Songs of Mystery
Copyright©1987, 1991, 2001





Man is not at home in the universe, despite all the efforts of philosophers and metaphysicians to provide a soothing syrup. Thought is still a narcotic. The deepest question is why. And it is a forbidden one. The very asking is in the nature of cosmic sabotage. And the penalty is the affliction of Job. (Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer)


What I'll be introducing on the following pages is the result of a series of songs I wrote beginning in 1985. These songs were the product of at least two identifiable sources. The first was a growing feeling of suspicion I'd been harboring since childhood. It held no image and thus no simple means to communicate it. But as seen in retrospect, it had something to do with the state of recognition: hardly anything really surprised me.

The second source of these songs was combined in a study I'd been doing since the early 70s, after my wife had a serious confrontation with mental illness. The effects of that event and an eventual decision to retire from the music industry, created a desire to return to school.  I was suspicious and fascinated by the concept of truth.  And, being a chronic wonderer, I was naturally drawn to philosophy, the field that studied truth.  Especially since it embraced so many of the other intellectual high roads.  And since philosophy is no longer considered a viable career, I knew I would not be surrounded by narrow goal-seeking influences, which is something I vowed to stay away from for awhile.

One day in class, the professor of philosophy introduced a thought experiment dreamed up by the nineteenth century mathematician, Henri Poincare.  He asked if, during the night, while we were asleep, the whole universe and everything in it were to double in size, would we notice it when we woke up?  In other words, if all the atoms, space, forces, energy waves, measuring devices and  our bodies – literally, our entire perceptual field, including ourselves – were to double in size, could we upon awakening imagine any experience that would allow us to know it?

Poincare's answer and the class's eventual consensus was no, since all frames of reference enlarged simultaneously; i.e., doubled compared to what?  The experiment, of course, was meant to be an innocuous dialectic puzzle designed to stimulate thought and create discussion.  And it certainly succeeded.  But I sat transfixed, dumbfounded and totally mute.  I had just read about this idea in Martin Gardner's book on Einstein and relativity. But this time it really grabbed me. It reminded me of something, but I just couldn't remember what it was; something that made me suspicious of the standard conclusion.

After walking out of that philosophy class, I began to ponder the different implications of “Poincare's riddle”.  The whole idea, impossible as it then seemed, completely ignited my imagination. It points out the possibility of size relativity. And when you consider the action it would take for all matter and space to double in size, then it leads to another idea of a hidden dimension; a mode of relative motion that would be utterly undetectable. Perhaps, I fancied, there is more to our reality than what passes through our eyes.         

After many years as a musician, and many more as an audio engineer and producer, I was acutely aware of latent dimensional qualities involved in sound. There was much more to music than what was captured by the ear. Of this I was certain. And somehow there may be an important relationship between the mechanics of perception, the whole mystery of cognizance and the existence of hidden dimensions. 

That night, as I sat at my desk thinking about these things, I absent-mindedly picked up my guitar. Sometimes I like to plunk away while in deep thought. But as I lifted it, the electric pick-up or transducer came unglued.  I retrieved it, looked at it, and an idea suddenly began to blossom.

A transducer changes energy from one form to another. In this case, mechanical vibrations are transformed into electrical impulses. Perhaps the most gross type of transducer would be a steam engine, which changes thermal energy into mechanical energy. And the ultimate transducers are the eyes and the ears which, like my guitar pick-up, change mechanical energy (light and sound waves) into electrical energy.

Now in the case of the steam engine, an enormous amount of energy is forever lost in the process. This lost thermal energy (dissipated heat) is called entropy. And I began to wonder:  could some similar entropic loss occur during the act of seeing and hearing?  Could there be some connection here that nobody seems to have yet made?

As I soon found out, this perceptual transformation, like so much else in the microscopic world, is not even remotely understood by science. Like gravity, it just happens. All we can do is observe, measure effects and be content to just wonder about the causes.

That same week, I discovered an astounding little book on logic and mathematics called  Laws of Form, by G. Spencer-Brown. The revues were so enticing I gobbled it up. Browns new calculus was like a new form of logic, but with four classes of answers like in algebra. This includes the “imaginary” ( i ) option.  Glancing through it I found this passage which froze me in my tracks because of the coincidence: “In any attempt to see itself as an object, it [the world] must make itself distinct from and therefore false to itself.

A few days later I ran across a small paperback at the college bookstore. It was a hastily published book from one of the many counter-culture sources in San Francisco. It contained a new interpretation of Einstein's theory of general relativity which cited the cause of gravity while exposing the fourth dimension. I said earlier that hardly anything ever surprised me.  This astounded me because of the coincidental relationship (not to mention the bold proclamations). This passage – as written – sums up the basic premise:

This statement intends that the entire material/spatial universe is expanding/accelerating – electrons, neutrons, protons, and the space between/separating them...  The entire physical universe and all spaces and material within it is a proportionately accelerating field.  This acceleration is responsible for the phenomenon termed gravity. (sic, New Gravity, by Ken Robertson ben Abraham)

Poincare's Riddle was coming to life! The idea, of course, was preposterous; pure Alice in Wonderland, the most bizarre clap-trap I'd ever heard of. But the timely coincidence was simply too much to overlook. First of all, it fit in with the idea I was toying with about the loss of measurable dimensions during perception. This is the kind of unimaginable behavior one might expect from an unperceivable quality. Everything in the seer's field of vision expands proportionally, including the seer!

