The Secret History Of The World

                 The Secret History Of The World

the secret history of the world pdf, the secret history of the world mark booth pdf, the secret history of the world summary, the secret history of the world Wikipedia, the secret history of the world and how to get out alive, the secret history of the world audiobook, the secret history of the world chapters, the secret history of the world genre,





Click Here For Download In PDF


Click Here For Reading In Kindle



Click Here To Buy The Book From Amazon




Short Summary Of The Book:


Preface by Patrick Rivière
The Secret History of The World

This book of revolutionary importance is essential reading.
With this original work, Laura Knight-Jadczyk shares with us her prodigious
discoveries that put into question History as well as our habitual observations
concerning the myth of the “Grail”. She does this by revisiting the Bible and
comparative mythology, looking closely into parallel universes and hyperspace,
and penetrating into quantum physics, genetics, and the mysteries of the diverse
creations populating the hyper dimensions of the Cosmos.
Throughout her exposé, Laura Knight-Jadczyk refers to two powerful works of
the scientist-alchemist Fulcanelli: The Mystery of the Cathedrals and Dwellings of
the Philosophers. She applies her vast knowledge to the continuation of his work.
Thus, following in the footsteps of Fulcanelli (citing Huysmans) when he
denounces the constant lies and omissions from official History over the course of
time, Laura Knight-Jadczyk, citing numerous examples, exposes the manipulations
in the official history of ancient civilizations of which humanity is the victim. She
strives to re-establish the truth, and her answers are often enlightening.
According to Laura Knight-Jadczyk, the mysteries of the Holy Grail and the Ark
of the Temple refer to a particular, very advanced “technology” – with the aim, for
example, of teleportation and changing between space-time dimensions – a secret
and sacred science of which only a few great “Initiates” have remained custodians.
Christ Jesus was the surest guarantor of this precious legacy, and, although it
might displease Dan Brown (author of The DaVinci Code), the genealogical
lineage of the “Sangréal” (the “Sang Royal” or “Holy Blood”), is not at all as he
believes it to be! The reader of this important work by Laura Knight-Jadczyk will
realize that there are completely different conclusions to that mystery.
Her erudition cannot but impress the reader during the course of an assiduous
reading of this quite astonishing book. As to her inspiration, what can we say, and,
from whence could it come, if not the Light of the stars?
Patrick Rivière
xii Preface by Patrick Rivière
Patrick Rivière is a writer and author of numerous works that have been
published in France and that have been translated and published in many
languages. He is a specialist on the “Grail” (On the Paths of the Grail) and of
Alchemy following the path of Fulcanelli (Fulcanelli Revealed), two works soon to
be published by Red Pill Press.
Note to the Reader About the Cassiopaeans
The term “Cassiopaeans” appears in several places in this book. While the
information contained in this book could as well be given without referring to this
term, it is better to point out the source of the inspiration. The name Cassiopaea
was given by a source contacted by LKJ in 1994 after a two year long experiment
in superluminal communication. The source identified itself by saying “we are you
in the future”. Modern physics does not provide us with practical means for this
type of communication and theories on this subject are not well developed; they
are, in fact, inconclusive and controversial.
When interpreting “we are you in the future” in an oversimplified way, we are
faced with causal paradoxes. On the other hand, from the theoretical papers
published in physics journals we can learn that, with a proper and careful
interpretation, and taking into account quantum uncertainties, communication into
the past cannot be dismissed as impossible. Improbable perhaps is the right word,
but there are many things that are improbable and yet happen. The more
improbable is a given phenomenon, the more information is carried by its
occurrence, the more we can learn by its study. That is why we did not dismiss the
“we are you in the future” as impossible and therefore ignorable. Instead we
decided to continue the “communications” as a form of a controlled experiment in
“superluminal thought transfer” – even if it was clear that the term should be
considered as a tentative indication of only one out several possible
The information received from this experiment is presented in the context of
broad ranging historical, scientific and other metaphysical material and offers the
clues that have led to the world view and inferences presented by us in our
numerous publications on the Web and in print. Perhaps it is only our own
“subconscious mind” that presents itself as a “source”, but even if it is so, does
that tell us more? Do we really know what the “unconscious mind” is and of what is it
capable of?
