One part of Metaphysics is called ontology.

Ontology is a question of what exists, or what is. A part of this subject is also the question of: From where or what does life comes from? There is life here. We are part of this life and in this life. But where does it come from? Or on a larger level, there is this universe of stars and planets. From where, or how, do they come into being? At first sight, these seem only to be questions for science. Science is an attempt to explain this and that. But metaphysics looks behind the mere obvious of scientific observation, and it also looks at the whole larger picture. So metaphysics is attempting a much larger project. ( a larger looking metaphor or model)

The complete ontology is sort of like the chicken and egg question. What comes first? Because there are two sides involved with the answer. These two sides relate with one another, are causal to one another, and are also necessary to one another. There are many ways to explain this, so this is merely one.

The Whole differentiates into pieces – which is also a differentiation into diversity. These pieces are, thus, the parts of the Whole. Now there are two kinds, Whole and parts. But these are not at all separate, nor are they opposing. All of the parts have come from the Whole and are parts of the Whole, and the Whole is all of the parts together. So there is Unity in the Wholeness of it all, even if there may be disharmonies amongst the diverse parts. Unity does not necessarily mean the same as harmony.

Now, things start happening. Life is taking off. The pieces of the Whole are interacting and forming special relationships. Creativity is going on. These living pieces are beginning to experiment creatively, and see how that creativity works out with the other pieces. They begin to acquire an intelligence for better adaptivity. So harmony begins to build and a harmonious web of relations. …….

……… go on …. (but for now I am moving on)

Creativity is going on, based on both experiment and adaptational survival needs. Greater mutuality and harmony is also evolving, over time. Such is the evolution of life. … This creative process and building of intelligence, from the ground up, and from smaller to larger harmonious relations, is what builds the Whole. For example, the Whole of a society is built from the creativity of its members. So this would be the simplest narrative, but it is incomplete. It is one side, yet one-sided. Because the Whole, at any moment, is also affective upon its members. The Whole, which is very much created by its members, becomes the contextual environment for these same members. And this contextual environment is affective upon its members, just as its members are affectively creative of the Whole. In other words, the members affectively create their own wholeness, (how this is), yet the wholeness in turn becomes the contextual environment for those members which affects their development and creativity.

Thus, we need to consider members and whole as both affective in the creative process, and thus in the question of how things come to be. The wholeness itself, and its quality, has to be regarded as significantly important – in the question of how life evolves and also in the question of quality. Members build the wholeness, the whole environment, so we can say that life as a whole is created by its members. But this is only partly true. For whatever wholeness is built by its members is, in turn, creatively influential on its members. Individuals and their local relations build the greater wholeness. But this wholeness, in turn, influences the creative development of its member parts. For this wholeness, at any particular time, is the contextual environment in which its members develop. This is touching on social influence, and even ecological influence, in the question of how we develop individually.

Thus, the wholeness around us helps nurture our creative and intelligent development, as well as limit it to some extent.

Consider a kindergarten classroom environment, which can be analogous to a community or to a global environment. The classroom provides unique opportunities for learning, but it is also limited. It is the learning environment for those in it. So the quality of this environment is certainly significant in the creativity of those members.

Therefore, the Whole, the whole System, the whole Web of members and relations, has its own Soul, as it were, its own Overall Quality, Vibration, Presence. It is an effective Field in Itself – an Ecological Field.

And we as members emerge from this greater Wholeness. This is, in a sense, our Mother. (our being comes from this wholeness in which we are members)

Misunderstandings result when the ‘from the ground up’ paradigm is taken to be the only side of the story. A paradigm involving Holistic Relations must also be added in a complete metaphysics. From the ground up, if just understood one-sidedly, and if combined with an atomistic view of things, gives a picture of nature as being built up from elementary building blocks. Little by little, small organisms connect and combine to form larger organisms and also a complexity of relations with one another, so that this building process gradually becomes a large Complexity of things and relationships. This model is fairly easy to imagine, as one can simply picture how a child begins with small blocks and gradually builds some kind of connected whole structure.

But we are forgetting something important, which ecology and also energy-field physics points out. The whole relational Web in ecology, or the larger enfolding energy-Field in physics, is Itself making a Holistic influence – which is not simply explained by reducing everything to a ‘building up from pieces’ model.

