Original Image part 1/3 by William Haines

So when you experience yourself, do you experience your mind and body as separate, or how do you experience yourself? They're together, aren't they? That's just the way we experience reality. We experience ourselves as an integrated being. We use the words 'mind' and 'body', but our experience is that they are harmonised into Oneness. This is a key insight of the biblical tradition: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.' The Oneness of God is a key insight of monotheism. Within God, everything is harmonised into Oneness, and this Oneness can be seen in the different aspects of our existence as well. When God created the universe, it was the cause of all the inner and outer aspects of the creative world, which we experience as the inner aspect of all created beings. We could say this is the mind of God. When we use the term 'Mind of God', we are using human language to try and describe God. The word 'mind' in different languages has different nuances and connotations, but it refers to the inner functional aspect of all created beings. Everything has an inner aspect. We have our inner aspect, which we call our mind. We can't see each other's minds, but we assume that because we have one, others do too. Is that a good assumption? Yes, you can't prove it, but we assume it because people behave in ways we expect them to behave.

When we look at animals, do they have a mind, an inner aspect? Yes, they do. You can see that sometimes they think, get upset, or angry. They show determination, and you can relate to animals; they react to emotions. For example, cats like to be stroked and loved, and they respond by purring. All animals have this inner aspect, but not only animals; plants also have an inner aspect that responds to stimuli. People sometimes talk to their plants, and there are studies measuring the effects of words and music on plant growth and health. I read a book that suggested plants prefer classical music over rock music. It was written in the late 70s, and there was a film called 'The Secret Life of Plants'. Some plants respond positively to classical music, which is played in shopping centres to create a pleasant atmosphere. Minerals also have an inherent nature, a sort of character, and everything has this inner aspect. God's inner aspect manifests in all the mental functions that everything has, from the very simple functions of minerals to the incredibly complex functions of a human being. The sun itself has an inner structure, and we can think about the structure of our mind. Our mind is made up of different aspects; we experience it as one, but we can categorise it in different ways. Part of our mind is our thinking function, our intellect. With our intellect, we process information through our physical senses. We see, hear, and feel things, and this information becomes knowledge. We recognise things, perceive patterns, and can reason logically about them.

In the case of music, sound, like light, has an infinite analogue spectrum, but we decided on seven major nodes and five half steps. That's something we imposed upon the perfectly evenly spread analogue sound. Music doesn't actually change in those steps; it's a completely smooth analogue change as the pitch rises. Different societies have different scales, and we find it more comfortable to use steps and half steps. If you look at a piano keyboard, you can see those steps. This is something we imposed upon music because it resonated with us and turned out to be useful for making music. In a sense, that's not something we discovered; it's something we imposed a pattern on. Would it be possible to have a piano with twice as many keys, with all the bits in between? Yes, Indian music has many more divisions, but that created less flexibility. Medieval society experimented with different systems and eventually arrived at the ideal one, which is why other cultures abandoned their systems. The medieval musicians were doing harmonic chanting and sensed adjustments that led to this ideal structure. They created a system of twelve notes in an octave, which includes seven whole notes and five half notes. This structure allows for a harmonious sound, and while individual notes are just notes, when played together, their differences can create harmony. The way it sounds to us is a result of how we perceive those harmonies.

Different cultures have different musical systems, and Indian culture has many more divisions. However, these systems didn't provide the freedom that medieval musicians wanted. They arrived at a system that resonated with how people feel when they hear music. This is not arbitrary; it's based on physiological responses. Our bodies react to certain harmonies, suggesting that there is something within us that resonates with these choices. The idea is that our spiritual mind and physical mind are both based on the same original template, which corresponds to each other. For example, a seagull and an eagle are both based on the original model of what is required to fly. They are different but share many common traits. There is an original model; otherwise, it would be complete coincidence that we have physiological and emotional responses to music. I saw a YouTube video of an elephant playing the piano, and it was dancing and getting excited by the music. This suggests that different animals appreciate human music to some extent. Some animals seem indifferent, but others, like the elephant, show excitement. Birds also respond to music; their songs may not fit into human musical constructs, but they are pleasing to us. Beethoven was inspired by the sounds of birds in his hometown, and he thought his Fifth Symphony was based on those sounds. Birds do not sound out of tune; they fit within the range of notes we recognise. There is a difference between being out of tune and being dissonant. When two vibrations fit together, they sound good to us, but if they clash, it creates dissonance. Birds have specific pitches in their songs, but they don't follow human scales. If they do have their own system, it suggests that it's not just an arbitrary human construct. Birds sing in the morning, possibly to communicate or because they are social beings. Some studies suggest that birds argue with each other, indicating complex social interactions. The spectrum of sound in music is an interesting topic to explore further.