We sometimes ask ourselves if the Cassiopaeans are who they say they are
because we do not take anything as unquestionable truth. We take everything with
a grain of salt, even if we consider that there is a good chance that it is true. We
are constantly analyzing this material as well as a great quantity of other material
that comes to our attention from numerous fields of science and mysticism.
We invite the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an open,
but skeptical mind. We do not encourage “devotee-ism” nor “True Belief”. We do
encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in all fields of endeavor as
the best way to be able to discern lies from truth. The one thing we can tell the
xiv A Note to the Reader
reader is this: we work very hard, many hours a day, and have done so for many
years, to discover the “bottom line” of our existence on Earth. It is our vocation,
our quest, and our job. We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we
understand to be either possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope
that all of mankind will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our
probable futures.
Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczyk, PhD


I suspected something was wrong with the “facts of life” as they were presented
to me when I was a kid. Sure, I then spent a little over thirty years trying to be
“normal” and make that square peg fit the round hole, “looking for a reason to
believe.” But then there was a memorable day when I finally grew up and admitted
that maybe – just maybe – the Emperor was naked. And here it is, over twenty
years later, and now – well, now I know that not only is something rotten in
Denmark, I also know there is a dead elephant in the middle of the collective
global living room and I can never NOT see it again.
During that twenty plus years of uncovering that huge, dead critter that occupies
a central place in our reality, I was driven by the idea that I just wanted to know
what was REALLY going on in this strange world I lived in where, on the one
hand, science was moving so fast that we would soon be able to destroy our planet,
while on the other hand, the varied religions were telling us not to worry, God was
probably gonna destroy it for us and we had better believe in the “right god” or we
were toast.
How can a person live in a world where “the End of the World” is being
predicted every minute? That’s crazy!
But darned if that isn’t what just about every religion on the planet talks about!
You go to church, get scared to death in an hour and a half, warned about
hellfire and damnation, and then they pass the plate so that you can pay the high
priests to put in a good word for you with God so that maybe you won’t suffer as
much as that jerk down the street who goes to a different church! And even if you
do suffer here on earth, if you believe hard enough, and prove it by putting your
money where your faith is, at least you’ll get your reward in paradise.
This was back in 1982 when I had three small children. As a mother, I wanted to
know what to teach my children. I knew that what I had been taught to believe was
frightening. I had grown up in a time when children were regularly taught what to
do in case of an atomic bomb attack – Cuba was only 90 miles from Florida where
I was born – and at the same time, the standard religious teaching of my family –
mainstream Protestants – promoted the “suffer on Earth to get rewarded in
Heaven” routine.
I knew I had certainly suffered from the state of the world and the teachings of
my faith. I really, REALLY wanted to know if this was something that I should
pass on to my children.
When I held my babies and rocked them or looked into their sweet, innocent
faces – untroubled by the concerns of the world around, certain that Mother would
make them safe – I had to ask myself “How can I tell them these things? How can I
xvi The Secret History of the World
“break it to them” that this world into which they have been born is so frightening
and uncertain and full of traps that not only are their lives in constant danger, their
very souls may be in peril?
How could I tell that to my children???
If it was true, I HAD to tell them.
But what if it wasn’t true?
I knew one thing and one thing only: I wanted more than anything in the world
to tell my children the truth, to prepare them for whatever might lie ahead of them
in their lives. And the question burned inside me: What if I told those little beings
who I loved more than my own life a LIE? What kind of a mother would I be?
What kind of “Mother Love” is that?
The End of the World is an idea, which has fascinated man for all recorded
history and perhaps beyond. In every religion, philosophy, and mystery teaching,
there are hints, allusions or outright claims to knowledge of this purported end to
man’s current status on the earth.
Some teachings say that the earth itself will cease to exist. Others proclaim that
man will cease to exist in material form; still others claim a great judgment day, in
which the wicked are wiped from the face of the planet while the “saved” are
rescued in some miraculous fashion to return and inhabit a new, heaven-like “City
of God”. The persistence of these ideas and their prevalence is centered around the
idea that man began somewhere, sometime, somehow, and will therefore come to
an end somewhere, sometime, somehow.
This assumption is born of the conscious mind’s tendency to think in linear
terms. Scientific materialism has carried this tendency to the ultimate heights:
“The world must have been born, therefore, it must die”. Also, scientific
materialism claims nothingness before birth and nothingness after death. Scientific
philosophies refer to the “accidental mechanicalness” of the universe and teach us
that the only meaning to life is no meaning at all. “Eat, drink, and be merry for
tomorrow you may die”, and then — oblivion.