There is a process of building up from smaller to larger, and towards more complexity of the built-up structure, including more complexity of relationships between parts. Yet in addition, this process begins to build distinct relational webs, which then become distinct functioning Parts made from smaller parts. These Parts then form relationships with other functioning Parts, which then builds up to make a Whole complex organization of interrelating and interdependent Parts. The Whole of this is the Web of Relations or, in short, the Ecology.

Yet the Whole Web itself has its own emergent1 causal influence – which includes an organizing influence on the very process of organic development. This organizing influence is the result of the Web-System’s unique relational structure with its unique emergent properties – including its own developed traits, capacities, and limits.

[Just as any smaller relational web, within the larger Whole Web, also has an organizing influence on its members in that web]. We can think of this as a Holistic relational influence; that is, the Web of complex interrelations Itself becomes an organizational structure, though most often implicit and hidden in the contextual undercurrent of explicit relations. This implicit organizational structure of the Whole has its own organizing influence on its intra-relational parts. This organizing influence is fundamentally a Self-sustaining influence. It will also be Self-balancing – towards Holistic equilibrium and overall sustainable balance. Yet its power on its members is of a contextual kind, so it is not direct. Its ‘pervading’ power is not deterministic nor absolutely imposing on the creative experimental freedom of its members. Picture a world with two fundamental Kinds of causal influence, coming from two opposite metaphysical directions – one from the ground up and one from the Whole down.

A whole contains members, who have formed the whole. Members, individual lives, are in some overall whole. They have to be, for no individual can exist on its own. Individuals can only exist in relationship with others, which has be at least somewhat mutually beneficial and overall sustainable. Therefore, individual existence (the individual being) is existentially inseparable from its necessary survival relationships. The relationships necessary to each being are also necessarily connected with one another, making a larger Web of interrelated and interdependently connected relations. Pieces within the Web, or particular relations within the Web, can possibly extinguish or change, without dramatically extinguishing or changing the overall Web; however, any significant changes within the Web will require adjustments or adaptations in other parts of the Web, so to rebalance the Web’s stability and sustainability.

This larger Web, then, acquires its own necessary needs and also its own unique qualities. It will be and act as a unity in Itself, though this unity could be rather loose and not necessarily tight. The whole Web Itself, as a loosely connected unity, emerges into being a larger general influence, a contextual influence, upon its relational members.

This larger, general, contextual influence can be classified into opportunities and constraints, which will depend on how the Web is. If the Whole Web changes in any significant way, due to changes in its relational parts, then there will be changes in both opportunities and constraints. These can also be understood as possibilities and limits, in regards to any future creativity.

Members in the Whole create external causes in relation to one another. That is, each member is an external cause, or external influence, for the other members. What others do around me, or in relation to me, has causal influence upon my own being and then also upon how I act in consequence. Reciprocally, what I do in relation to others is effecting their being and hence their action. This is basically what is meant by external relations; whereby individuals are inter-acting in causal, influential ways. Groups will also emerge from this (each group is itself a micro-whole) and inter-act with other groups, forming external group relations. Basically, external relations are formed by things interacting with other things.


Here is an addin -- probably move

Addin on to explain external and internal relations:

(but to add in after some explanation of internal relations )

The difference between an external relations metaphysics and an internal relations metaphysics is significant to the question of interconnectiveness and interrelatedness.

External relations is from the view of parts relating to parts, members relating to members. From the view of interacting parts, these interactions are external relations. From our view as individual members of the world, our relations with others is external. In considering my relationships with others, these are my external relations. I am relating to others external to me, and they are relating to me as external to them. We effect one another by our actions and words. Thus, each person or each thing affects others in a causal manner; so each makes external causes, and each is affected by external causes. This is all true, but not the whole picture. So to complete the full understanding of reality we need to understand internal relations as well.

Internal relations are from the perspective of the Whole, in relation to its parts or members. The relations that the Whole has with its members are internal within It. Moreover, these internal relations are all intrinsically related, since all such relations are in the same Whole. In Field theory there is a common, underlaying energy wave that pervades the whole Field, which instantaneously and synchronistically relates all things in that Field.

The argument against internal relations is that the Whole is merely an abstract concept to signify a sum of things interacting together. What exists are merely things interacting. Just the things exist, …which interact to produce phenomena and events. To speak about the Wholeness of these things and events is to confuse a merely pragmatic concept with reality. There is no Whole, as such. There are merely a collection of things interacting and sometimes forming relations and organizations.