Our ears may have evolved to receive vibrations in a way that aligns with music. If music is mathematical, it is not just arbitrary; it fits into a structure that determines the space between notes. Interestingly, birds do not sing in keys; keys are human cultural constructions with some basis in physics but are primarily artistic constructions of a sentimental mind. Birdsong sounds pleasant because we learn to associate it with positive experiences, while other sounds, like those of war, do not evoke pleasant feelings. This raises the question of what beauty is and whether it is purely subjective or has an objective quality. We discussed last time the idea of objective qualities, such as mathematics, symmetry, and harmony. When the perspective in a picture is wrong, it simply does not look beautiful, indicating that there are certain standards we can agree upon.

In exploring the inner structure of song, we can consider traditional Greek categories: emotion, intellect, and will. These categories relate to our feelings about something or someone. For instance, when a particular person walks into the room, we may emotionally respond to them, feeling happy, sad, or angry. Emotions like anger, love, hate, and sadness connect with our will; if we desire something strongly, we will act to obtain it. This inner structure consists of emotional responses, intellect, and will, while the outer aspect involves ideas, images, and concepts. An idea can be turned over in our minds, accompanied by feelings about it. Concepts generalise specific instances, such as different dog breeds under the umbrella of 'dog'. We also have laws of thought and logic that govern our reasoning.

For example, we can logically deduce that a human being needs food to live; without it, they cannot survive. However, can we imagine a football that is both blue and red all over at the same time? The answer is no, as we have not seen such a specific combination. While we can imagine things we have never seen, like unicorns or fictional characters, there are logical limits to our imagination. We cannot conceive of a square circle, as it contradicts the definitions of both shapes. This leads us to consider the nature of existence and whether concepts like infinity truly exist. Philosophers debate whether infinity is a real concept or merely a theoretical construct. While mathematicians work with infinity as a concept, it does not manifest as a tangible reality in the same way that numbers do.

The idea that God is a mathematical being has been posited by thinkers like Pythagoras and Descartes. Galileo suggested that we could describe the natural world using mathematics, which was a significant shift from previous descriptive methods. This raises the question of why the natural world conforms to a mathematical framework. Is there an inherent structure to the universe, or is it merely a human imposition? The analogy with music suggests that there may be an underlying structure to both music and the natural world. The surprise that mathematics can describe the natural world indicates a deeper connection that we may not fully understand.

When discussing the nature of sound, we consider whether there is an inherent structure to music or if it is purely arbitrary. Jazz musicians, for example, improvise within a structured framework, creating something unique while adhering to certain musical principles. This leads to the question of whether our physiology influences our emotional responses to sound. If our biology dictates what we find pleasant or unpleasant, could we expect other animals to respond similarly to music? The idea that plants might prefer certain types of music raises further questions about the nature of sound and its effects on living beings. Classical music, often perceived as calming, may resonate more closely with nature, while other genres, like rock, may evoke rebellion against societal structures.

The relationship between music and societal structure is fascinating. When societal norms become too rigid, people often rebel, and music can serve as an outlet for that rebellion. For instance, rock music emerged as a response to the constraints of traditional norms. However, when considering plants, we must acknowledge that they do not possess the same subjective experiences as humans. This leads to the question of whether there is something inherently natural about classical music that resonates with the world around us. I believe classical music may be closer to the mind than other genres, suggesting a deeper connection between music and our cognitive processes.

When I listen to music, I feel more relaxed. I'm curious to know why it is that music can evoke such feelings. Is there something inherent in the structure of music that resonates not just with our physiology but also with that of plants? If that's the case, I can't imagine how these things can be purely an arbitrary way of dividing up the continuous analog spectrum. When scientists describe nature, they often use words like 'structure' and 'elegance'. They apply the same descriptions to classical music, suggesting that it has a beautiful structure. There's even a theory that when babies listen to music, it can improve their mathematical abilities. However, you mentioned that people have imposed this structure to create music rather than discovering an inner structure.

In society, when people are compelled to go to school and learn, they often feel suffocated by the general idea of structure. Rock music, for example, can be seen as an artistic response to this. Going back to the Middle Ages, musicians began to develop scales, which may seem arbitrary, but perhaps they discovered something fundamental. The reason I believe they discovered something is that plants seem to respond positively to certain musical structures. They were guided by their intuition about what sounds comfortable. In this sense, it's not arbitrary; it resonates with our physiology and that of plants. Otherwise, we would expect different species to resonate with different types of music, but perhaps they do, and we just don't know.

I think the basic structure of music resonates with all animals and plants, but it takes a higher-level creature to appreciate it fully. For instance, an elephant might enjoy basic scales but wouldn't discern between a good song and a bad one. Many human beings also struggle to tell the difference; we often judge music based on whether the sound is pleasant to our ears. However, music also suggests ideas and emotions, which require a more sophisticated brain to appreciate. For example, an elephant might not appreciate a sonnet by Shakespeare, but a human can, provided they understand the language. Music transcends language, but it can still convey ideas and emotions.