Scientifically speaking, for a long time matter and motion were accepted as the
basis of reality and, to a great extent, continue to be. Yet, in actual fact, matter and
motion are unknown quantities x and y, and are always defined by means of one
another. It is an absurdity to define one unknown by means of another! What this
means is that science defines matter as that which moves, and defines motion as
changes in matter. The “Big Bang” or Cosmic Firecracker theory is explained in
these terms. A primal atom, (matter), of incredible density “exploded” into motion.
(Where the primal atom came from, how the space it exploded into came into
being, and where the impetus for this event originated, are still on the drawing
board.) And from this event, our universe and the life within it just sort of
“accidentally” happened. Man is the “amoral end of a deadly biological
evolution”. The mind and soul are inexplicable byproducts of the struggle for
To the average person, a table, a chair, an orange, is a real object. They have
dimension — three, to be exact – they are real. But are they? The physicist (and the
knowledgeable layperson) knows that the object is composed of atoms. And there
lies the rub! The dissected atom (quantum particles) often displays some very
Foreword xvii
disturbing properties. Who has really seen matter or force? We think we see matter
in motion, but physics has shown us that what we see is an illusion. When we try
to focus on it, a quantum particle/wave is an infinite-dimensional entity incapable
of being perceived, in that instant, as a three-dimensional body moving through
space. When we look away, the quantum particle/wave acts like a wave of pure
energy – invisible force.
So, just what is matter? What is this estate in which we find our existence? Does
the physical run out when it becomes invisible? Obviously not, as we cannot see
electricity and other forces in the universe measurable only by their effect upon
“matter”. Do these forces run out when they become undetectable by our senses or
by our instruments? Do the things we detect with the subtle mechanisms of our
mind and emotions not exist simply because we cannot see or measure them?
Science hands those questions over to religion and basically, we are told to
“believe what you like” in that area because science isn’t in the business of
describing things it cannot materially weigh or measure. There is a not-so-subtle
implication in such a view that it really doesn’t matter what a person believes
anyway because, as Danish physicist Niels Bohr put it, “There is no deep reality!”
So, for those people who have the idea that there is something “deeper”, some
“meaning” to life, if you want to put it that way, there is really only one place to
go for answers: religion, of which there are three major ones in the world today,
all of them “Monotheistic” and based, essentially, on a single religion, Judaism.
The Bible says, “In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth”.
Neither the Bible nor science has much to say about what happened before the
beginning. St. Augustine was once asked the question “What was God doing
before He created the world?”. The Bishop’s rejoinder: “Creating Hell for those
who ask that question!”, put a period to such inquiries. Few have asked it since.
There are, of course, various “interpretations” of the teachings of Monotheism
that exist inside and outside of the “orthodox” explanations. Some interpreters say
that the only meaning to life is in spiritual self-improvement and creating a better
future in the afterlife, or in future lives. Other interpreters say that the meaning to
life lies in working to dissolve the ego into nothingness. Among the more recent
variations is the idea that the true purpose of life is to align our “self-created
realities” so that they become as one, and thereby we may achieve a unified race,
which will either “ascend” or will survive beyond predicted cataclysms for a
thousand years before things wind down a bit into the usual state of decay.
Naturally this effect can only be initiated and maintained by a group effort at
consciousness raising. There are other ideas and combinations of ideas similar to
these — all leading where?
Are we, in fact, an accident of evolution in an accidental universe, on a race to
nowhere except oblivion? Or, worse still, are our very minds – our belief in and
desire for knowledge of higher things – our greatest flaw? Are we damned by our
religion for asking such questions, or ridiculed by science for thinking that they
even ought to be asked? The choice seems to be between a sick joke and a
Yet, the question must be asked: why do we live in a world in which material
extinction is a real possibility? Are we truly on the edge of an abyss, losing our
xviii The Secret History of the World
balance, preparing to fall into a hole so deep and dark that we shall never come out
of it?
There are two main theories of the future – that of a predestined future and that
of a free future. The theory of predestination asserts that every future event is the
result of past events and if we know all the past then we could know all the future.