The metaphysics of external relations does, of course, include relations between such things, and these relations can become complex webs. But external relations affirms that the interrelatedness between things or people is dependent on physical contact, or contact by perception, hearing, or some other sense. Distance of physical space between people/things has to be traversed by some means of physical contact, or by sound, light, etc.

The Idea of external relations can even include the proposition that all relations and webs are loosely connected in one whole relational web. But the external relations model does not go so far as to admit absolute relatedness between members. There is relatedness between some members, but not necessarily all. Members of this world might or might not have inter-causal relations, but not necessarily. So it is possible that all things are causally interrelated in an inseparable web, but not necessarily.

On the other hand, the internal relations model affirms, necessarily and without doubt, that all members are causally interrelated, because we are all in the same Whole Web. Internal relations also affirms that inter relatedness and affect are instantaneously synchronistic. As well, the whole web has its own overall qualities, which vibrationally permeates all members. This means there is a common inner essence in all the members, synchronistically relational to the ever-evolving quality-vibration of the Whole. For as the Whole changes, or as it evolves, there is an immediate synchronistic effect within all the members within It. This could be called the pantheistic effect.

The whole, or the environment as a whole, does not produce external causes upon its members. It will produce opportunities and constraints, but these are contextual influences, not external causes per se. External causes and external relations can only occur between things. Yet the Whole in relation to its members/parts is not like one other thing relating to the other things. In other words, the Whole is not like one of its member/parts, so It does not act upon the members within it in the same kind of external manner as the members act upon one another. The Whole, in relation to its members/parts, is on a higher logical level of being, as it were.

The Whole, in relation to its members/parts, is not in an external relationship with its parts in the same way as the parts externally relate with one another. The Whole is not actually external to its parts. It might seem like it is, if we think of the Whole as outside us or as “surrounding” us; but this would be a wrong thinking, because the Whole is simply the whole of all of us. It is not really outside us, nor surrounding us. Rather, we are in It. We are part of It. In other words, the Whole is what we all are. So it cannot be external to us. If we think of the Whole, in which we are part, as being external to us, then we are thinking wrongly about the Whole. We have an external relationship with the totality of all the Web relations, yet our relationship with the whole Itself is not external.

Instead, we are internal - in relation to the Whole. Thus, we have an internal relation with the Whole. As well, the Whole is internal in us. This is more difficult to understand. Our internal relationship with the Whole is much more subtle. It is contextual, intrinsic, and implicit. We are embedded in the Whole, such that the Whole is imbedded in us. One difficulty in trying to explain the Web of relations as a Whole is the difficulty of explanation without using the image and language of external relations. There is a kind of causal influence emergent from the Whole, in relation to its members/parts, but this is not an external kind of relation – with external causes involving things inter-actively bumping into other things.

Here is an example. This example involves a localized experience of an environment, but this environment can be an example of a whole, since the Whole in which we exist is also our environment. Thus, the term environment will be used as equivalent to the term whole. For just as there are relatively whole eco-systems within the Whole Ecosystem, there are also relatively whole environments within the Whole Environment.

If we study our experience within various qualities of environment, we can notice differing effects within ourselves. The experiential effect of being in a beautiful or harmonious environment will be different from the effect of being in an ugly or inharmonious environment. One feels a harmonious and healing effect from beautiful and harmonious environments. This can also be the case with positive and harmonious social environments.

The beauty and harmony of an environment will have a synchronistic and resonating effect within the person in it.2 That is, the quality of beauty and harmony, of an environment we are in, resonates in us. We become in sympathetic resonance with our environment. To some extent we are individually autonomous in relation to the qualitative energies of our environment, but only to some extent. There is environmental influence, which is affective, and from which no one can be completely free. This inseparable interrelatedness between members and whole, or between ourselves and our environment, is an essential aspect of what we are calling here internal relations. Yet another aspect of this is the synchronistic and resonating effect of any environment, or any group, or any kind of wholeness. The quality of any such environment, or wholeness, resonates in us – affecting us from within.

This follows more from quantum resonance theory than particle theory. The Field, or Environment, works in us through synchronistic, sympathetic resonance. It works in and through us, because this is the Environmental Field which we are in – it is the Energy Vibration we are in. It is not so much like an energy coming to us from something other, as would be explained by external relations. The influential effect of the Whole is not like impinging weather. Rather, this energy of the Whole is already in us and through us, simultaneous and synchronistic with the overall Whole vibration itself.