Secondly, it gives a new answer to Poincare's riddle.  We would be able to perceive the universe doubling in size. For how else could it double in size except through expansion?  This would produce an outward acceleration of our planet's surface. And since acceleration and gravity are identical experiences, we would feel a corresponding increase in weight. It would be like riding a continuously accelerating elevator.

Though the idea was becoming more ludicrous by the page, I finally realized why this idea grabbed me. It focused on that nagging, recurring suspicion I'd been having since childhood:  this is similar to an idea I thought of when I was seven or eight years old!  I even remember being scoffed at for suggesting it. But at the time it seemed like the only explanation; an explanation soon suppressed by the acquisition of knowledge.

Then another thought occurred to me. This same deja-vu feeling happened during a psychedelic experience, years back, when I thought I could feel, see and hear every atom around me moving and transforming; as if things were growing. Small wonder this idea appealed to me. It had been embedded and reinforced in my mind since childhood.

However, once the initial appeal had passed, it dissolved into implausible non-sense. How could a sane person even consider it? For how could objects maintain any structure or enduring form? And if it were true, then why wasn't it discovered by now?  But the main reason for rejecting it was the inadequate explanation of orbital or universal gravitation, the force that keeps the moon and our many satellites in precise, predictable orbits. Material expansion doesn't explain the tides either. All relevant behavior must be taken into account with any new idea, especially one concerning gravity, the most apparent and dominant of the forces and a subject reflected on by some of the most brilliant minds ever produced.

And there were other considerations also. Like the space it would take to contain such an expansion. In very short order, the solar system would expand to the size of the galaxy. And a constantly accelerating surface expansion would eventually surpass light speed, a major transgression of our laws of physics.

But in spite of its shortcomings, I thought I'd do a paper on this subject simply because of its thought provoking character. In a writing class, I tried to persuade the instructor into letting me do a large essay on the theory in lieu of a series of smaller papers the rest of the class would be doing. To my delight, he was fascinated by the subject and readily acquiesced.

In no time at all I realized what a Pandora's Box I was opening, as it covered most of physics and astronomy. Then I realized that all of science, religion and philosophy would be drastically effected should this idea be true. So I limited myself to exposition and overview at the expense of critical analysis. And while it was academically successful, it in no way appeased my suspicions concerning its ultimate disposition. This was primarily because of the large amount of conflicting and at times astounding information I accumulated. For every question answered, two more would pop up. Every mystery weighed led to another beyond itself. And the deeper I dug, the more mysterious, suspenseful and enlightening it became. Such is the disease of curiosity and the art of wondering.

Thus began a passionate journey of discovery bordering on the mystical. The circumstances were too compelling as the coincidences were too coincidental. I determined to settle once and for all the true status of this bizarre idea. Everything considered was examined through an expanded point of view then contrasted with conventional wisdom. For over 20 years I tried to refute this idea, but in every instance, I only confirmed it. As if by magic, all of my previous objections were being transformed into vindications.

The process of atomic growth is a reality we must confront. As impossible as it may appear, and as psychologically unacceptable as it may surely be, the evidence speaks for itself. In fact, as the evidence accumulates and one sees the relevance of this concept, it becomes obvious – almost to an amusing degree – that reality couldn't exist any other way.

But you should not try to apply this process to the reality you now have. You must apply your reality to the process. For your reality is what it is only because of it. Form follows function. It is, always has been and always will be the primary, universal process. If atomic elements didn't grow, we'd never feel any weight. We would never be able to see anything because electromagnetic effects from the friction involved, couldn't exist. And, if truth be known, nothing at all could exist.

But if the only thing to be said consisted of convincing a few readers of another fantastic idea about the structural dynamics of our universe, I wouldn't have undertaken such a task. Or, in the spirit of Lao Tzu, the desire to communicate a truth seems to be inversely proportional to its understanding.

But there are many more reasons to speak than the one not to speak, so speak I will. The logical inferences, deductions and corollaries that follow are staggering. The implications of this universal “mechanism” affect (if not infect) all of science, religion and our global, political/social, infrastructure to their foundations. And in light of our current 3-d catastrophe, any marginal impact here can only be seen as an “improvement of the understanding”.

So it is the intention of this work to present a tangible model of our universe by extending the dimensions of our imagination; or as Einstein put it, “by means of a mental image to which, with some practice, we shall soon grow accustomed”.  The correspondence of this image to our physical world leads to a cosmology of profoundly different proportions than what “official culture” has led us to believe. It came about through the labors of many and can be verified by every measure of truth available, including (especially) experience. And its consistency is telling, as is the score of perennial mysteries that it clarifies.

The model given here can free one from the “chains of reverie” which have long imprisoned us all in three dimensional thought and expression. Once realized, it allows one to operate empirically in the startling world of the fourth dimension which evolves from and converges to the fifth, the link (transducer) between all worlds, and the essence of unification.