The idea of a free future is based on quantum “probabilities”. The future is either
only partially determined or undetermined because of the varied interactions
possible at any given point. This idea of “free will” says that quite deliberate
volitional acts may bring about a subsequent change in events. Those who support
predestination say that so-called “voluntary” actions are, in fact, not, but are rather
the results of incompletely understood causes which have made them imperative
acts — in short, nothing is accidental.
On the one hand we have “cold predestination” come what may, nothing can be
changed — on the other hand we have a reality which is only a point on some sort
of needle named the present surrounded on all sides by the Gulf of Nonexistence –
a world which is born and dies every moment.
During those early days of asking questions outside of my “standard religious
faith”, I came across an idea put forth by P.D. Ouspensky in his book Tertium
“At every given moment all the future of the world is predestined and existing, but
it is predestined conditionally, i.e., there must be one or another future in
accordance with the direction of events of the given moment, if no new factor
comes in. And a new factor can come in only from the side of consciousness and
the will resulting from it. In the past, what is behind us, lies not only in what was,
but also in what could have been. In the same way, in the future lies not only what
will be but also what may be.”
In other words, there was the possibility – just a suggestion, mind you – that
human beings might be able to choose something different than the future that was
obviously developing all around us. It was clear to me that such a choice could
only be made if one made an effort to “predict” the future. In other words, the only
way to know the right choice of the moment was to have some idea of the
Of course, the “standard religions” all around us are suggesting something of
that sort all the time: their solution is that the only change human beings can make
is to “choose the right god” and believe in him strongly enough that this god will
step in and fix things right up, either by miraculously intervening in reality, or at
least hauling the good people out of the soup at some future time when they have
proved themselves AND, at the same time, making all those nasty people who bet
on the wrong horse suffer!
It was at this point that I decided that I really ought to check out all the various
religions and their “track records”, so to say in order to determine which was the
“right god”, After all, since there exists such diversity of beliefs around the globe,
the assumption is that either somebody is right, excluding all others, or that
nobody is right, including all.
With the world in an obvious mess, with every preacher in just about every
church across America passionately declaring that “The End is Nigh”, I decided
that I had better get moving on this project. After all, I had these small beings in
Foreword xix
my care and above ALL things, I wanted to tell my children the Truth as far as I
was able to determine it. And that certainly meant that I should put forth all efforts
to determine what that truth was before I gave it to them. After all, if your child
asks for bread, will you give him a stone? If he asks for fish, will you give him a
serpent? I wanted to give my children the very best I could, and that was, at the
foundation, the primary motivation for my search for the truth: Love for my
You could say that Love for my babies gave me the courage to begin to look at
my own faith in a critical way, and then to search for the answers to their
And so it still is.
What this amounted to was to apply the scientific method to the study of religion
and “deeper realities” – things that went beyond the physics of materialism.
I discovered that I wasn’t the first one who had thought about doing this and so
there was certainly a large body of material to go through. And I have been doing
it in a concentrated and systematic way for over 20 years now.
The Cassiopaean Communication was only a part of this process. Looking back
on this experiment in accessing “higher consciousness” which, at that point, I only
theorized might exist, there is a lot to be said for the idea that most of what has
come “from the C’s” could very well have come from my own subconscious.
After all, I had spent nearly my whole life reading everything from history to
psychology. The phenomenon of the scientist working on a difficult problem who
then, after he has examined all the parameters, dreams of a novel way to put the
different parts together that solves the problem is well known in the history of
science. The discovery of the benzene ring is a case in point. So it isn’t too much
of a stretch to say that the material that came “from the C’s”, who clearly stated
“we are YOU in the future”, was merely a similar process.
The attentive reader may notice that most of the C’s material has to do with
history and the hidden motivations for the events in our world. These were
certainly the things that concerned me – events and choices of action and being
that could lead to a positive future or a negative future – and so, perhaps my vast
reading was sorted and assembled in novel ways by my own subconscious mind or
superconscious mind.
Be that as it may, it does not, in my opinion, at all detract from the usefulness of
the material. The discovery of the benzene ring came from a dream and led to a
breakthrough in science. And so it has seemed that the concerted effort to examine
all the parameters of reality, and then to “allow” it to sort itself and “come out” in
a novel process of reassembly, has proven very fruitful in many respects.
Ark discussed the essential nature of this approach recently in an exchange with
Robin Amis, the editor and commentator of Boris Mouravieff‘s Gnosis:
Ark to Robin Amis:
You stated that:
1) Scientific method has its limitations.
