The prof sets up a theory for having a thought. But there is also using thought in a directed way. That implys that by will I can affect the UTF using directed thought, a necessary assumption using his model.
Some nonChristian religious or spiritual philosophies refer to a "universal consciousness" where all knowledge and every nuance of every idea exists already. Nobody ever generates an idea, they all come from the universal consciousness.
I strikes me that if the UTF exists, and it bears some resemblance the the universal consciousness, then I can direct the UTF to serve me up an idea on demand. Indeed, it seems to work that way.
Putting a purely religeous spin on it, the UTF would be the Mind of God with which every person has continuous contact. Perhaps we see here the direction and nature of prayer.
OR as someone put it once to me, life, evolution, conciousness, is the universe contemplating itself.
I strikes me that if the UTF exists, and it bears some resemblance the the universal consciousness, then I can direct the UTF to serve me up an idea on demand. Indeed, it seems to work that way. Interesting, WT. Thinking through the speculation, the "UTF" or primary consciousness/universal vacuum field or whatever we are to call it, appears to be a repository of all true statements about the universal system and, thus, all its subsystems. In a certain way, it's a kind of universal instruction set. It is accessible to deeper levels of the mind. Indeed, Plato suggested that the unconscious mind was in full possession of all the contents of the UTF. And that the learning process, the acquisition of true knowledge, was basically concerned with making the contents of the unconscious mind available to consciousness by means of intention and anamnesis, or "memory."
Needless to say, such ideas sound very strange to postmodern ears. But postmodern life is (arguably) so cut off from its cosmic roots that most of the time we who live in it can't tell "which end is up." We are challenged when having to discriminate a pure abstraction from the real thing to which it refers. We have no true standard by which to make judgments, because we have cut ourselves off from the ground of our own being.
If all this sounds perfectly incomprehensible, let me try to put it in perspective for you with a line from a corny little film that I happen to like a lot, Doc Hollywood.
It's the story of small-town life, of close human communities shaped by a common culture and worldview, that stay close to nature (in terms of social relations, and involvement with agriculture, animal husbandry, etc.). Into this milieu is deposited a small-town-born, but highly "citified" young doctor, ambitious to become a wealthy plastic surgeon in trendy L.A. He gets waylaid on his trip West by a car accident, that ends up with his having to perform "community service" at the local hospital. Where he meets Lou, the fetching ambulance driver. Who's "been to the big city," but came back home to her roots, where she firmly plans to stay. Needless to say, they fall in love.
It all works out in the end, after various twists and turns. But at a certain point in the film, when she is explaining to Doc why she needed to "come home," Lou said this, in light of her experience in the big city and her thorough meditation on it: "Most people live on the world, not in the world."
I think Lou's statement is profoundly true; and I think whether we live on or in the world has a lot to do with how we relate to the primary consciousness of the universe.
Just a meditation on your meditation, WT! FWIW. Thank you so much for writing -- it's good to see you!