** The very ground of our being, our deepest essence, is the qualitative energy of the Whole, the vibrational quality of the Whole Larger Field we are in. This does not mean that our ground essence of being is the Whole Itself; for that would falsely suggest that all things and relations (in the Field around us) are within us. Neither does this mean there is the same quantitative energy of the Whole within us; for this would absurdly suggest that we each have all this total energy. Rather, the meaning here is that we are each, in essence or have within us, the permeating vibrational quality (or qualities) of the Whole Field we are in. So we are all sharing in the same permeating energies and vibrational qualities of the Whole Web Field we are all in. (And by the way, there are many possible layers (or sizes) of semi-coherent fields that any of us can be part of, from quite local to national to whole planet and all the way to the Universal Whole).

This is a different mode of causal relation, than merely external. Parts of the environmental Whole are, of course, externally relating to us; even fairly large parts. But as for the complete Whole Itself, the Whole Itself cannot be acting as an external thing upon what is already inherent in it. Therefore, the whole Field Itself, as One, has its own unique but unitive vibrational coherency – which is the overall vibration of the whole itself – and the causal effects of This Whole Field cannot be reductively explained by an external relations model.


-- Yet, there are no external particles of beauty or harmony coming to us from such an environment.3

Finally, I have to posit the Idea that it all originally emerges from a Oneness, and so everything always retains this energy connection with everything else, which means that causal relations are spread all through the Whole System, independent of the external causal relations that depend on contiguous proximity.


One main Idea in the teachings presented here has been that two polar opposite metaphysics movements are taking place in the evolutionary process. One is an organic and the other will be called Holistic. The organic movement, the building of relations and complexities of organization from the ground up, from small to larger, which finally results in a large interconnected Web of interrelations and interdependencies, which is the Ecological Whole. This Whole is not merely reducible to a sum total of relating parts, because the Whole Itself has its own level of organizing power and pervasive qualities. And because the Web of relations (the Ecology) is all interconnected and interdependent, it is itself a unitive wholeness, in the same way that our bodies are whole things with unitive powers and qualities. Just as our bodies are composed of multiple interrelating functional parts, the planetary ecology is just as much a whole. This is an emergent wholeness – emerging from a vast multitude of interrelating parts, yet emerging into its own Holistic organizational intelligence towards Eco-sustainability. The Whole even develops its own Holistic will, guided by intelligent purpose, though this is more esoteric.

So, from the ground up a Holism emerges, a whole being in itself, with its own Eco-intelligence. Then, from this Wholeness are various Influences upon the members in it. These Influences guide, in some measure, the creative evolutionary development of the members within it. The creative development of the members is primarily from the ground up, involving trial and error, but there is also some Influence from the Whole Itself, which we are calling Holistic Influence. This includes an organizational intelligence4 and will towards Eco-sustainability and harmonization within it.

Thus, one movement of power is from the ground up, while the other movement is from the Whole down. The organic movement is the building of Large and Complex from small and simple. While in polar opposite, the Holistic movement is a Higher level Influence from the Larger-Whole System to its relational members.

So because of the Higher level of Influence, the Influence from the Whole, the Holistic Influence, the creative evolution of life is partially guided. There is always an Influence from Above, as it were, from the Whole upon the members in the Whole. Yet this Whole Itself is created from and emergent from those same members and relations. Thus, we as life members, along with the others here, are participatively creating the whole ecological -social Web which will be, in turn, organizationally influencing our future creative choices and activities. In other words, the Whole Ecological Environment (and we are including here the whole Physical and Sociological Environment), which we all participatively help create, becomes an influencing factor upon us, providing unique opportunities and restraints. Yet moreover, we are helping to create the Whole-Holistic Intelligence which will, in turn, be our higher influence and guidance.

The influence is towards Holistic or Group Coherence, Organization, Stability, Harmonization.

The Influential power of a Wholeness upon its members should not be underestimated. Consider the power of a culture on the developing psyche of every child in it. Consider the qualities of that culture and the influential power of these qualitative factors. Consider the influential power of qualities in a family on the developing children in it. Consider how we are so easily moved and influenced by the environment around us, of which we are a part. Consider how such examples, culture and family, provide varying kinds of opportunities and restraints on our developing being and creativity, and how they partially shape or organize us, or at least they have a partial influence on this.

Then, in opposite balance to this enfolding Influence from our Environment/Whole, are the creative experimental urges from each individual life.