2) Knowledge should be understood in broader terms so as to include, for instance
“noetic knowledge”. In particular:
xx The Secret History of the World
a) there is a true form of knowledge that is normally associated with religion
b) those with intellectual training tend to regard it as not being knowledge at all
3) That you – Praxis – teach this other form of knowledge, and the conditions under
which it can be understood.
4) The reason that Praxis (and other religions) depends on a suspension of judgment
is “that newcomers studying this material, despite quickly getting confirmation of
its reality, will not understand it deeply enough”.
I will try to address and expand the above points and, perhaps, try to add some new
ideas, if only for the future discussion.
Point 1) I agree. I agree completely. In fact it takes a scientist to truly know the
limitation and the weaknesses of science, as many of the tricks and games and even
lies are known only to the insiders – scientists.
Point 2) I agree that there is such a knowledge; I agree that is important and, in fact,
is crucial. And it is because of this fact that we stress on our Website and in our
publications the importance of “knowledge”, not just “science” or facts. It depends
on whether you start with a fact and follow the clues to real knowledge, or whether
you start with an assumption, and interpret all facts based on what may, at the very
beginning, be a lie.
a) Whether this “true knowledge” is, was, or should be “associated with religion” is
The term “associated” is somewhat vague and can lead to misunderstandings.
Science is also associated with religion. The Pope has scientific advisers; the
Vatican supports scientific research.
On the other hand the greatest crimes of history have also been – and probably are
still – associated with religion, one way or another.
Religion, if analyzed sincerely and critically, has many dark spots, and analyzing
the reasons for this is not an easy task.
But I hope you will agree with me that one of the reasons why religions have these
dark spots is that people were lulled into believing that they have (in opposition to
others) the “true knowledge”.
So the very concept of “true knowledge” is risky. It is easy to imagine that two
different people will have different, orthogonal truths. For one, the truth may be
that he needs to kill the other man, while for the other man, the truth may involve
avoiding being killed. Every noetic truth has down-to-earth implications. Or so I
b) Though I agree that what you wrote may describe a general tendency, yet there
are exceptions. History knows scientists – great scientists – that were “mystics” at
the same time. Pascal, Newton, Poincare – just few examples. So, indeed, the term
“tend to regard” that you used seems to be appropriate. But for this present point, it
is important to know whether there is a real contradiction between being a scientist
and appreciating other forms of knowledge at the same time. It seems to me and, I
believe, you will agree, that there is no intrinsic contradiction.
Foreword xxi
Point 3) Here of course you are assuming that Praxis is already in possession of
such a knowledge. Perhaps this is the case or, perhaps, Praxis has only “fragments
of unknown teachings”, and not the complete picture.
Being a scientist I am always careful and I would never state that I have the full and
complete “knowledge” of something. I may know about tools, theories, formal
structures, data etc. But one day, all my tools, data, theories and formal structures
may prove to be wrong or useless with the uncovering of a single datum that shifts
the entire structure. A true scientist MUST be open to this. What is important in
science is being always open to surprises, to new paradigm shifts etc.
So, I think, you – Praxis – are teaching what you BELIEVE to be, at the present
moment, “the true knowledge”, and you may have very good reasons for such a
belief. You may have very important pieces of knowledge – as we think based on
research – but, perhaps, you are still lacking some of other important pieces – which
we also think, based on research.
How can we know in advance where the next unexpected discovery will lead us?
And here I would like to make some constructive – or so I think – comments.
Looking at the history of “our civilization”, religion seems to have been in
existence much longer than “science”. And yet we see that religion has failed. In
spite of its teachings people are still constantly at war with each other. Human
beings have not become better, and they are often much worse than animals.
Gurdjieff described seeing the truth of our condition – the condition of our reality in
general – as the “terror of the situation”. It is terrible because, when you really SEE
it, you realize how great a failure religion or the “powers” of the various versions of
God really are.
Science, which came later and has exploded in the last millennium, has failed too. It
has brought mankind to the edge of self-destruction. Advances in mathematical,
physical and computer sciences have brought about “applied game theory”, where
“wars” are called “games”, and to “win the game” is to kill as many people as
possible with as little cost as possible.
Is there any hope at all? And if there is, then where?
Perhaps it is time to try something new? Perhaps a “marriage of science and
mysticism” has a chance?
Why not take what is good from science and what is good from religion, and
discard what is wrong?
