Paying the Piper


In answer to the previous post’s question, Preston Harold once again quotes Sir Arthur Eddington at length…

Attempts to account for this phenomenon follow two main devices which we may describe as the ‘Collection-box” theory and the “sweepstake” theory, respectively. Making no effort to translate them into scientific language, they amount to this: in the first the atom holds a collection-box into which each arriving group of waves pays a very small contribution; when the amount in the box reaches a whole quantum, it enters the atom. In the second [theory] the atom uses the small fraction of a quantum offered to it to buy a ticket in a sweepstake in which the prizes are whole quanta; some of the atoms will win whole quanta which they can absorb, and it is these winning atoms in our retina which tell us of the existence of Sirius…

A phenomenon which seems directly opposed to any kind of collection-box explanation is the photoelectric effect. When light shines on metallic films…free electrons are discharged from the film. They fly away at high speed, and it is possible to measure experimentally their speed or energy. Undoubtedly it is the incident light which provides the energy of these explosions, but the phenomenon is goverened by a remarkable rule. Firstly, the speed of the electrons is not increased by using more powerful light. Concentration of the light produces more explosions but not more powerful explosions. Secondly, the speed is increased by using bluer light, i.e. light of shorter period….

Every electron flying out of the metal has picked up just one quantum from the incident light. Since the h-rule associates the greater energy with the shorter vibration period, bluer light gives the more intense energy. Experiments show that (after deducing a constant “threshold” energy used up in extricating the electron from the film) each electron comes out with a kinetic energy equal to the quantum of incident light.

The film can be prepared in the dark; but on exposure to feeble light electrons immediately begin to fly out before any of the collection-boxes could have been filled by fair means. Nor can we appeal to any trigger action of the light releasing an electron already loaded up with energy for its journey; it is the nature of the light which settles the amount of the load. The light calls the tune, therefore the light must pay the piper.

Harold then comments:

An ancient could convey all of this only by making a symbol of himself to show it. Jesus “radiated” His realization to speed the expansion of consciousness in a brief, intense effort – as symbol of light, “bluer, of shorter period.” As light’s symbol, having settled the amount of the load on the elect-ones, He, Himself, paid the piper. But there is more to the story of h and to the parallel that Jesus’ drama presents.

We will continue to explore this continuing saga in our next installment. Until then, peace.

Light’s Single Action

We will delve right into Preston Harold’s statements regarding Jesus and h:

…if an ancient were trying to state the case of h, how could he have done it? If he could utter but one word to give evidence of his grasp of h, then that word must be, “single,” singularity expressed in such a way that it would be true at every way. Jesus said: “The light of the body is in the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” These poetic words reflect light’s single action, relate light and singular behavior in its absorption – and they also present truth in another field: strangely enough surgeons now know that the cornea is the single bit of flesh that may readily be transplanted and truly grow into man’s body, so that its singularity bespeaks the sameness of one.

One can’t help but think here also of the “third eye,” also known as the ajna chakra in Hindu philosophy. The effects of this eye becoming active are a sense of oneness and connection amongst everything, therefore reinforcing the concept of singularity.


But Jesus, Himself, had to symbolize h, the one atom of action that coheres as one unit in the process of radiation, single (as He remained), an indivisible likeness to One, bespeaking a unity that overleaps space, a unity He called the same, without reservation, in every man for each hath one. He could do no more than present a clue as to the dimension of His realization – He did not attempt to state it in full: I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” How could His disciples bear to generations unborn more than poetry of the quantum, enveloped in Jesus’ drama and in the one singularly expressed reference to light’s absorption. How is it managed?

We will explore this question in our next post. Until then, peace.

The Elemental Unit

In order to set the stage for the rest of chapter 7, we must explore in depth the concept of the elemental unit of energy, h. Preston Harold writes:

In physics, the might, magnificence, and yet exquisite delicacy of the control of one is come upon when man encounters, as he must at every turn, h, an elemental unit of energy: .00000000000000000000000000655 erg-seconds. The erg is the unit of energy, the second is the unit of time, h is of the nature of energy multiplied by time.