Music is often described as a universal language, and it can evoke certain ideas and emotions. For instance, Bach's compositions build up pressure and then release it, creating a sense of calm. To truly grasp the essence of that music requires human sensibility. Animals, on the other hand, have simpler forms of expression, like bird song. While animals can appreciate sounds, I believe that only humans can fully comprehend the particular arrangements of music. I don't think the divisions in scales are arbitrary; rather, they are discoveries of something profound. Personally, I have struggled to connect with certain modern compositions, like those of Stockhausen, which I find catchy but ultimately unresonant.

There is a structure in music that resonates, and if you try to step outside that and create something arbitrary, it may never resonate. It's not just a question of whether our ears are tuned to it; some modern operas attempt to break away from classical traditions, using dissonance and unconventional chords. This dissonance is often associated with conflict, as seen in horror films where dissonant music accompanies scenes of chaos. However, Stockhausen's work feels entirely different; it doesn't fit together in a way that resonates with me. Compatibility plays a role in our musical preferences; for example, if you're feeling angry, you might find beauty in loud, dissonant rock music because it aligns with your current state of mind.

Regarding the nature of God, I believe that God is a mathematical being, and that the world we live in can be described using mathematics. God used mathematics to create the universe, and the structure of creation reflects the mind of God. At the core of God's being is the desire to experience joy through love, which is why God created. The Bible speaks of God not only as a being of intellect and emotion but also as a being of power. God is invisible and pure spirit, but also the source of the universe. This leads to the question of whether God's power is infinite. Some argue that God had to rest on the seventh day, suggesting a limit to divine power, while others believe that God's love and energy are generated based on the needs of creation.

I think God's love is not an infinite storehouse but is generated in response to the existence of beings that require love. As new beings come into existence, the process of generating love also begins. This means that God does not generate infinite love independently but rather in relation to the objects of that love. The concept of God as a creator implies that God had the energy or potentiality to create the universe, which raises questions about the origins of the Big Bang. Some, like Stephen Hawking, reject the idea of a personal God, attributing the Big Bang to the force of gravity. In this view, gravity functions similarly to the concept of God, suggesting that there may be forces beyond our understanding that initiated the universe.

Having a personal relationship with God is a concept that some reject, viewing God as an impersonal force. For instance, in the Bible, it states that in the beginning, the Earth was void, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Then God spoke, and there was light. The question arises: is this a literal description or a metaphor? It largely depends on one's beliefs. Personally, I believe in a God who created all things, a personal God. This raises the question of whether it is possible to have a personal relationship with God. I think the idea is that God's spirit was indeed present, especially when the Earth was formless and void, and that God's spirit was moving over the waters.

The biblical language often uses metaphors, but in some cases, it can be a literal description. When we think of water, we might consider H2O, but before the planets existed, was there just water in the universe? The scientific view suggests that water came much later, after the Big Bang and the formation of stars and planets. Oxygen was eventually formed within stars, indicating a gradual process. In this sense, the biblical account could be seen as metaphorical. Einstein and others believed in a force, but not necessarily in a personal relationship with that force. The insights that figures like Abraham had were profound; they realised that the God who created the universe takes a personal interest in each of us.

When we read the Psalms and other parts of the Bible, we see this incredible notion that the God who created the universe is interested in us as individuals. We can have a personal relationship with God through prayer. This suggests that God is not merely an impersonal force, but rather a being who can manifest Himself. There is indeed a force, like gravity, but behind that force lies love and heart. So, when we speak of a personal God, we refer to a being with intellect, emotion, and free will. This unification thought divides God into aspects of emotion, intellect, and will, but at the core is the Oneness of God.

Stephen Hawking proposed that the original cause of the universe was gravity, which he viewed as the driving force behind the Big Bang. He suggested that gravity itself could be seen as a god-like entity. However, this perspective lacks the internal qualities of love, emotion, and intellect. In this view, gravity functions as a kind of god, but it does not encompass the personal attributes we associate with a personal God. The four fundamental forces of nature appeared later in the universe's development, and at the very beginning of the Big Bang, there were not four forces; they differentiated over time.

To understand whether God has a personality, individuals must seek their own sense of God beyond the static scales of the universe. When people pray, they may not always perceive God speaking or guiding their lives, but many report a sense of a loving presence. Throughout history, countless individuals have testified to feeling this numinous presence, which they attribute to the creator of the universe, who is also seen as a parent figure. This raises the question of whether such experiences could be mere hallucinations. However, those who report these experiences are often incredibly sane and normal, not typically associated with hallucinations or insanity.

My own faith journey began when I became a Christian at around 18 or 19. I didn't rely on complex theories; I simply believed in God's existence. I think the universe, with its conscious existence, must have a creator, and that creator is God. While scientists point to the Big Bang as a significant event, I believe they only capture part of the truth. The Big Bang was indeed a beginning, but the universe's development, with its structure and complexity, suggests a deeper purpose. Life has emerged on this planet, and human beings have developed consciousness, allowing us to form a relationship with this invisible being. Ultimately, our consciousness enables us to engage with the divine.