What is the best thing about religion?
Religion teaches us to be open minded and accepting of possibilities which are far
from being “rational”. Religions teach us to pay attention to singular events,
miracles, phenomena that are fragile and hardly repeatable. Finally religion teaches
us to look inside as much as outside: know thyself.
The strengths of the approach of religion just happen to be the weak points in
Science is often narrow-minded and conservative restricting everything to what is
material and rigidly repeatable. Science teaches us that what is “out there” is not
connected to what is “in here”, that it must be captured, weighed, measured and
xxii The Secret History of the World
manipulated. That is why new paradigms are so painful when they come – but they
DO come in science, and they seldom come in religion which is “fixed” and
dogmatic and not open to discussion.
What is the best thing about science?
Science is open to criticism and discussion. Even if many forces on the earth try to
make a sort of religion of science, in general, scientific theories must be published
and publicly discussed. We can find an error in Einstein’s papers because these, as
well as other papers, are publicly available. Everyone can learn mathematics, as
advanced as you wish, from reading monographs, articles, going to conferences,
and discussing with other scientists.
The strength of science just happens to be the weakness of religion. Religions are
always “secret” in one respect or another – even if that secrecy is only the
declaration that no changes can be made, no questions asked, because the ultimate
truth about God is a “mystery”, a “secret”. That is why the teachings of religion are
so easily distorted and misunderstood. It is so easy for the central “authority” to
achieve the “pinnacle” of the religion and declare to the followers the correct
interpretation and that no other is permitted.
Point 4) What you say about students not being able to judge for a long time is
certainly true. But whether discouraging them from such judgments is the only
solution – I am not sure.
Certainly that was the way it was done in the past. Groups were usually small,
whether exoteric or esoteric. Travel and communication possibilities were severely
restricted. But today a qualitative change has occurred: we are now in the era of
networking and instant communication on a planetary scale.
Therefore a different approach is possible: instead of having few students and
“teach them even when they are not yet ready”, we can address ourselves to those
who are ready.
This was not so easy to do in the past when teachers communicated, at best, to
merely hundreds of potential students. But it is possible now, when we can
communicate with millions.
Whoever is not yet ready for the next stage, let him stay where he is or go back
where he was. Those who ARE ready, will find you – if you take care and
NETWORK efficiently.
So, I would not discourage students from making early judgments and discussing
subjects for which they are not prepared . If they come to the wrong conclusions
and go away or attack you, that is their free will. Let them go where their minds and
their hearts lead them.
Foreword xxiii
That is, at least, our approach in QFS1. Perhaps we are making a mistake here, but
it is always good to try different methods – if available.
So it is, we seek to combine science and mysticism for the few who are colinear
with this approach. And this was uppermost in our minds – to convey this
effectively – when planning the look and emphases of the new and revised
Cassiopaea Website. We understood clearly that there are many “seekers” in the
“New Age” milieu who would be turned off to this approach. They are seeking a
guru, to be underwritten in their choices, a messiah. As Ark has written: those who
are not ready for this stage of Becoming Free, let them stay where they are or go
back to where they were. Therefore, if readers form conclusions based on their
illusions, that is their free will and we have no quarrel with that. Each individual
should be where their minds and hearts lead them.
Of course, there are still some items that the C’s have come up with that
obviously could NOT come from a “reordering” of the masses of material
available to my subconscious from years of reading. In that respect, due to the
novel way in which the material was obtained as a “group effort”, perhaps some of
the material was extracted from the subconscious databanks of the other
participants? And perhaps some of the data was nonsense – my own and others?
These are all questions we consider when we analyze the material and subject it to
verification or testing.
There is still another category of material – that which later proves to be
insightful in ways that simply could not come from the subconscious data of ANY
of the participants.
Or could it?
Perhaps an awareness of what is going on politically and socially can be “sorted
and reassembled” in the subconscious the same way the information that led to the
discovery of the Benzene Ring was? Perhaps probabilities are calculated in the
subconscious mind based on vast collections of data that we don’t even realize we
have? Perhaps lifetimes of observations of the world “out there”, consisting of
billions of databits can be stored in our subconscious and lead to very complex
“data sorting” and “probability estimation”?