So it seems we have thoroughly considered the chicken and the egg question.

Egg begets chicken, which then begets egg, which then begets chicken, and so on. Things, or people, beget relations and then Holisms – Wholistic Systems. This Whole then produces new kinds of members, as well as being influential to the existing members. Then, in turn, these new and evolving members all participatively evolve the Whole further, which in turn influences the.., and so on, etc. This is the basic model of Reciprocational, Chicken and egg Metaphysics.

But then how did the chicken first come about without there first being an egg, or else how did the egg come about without their first being a chicken? Science believes it has plausible answers to these baffling questions. But instead of getting bogged down by scientific details, let us consider this metaphysically – more generally and metaphorically. We have two choices as to the possible answer of original cause ; either chicken or egg. This is, of course, the Huge and Mysterious question of causal Origination. It’s like, “how did that happen?” …. and then taking this question to its logical beginning. So, how did it all happen? Or, how did anything happen?

So, if we choose egg, then how did this come about? The egg is like the most fundamental elements/things of the universe. Perhaps this was “in the beginning” or else this is an eternal elementary thing that was uncreated, so simply is and ever was. Then from this simple thing, the whole rest of the universe and its complexity and organization all came about. Moreover, added to this metaphysical story is that this all happens by accident, by chance. Well aren’t we lucky to have existence. The whole Universe, including life and consciousness, is by accident and luck. Otherwise there would be nothing at all. So aren’t we all lucky !!

The other possible answer is that the Chicken is first, the Great Chicken, the Absolutely First Chicken. At least this Chicken is already mature; though we must then presuppose some kind of original maturity. However, it does make sense that something mature would beget those developing maturity.

Now of course this is the cosmological debate between science of accidents and theology of purpose. Modern science believes that higher order qualities, such as intelligence, organization and consciousness, can be developed just from fundamental elementary particles and forces of physics. Yet two basic questions then arise. One question would be: how did these simplest fundamental things, or thing, ever come to be? The other question is how such higher order emergent qualities could possibly unfold from an elementary element and/or elementary force. Amazing possibilities and complexities are being exploded out of one very simple thing or a combination of a few things and/or energies. The question from this would then be: how did those possibilities in such simple irreducible elements ever get there? And wouldn’t this mean that the simple elements were, in fact, not so simple after all?

First of all, if we look at the non-purposeful scientific metaphysics, it seems that an original oneness, unity, or wholeness is intuitively presupposed. This original oneness can be considered as the original Chicken, the Grand Parent of everything in existence. But even if one were to believe in multiple original (irreducible) particles and/or forces, this would then be the Grand Parent of all things. So it seems there must be some kind of grand parent or Ultimate Original Chicken, even in theories of physical cosmology.

It seems intuitive that any manifested elements and/or forces or energies must have emerged from a general Oneness, or an original unity or wholeness. It seems illogical, or perhaps unintuitive, to think that pieces or any multiple elements would simply manifest on their own. It would seem at least, that such elements would be derived from something common to them all – which would be a oneness. It would seem that oneness would be original to any multiplicity; rather than multiplicity of things being the original reality or the cosmic a priori. Oneness would also be presupposed in a cosmic theory that all things originally derive from one absolutely irreducible elementary particle or energy or force; since this too would be implying that all things come from an original oneness, the original Chicken.

Let us now consider the other possible metaphysics. Theology, or some other Purpose implied metaphysics, answers the basic question of Cosmic Creative Origin by presuming (believing in) a Supreme Intelligence and Purposeful Power, which is Transcendentally Independent of physical composition and causation, thus avoiding the problem of explaining the very Origin and Cause of physical things by physical causes themselves. Supreme Intelligence and Purposeful Power does not need causal explanation, because it is already presupposed as Eternal and also beyond the necessary law of physics that everything has a cause. Central to this Purposeful Metaphysic is that creation/manifestation, the universe, originates from and with a prior intrinsic Purpose. The universe has an overall Purpose, which is always inherent throughout the universe and was/is the very reason for it.

In addition, some kind of Transcendental Intelligence is also presupposed to explain the origin of physical things. This makes some logical sense, as well, since purpose seems to demand some kind of intelligence to go with it. Moreover though, this Transcendental Intelligence, a priori to all manifestation, explains the very possibility of intelligence emerging in the universe. For now, any intelligence emerging from nature can be explained as possible because the fundamental quality of intelligence is already a given – that is, it is already a reality, or we might say it is already an inherent capacity in the universe since the universe was created from it (from Intelligence).

