three questions - is this good for me; is this good for society; and, is this good for the planetary environment. Any thought, word, or deed that meets those three criteria will certainly be good and right, and will aid in the progression toward a utopian future.
(ENDING NOTE: Although I was on the path to right knowledge, what was to have been written as the second half of Volume Three, "a discussion of the process by which the knowledge presented in the Unified Theory of Existence could be used to help usher in the more peaceful, loving world which is our destined future", probably could not have been successfully written at that time. The present extensive body of knowledge now known as the Khalifah Method and the means to put this method into practice through the Khalifah Project do most fully and meaningfully complete the planned second half of Volume Three. All praise to Allah for making this so. Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)