Harold then goes on to cite Sir Arthur Eddington. I will quote Eddington at length:

Evidently h is a kind of atom – something which coheres as one unit in the process of radiation; it is not an atom of matter but an atom or, as we usually call it, a quantum of the more elusive entity in action. Whereas there are [103] different kinds of material atoms there is only one quantum of action – the same whatever the material it is associated with…. You might perhaps think that there must be some qualitative difference between the quantum of red light and the quantum of blue light, although both contain the same number of erg-seconds.; but the apparent difference is only relative to a frame of space and time and does not concern the absolute lump of action…


The indivisible units in the shuffling of energy are the quanta. By radiation, absorption and scattering energy is shuffled among the different receptacles in matter and aether, but only a whole quantum passes at each step…

The paradoxical nature of the quantum is that although it is indivisible it does not hang together. We examined first a case in which a quantity of energy was obviously cohering together, viz. an electron, but we did not find h; then we turned our attention to a case in which the energy was obviously dissolving away through space, viz. light-waves, and immediately h appeared. The atom of action seems to have no coherence in space; it has a unity which overlaps space. How can such a unity be made to appear in our picture of a world extended through space ad time?

The pursuit of the quantum leads to many surprises; but probably none is more outrageous to our preconceptions than the regathering of light and other radiant energy into h-units, when all the classical pictures show it to be dispersing more and more.

Consider the light-waves which are the result of a single emission by a single atom on the star Sirius. These bear away a certain amount of energy endowed with a certain period, and the product of the two is h. The period is carried by the waves without change, but the energy spreads out in an ever-widening circle. Eight years and nine months after the emission the wave-front is due to reach the earth. A few minutes before the arrival some person takes it into his head to go out and admire the glories of the heavens and – in short – to stick his eye in the way. The light waves when they started could have had no notion that they were going to hit; for all they knew they were bound on a journey through endless space, as most of their colleagues were. Their energy would seem to be dissipated beyond recovery over a sphere of 50 billion miles’ radius. And yet, if that energy is ever to enter matter again, if it is to work those chemical changes in the retina which give rise to the sensation of light, it must enter as a single quantum of action h….


Just as the emitting atom regardless of all laws of classical physics is determined that whatever goes out of it shall be just h, so the receiving atom is determined that whatever comes into it shall be just h. Not all the light-waves pass by without entering the eye; for somehow we are able to see Sirius. How is it managed?

So how would Jesus express these words of Eddington concerning h over 2000 years ago? We will look at that challenge in our next installment. Until then, peace.

Chapter 7: One, Itself, Is Teacher

One (adj): Being a single unit or thing – Merriam Webster Dictionary


In his Essays in Science, Albert Einstein writes, “evolution has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to all the rest…The important point for us to observe is that all these constructions and the laws connecting them can be arrived at by the principle of looking for the mathematically simples concepts and the link between them. In the limited nature of the mathematically existent simple fields and the simple equations possible between them, lies the theorist’s hope of grasping the real in all its depths.”

Could Jesus have been the theorist who grasped the real in all it’s depths? Preston Harold writes:

The ancient, then would have had to employ the simplest number: one. One is adjective, capable of adding to or being added to, yet itself unity, a complete whole, indestructible, a coherence that regardless of how often it is self-divided or self-multiplied is no more and no less than it was. The ancient’s every expression about one must be made in the simplest possible way, and he must also convey the full significance of the mathematically simplest link between the mathematically simplest concept: one and one, choosing a symbol that would in time come to express the significance of organization – as Eddington says, the significant of and. Thus, he must choose the cross +.


Here’s a view of the cross I’ve never before entertained. As a symbol for “and.” Of course taking it out of a religious context expands the view considerably.  Why hadn’t I ever thought of this before?