Perhaps there is, after all, a completely scientific and material explanation for
the Cassiopaean Material; except for just a few items that I am certain were NOT
part of the conscious or subconscious data of any of the participants – items that
were known to only a few people on the planet and which we had to dig deep to
verify. But then, that is only evidence of an ability to access information that may
be in the databanks of unknown others at a distance…
1 Quantum Future School
xxiv The Secret History of the World
But, isn’t that the point? That we search for that tiny clue that there IS a reality
beyond that which the materialist scientific view accepts as measurable?
Just as certain mechanical aids can augment the perception of certain ranges of
light such as infra-red, ultra-violet, x-rays, and radio waves, so might our so-called
psychic perceptions be similarly augmented. This was my theory at the beginning
of the Cassiopaean Experiment, though I never thought it would evolve into a
dialogue with “myself in the future”.
The brain is an instrument devised to focus reality in mathematical constructs —
interpreting waveforms as material objects. What I had in mind from the beginning
was a process of not only being able to perceive those ranges of energies that are
normally beyond the range of three dimensional perception, but to be able to do so
in a repeatable way with practical applications. By developing such a process, the
implication is that we can not only perceive the effects of myriads of waveforms,
but also, depending upon the amplitudes and energies, predict the outcomes of
certain motions, even, perhaps, in very precise terms.
Of course, it seems that the descriptions of the greater reality beyond three
dimensional space and time must be, in an essential way, difficult to describe
except metaphorically. So, I think we can assume that the finite nature of our
minds is self-limiting in a certain sense. It seems that all the instruments we can
create and build are probably incapable of penetrating into such realms because of
the simple fact that they are three-dimensional. The only material way we may be
able to go beyond our reality is through mathematics, which seems to transcend
time and space.
There is, indeed, a lot of research in physics that sounds provocatively like
ancient mystical teachings, yet the possibility is that the true nature of the reality
behind our world is beyond quantum mechanics and theory.
Ark: As Wheeler so succinctly points it out:
We have every right to assume that the universe is filled with more uncertainty than
certainty. What we know about the universe – indeed, what is knowable – is based
on a few iron gateposts of observation plastered over by papier-mâché molded from
our theories.
Popper makes these important observations:
“… all explanatory science is incompleteable; for to be complete it would have to
give an explanatory account of itself. An even stronger result is implicit in Gödel’s
famous theorem of the incompletability of formalized arithmetic (though to use
Gödel’s theorem and other mathematical incompleteness theorems in this context is
to use heavy armament against a comparatively weak position). Since all physical
science uses arithmetic (and since for a reductionist only science formulated in
physical symbols has any reality), Gödel’s incompleteness theorem renders all
physical science incomplete. For the nonreductionist, who does not believe in the
reducibility of all science to physically formulated science, science is incomplete
“Not only is philosophical reductionism a mistake, but the belief that the method of
reduction can achieve complete reduction is, it seems, mistaken too. We live in a
world of emergent evolution; of problems whose solutions, if they are solved, beget
new and deeper problems. Thus we live in a universe of emergent novelty; of
Foreword xxv
novelty which, as a rule, is not completely reducible to any of the preceding
Then he adds:
“Nevertheless, the method of attempting reductions is most fruitful, not only
because we learn a great deal by its partial successes, by partial reductions, but also
because we learn from our partial failures, from the new problems which our
failures reveal. Open problems are almost as interesting as their solutions; indeed
they would be just as interesting but for the fact that almost every solution opens up
in its turn a whole new world of open problems.”
We may find that much truth was known by the peoples of the past and that they
did, in fact, express deep, mysterious, realities in their poetic and obscure
messages. Mystics and seers – even in terms of communicating with “myself in the
future” – seem to perceive quantum states, which are demonstrably difficult to
translate into language.
The experience of viewing simultaneous, cause/effect reality is extremely
difficult to maintain when one is constantly being bombarded by threedimensional
Imagine the difficulty of explaining to a snail the expanse of an acre of ground?!
Mystics and Seers have attempted to do just that for millennia with the result that
the vast majority of mankind have absolutely and totally misunderstood these
concepts. And, there is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear
it: the greatest lies are the dark and evil systems of religion created by those who
do not understand.
You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood
becomes a matter of life and death. It is easy to say you believe a rope is strong as
long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But, suppose you had to hang by that
rope over a precipice? Wouldn’t you then first discover how much you really
trusted it? (C.S. Lewis)
Laura Knight-Jadczyk

2 thoughts on “The Secret History Of The World”

Leave a Reply