Consciousness, as well, which is another mysterious emergent quality in this physical universe, can be similarly explained. It is already a reality before any emergence in the physical universe. It is already Super-existing, as it were, or Transcendentally existing. Thus, consciousness is also presupposed in a Purposeful Metaphysic. Rather there being an unconscious intelligence and unconscious purpose originating this universe, it makes sense that a Supreme Causal Power would also be conscious. But a Transcendental Consciousness also explains the phenomena of consciousness in our lives.

Purposeful Metaphysics divides into two basic models, though both have these fundamental premises. One model is of the Power-Intelligence as bringing creation into existence. Its theological model is of God as Creator and this universe as God’s creation. The other model, or type, is of the originating Power-Intelligence as developing into specific forms and relational complexities of power and intelligence. That is, the Power-Intelligence Itself is living through the creative processes of this universe. This universe is the diversification and complexification of the Original Power and Intelligence. In theological terms, this universe is the Being of God, yet in limited and specific forms. Power and Intelligence, two fundamental Qualities of Transcendental Being, are inherent in all creation and are in process of unfolding through the beings and relations of creation. This is, thus, a metaphysics of Divine Immanence. The very Being of God is shared, along with all of the fundamental, transcendental, eternal, divine Qualities.


Choice and Quantum Theory:

Some philosophies claim there is no choice. Two possible reasons are given. One reason is that God is deciding everything and making everything what it is, so whatever one does is really Him doing it. This belief is generally associated with divine predestination, and also with a folk cliché that everything manifest is just the way it’s meant to be. Many people like this idea that everything is meant to be. It makes people feel better. It also tends to relieve anxiety about personal responsibility, about possible mistakes of choice, and about the future of the world. One needs to see, in the belief that everything is meant to be, that this implies the notion of predestination or pre-planning by a greater deciding power.

The other possible reason for no choice is that everything is ruled by chains of cause and effect. This is the position of physical science, (and also part of the philosophy of Buddhism). For in modern materialistic science it is believed that any future event could be calculated in advance, if only one had enough information about all the causes involved; or in other words, the future can always be predicted by the past, if only all causal forces of the past are knowable. But even if all these causal forces are not knowable, it would still logically follow that the future is already determined by the past; that is, the future is determined already by the past, even if we cannot know this future – due to an incapability of knowing all the causal factors.

Yet there are some arguments to this causal paradigm in science, one of which comes from the quantum theory of uncertainty. In its basics, the uncertainty principle just means that both the momentum and position of an electron cannot be known. This in effect means that the electron’s future cannot be known. So the next question for debate is whether this means that futures are metaphysically uncertain or that futures are simply uncertain in their calculation. In other words, there is a debate about the possible implications.

One implicational theory is that all futures are uncertain, since electrons can suddenly jump to another place or suddenly change momentum. In this very next moment, they could be anywhere in a given field of space. This is the theory of unpredictable spontaneity. Another theory is that the electrons might indeed suddenly and unpredictably jump anywhere, but this jump does have a cause – even if the cause is unknowable. The third implicational theory acknowledges that the future position or event of an electron is unknowable, but the electron is nonetheless governed by causal forces; in other words, the electron is not just jumping anywhere (on its own volition or spontaneity), but rather it is just jumping unpredictably (we just cannot know where it’s going).

One kind of theory believes there is no pre-determined future. Another theory believes there is a pre-determined future, based on mechanical causes, but we cannot know what it is.


1 Define emergent

2 I’m cutting this part out .. but here it is: The qualities of harmony and healing from this positive environment are not like energies radiating upon us. There are no radiating particles nor radiating waves of harmony and healing, which are coming at us and then into us; nor is there convection or conduction going on. It might seem like the environment radiates a quality of energy to us, and there is also a kind of relation going on between the perceived environment and our emotional feeling; but .. I was trying to make a distinction between external and internal causes – yet I realize that I do not want to say that external radiation of healing energies are illusory.

3 Admittedly, this example is flawed in some respect because one could explain the feeling of healing harmony in terms of ordinary perception and our reaction of feeling to this; which is, admittedly, an external relational explanation. Any example given to explain internal relations will probably be explainable also by external relations, but we will go on anyways.

4 Which is also providing an organizing urge