Jesus chose the cross, and He based His teaching upon the number one. He said, “Why call me ‘good’…? one alone is good…” He said that one is teacher, leader, Father. His message points to the absolutely superior concept of one itself. If one and its nature and working could be understood, in time understanding of all else must follow. Jesus saw that each One drawn into expression as “I” must contain the quality and quantity inherent in one: ”

…as the Father has life in himself, so too he has granted the Son to have life in himself…it is not the will of your Father in heaven that a single one of these little ones should be lost.

Can the will of one be thwarted – even by one itself? So wondrous are one’s ways, so unlimited are its possibilities, that man calls it “God.”

In our next post we’ll look at the nature of an elemental unit of energy, delving at length into the work of Sir Arthur Eddington. Until then, peace.

Empathy Trumps Conscience


Preston Harold tells us that over time, our empathy will begin to replace the role of our conscience:

If, in time, under evolution’s “psychic entropic” working, abuse and error should decrease, then empathy, not fear or conscience, would guide man into the paths of compassion and decency – that is, the voice in conscience in man must lessen as empathy takes over its role, governing action from a higher level of consciousness. In the Gospels the voice of conscience calling man to repentance comes through John the Baptist, whereas the voice of empathy, the Christ, speaks of abiding love and says: “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.”

We discussed the identifying of John the Baptist with conscience in an earlier post here. Preston Harold continues that discussion:

The voice of conscience, John the Baptist, says of this voice of truth: “He must increase, but I must decrease…” The concept that conscience must in time lessen as evolution’s purpose is fulfilled may be a startling one, but [Robert] Ardrey’s words are also startling – he says: “…conscience as a guiding force in the human drama is one of such small reliability that it assumes very nearly the role of a villain….Conscience organizes hatred as it organizes love.” Jesus says of conscience – that is, of John the Baptist, it’s symbol – “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” In the kingdom within, conscience must have little part – does empathy take its place?


“Conscience organizes hatred as it organizes love.” Quite a statement and an idea that has never crossed my mind! But thinking about it, I can understand. If my conscience tells me to take a particular side, I certainly may develop an aversion for the other. How many times do we find ourselves in “over and against” situations, whether it be religion, politics, or any other human endeavor? And how much energy is spent feeding this “over and against-ness” in our media, education, and professional lives?

Harold continues to explore empathy:

If a core of perfect empathy exists in the unconscious, it provides for man’s capacity to love others no matter how far they fall and to love his own soul whatever its hue. How many people have glimpsed in their dreams this inner realm that is utterly theirs?… As yet, psychologists offer no satisfactory explanation of a sublime self-love that draws the soul or ego-group together toward “home” – neither do philosophers. Both seem blind to all but lust. Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld describes man’s lust…: “All unknowingly it breeds, nourishes, rears a variety of affections and hatreds, some of them so monstrous that when it has brought them to light it fails to recognize or refuses to acknowledge them.” And so they are repressed – as psychologists have observed – but Love takes them in, reverses and reclothes them, makes them sufficient to re-enter the conscious domain and under life’s supreme law be redeemed.

And that does it for Chapter 6! We now move on to Chapter 7 where we will look in depth at the concept of the number One. Until then, peace.

Striving for Equilibrium: Pt. 2

Preston Harold continues the comparison between the psychic and the thermodynamic:

If thermodynamic equilibrium is possible in an isolated, ideal environment, the psychic equivalent may exist in man now, in a part of his unconscious.

star super_f

Eddington says: “A region in the deep interior of a star is an almost perfect example of thermodynamic equilibrium.” Not in the partitioned conscious domain, not in the id, an unbounded mystery, but in the “core” of the unconscious complete empathy could exist and be the “resonator” that sounds through man as truth’s prompting and at times gives him inexpressible, complete joy in life. In order to achieve “psychic equilibrium” or to have complete empathy, the “resonator” must have experienced the full of life’s good and evil.

Harold then gives us an example of how this is displayed in the teachings of Jesus:

Eddington describes “the principle of detailed balancing” which asserts “that to every type of process (however minutely particularized) there is a converse process, and in thermodynamical equilibrium direct and converse processes occur with equal frequency.” Jesus’ teaching indicates that there is a similar psychic operation which arises because the Authority in each man’s unconscious acts directly to forgive another’s transgression. In the Lord’s Prayer, the line: “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven…” indicates that a process goes on in the unconscious which demands a response with equal frequency in the conscious domain in order to maintain its equilibrium. The clue is cast in this line: “And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors…” for the world is not if – it is as. This projects the forgiving of transgression in the unconscious even as another commits it. Jesus follows the word if – if you do not forgive the trespasses of those who trespass against you, you cannot be forgiven your trespasses.

lords prayer

And now he brings a bit of chemistry into the equation.

In chemist’s terms, one might paraphrase: if you do not forgive in consciousness what has been unconsciously forgiven, you are but “half-reacted” – you must respond in consciousness to the act that takes place in the unconscious or a schism is created in inner harmony. The concept here offered is that the Lord in each man is the equal of each other such One, and is devoid of will to exercise his power against His brother in destructive manner. Destructive, abusive acts stem from the ego-group and the Lord in man forgives these transgressions because he perceives that which each violence spent the constructive potential is increased in the lessening of lust, and because He knows Himself to be equally involved in all’s expression of good and evil, in good and evil doing in life’s conscious domain.

I very much enjoy this parallel of unforgiveness and “half-reaction.” To be whole we must fully forgive in our waking consciousness. Certainly easier said than done, but it is what we are “commanded” to do. Until next time, peace.

Striving for Equilibrium; Pt. 1


Sir Arthur Eddington says thermodynamic equilibrium can theoretically be projected in an ideal, isolated state:

Under these isolated conditions the energy will be shuffled as it is bandied from matter to aether and back again, and very soon the shuffling will be complete… With infinite divisibility there can be no end to shuffling. The experimental fact that a definite state of equilibrium is rapidly reached indicates that energy is not infinitely divisible…in the natural process of shuffling.

Preston Harold goes on to interpret Eddington in psychological terms:

Psychologically translated, this would say that passion is not infinitely divisible into good and evil force – rather, the two forces are shuffled up to the point that “psychic equilibrium” is a fact accomplished. And then – will passionate striving, the fine tensions of life, the vice turned spice, be gone, leaving man no sense of being or becoming?

Eddington describes thermodynamic equilibrium:

It would not be true to say that such a region is timeless; the atoms vibrate as usual like little clocks; by them we can measure speeds and durations. Time is still there and retains its ordinary properties, but it has lost its arrow; like space it extends, but it does not “go on.”

Preston Harold then elaborates on our experience of time and timelessness…

When man senses that time “goes on,” he must measure himself against it: as lagging behind, or rushing to get ahead, his life measured by its passage. But when time extends like space into the blue or starry skies, he experiences a moment of perfect freedom, realizes the here-now of infinity. He cannot experience this without experiencing also a deep-seated satisfaction simply in being.

Harold’s words remind me of the end of Act 1 of Wagner’s “Parsifal” in which Gurnemanz tells a young boy as they approach the Grail castle that “in this realm, time becomes space.”


Preston Harold finishes today’s post up by continuing to combine the scientific with the psychic:

Man’s lump sum of lust may be likened to the source of heat in a system; just as heat turns up as an almost unavoidable side-product and as a very probable end-product of any job he does, so, too, with lust in the psychic realm…In man the lessening of lust may be too small to meet the eye, but one may project its decrease until there is a lust-death in consciousness when all has been experienced in mind or in deed; but as this is accomplished, one must project the increase of empathy until in the perfect shuffling of lust it becomes a divinely human desire for the beloved, love of life itself; or one might say that as lust decreases, compassion increases so that in time empathy is fulfilled and man’s passion is maintained at a desirable level. This is to say, there is no psychic stillness, stagnation, or death of desire under the condition of perfect empathy any more than thermodynamical equilibrium stills the exquisite life of the atom.

We will continue looking at the parallels between psychic and thermodynamic equilibrium in our next post. Until then, peace…


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 127 other followers