Ancient Physics, Modern Myths: Paul LaViolette’s Pathbreaking “Genesis of the Cosmos”

Page 4 of 5 pages « First < 2 3 4 5 > Last » - Full Article

“Genesis of the Cosmos” postulates a similar pre-historical proto-culture but interprets ancient mythology in exactly the opposite direction: it is all about the sub-atomic realm, the microcosm. Both accounts are comprehensive and coherent enough to be (or to seem) plausible. This is quite extraordinary and should give one pause. At the very least, it tells us something about the flexibility and maximal generality of the metaphorical and symbolic language of mythological narratives. If this unparalleled efficiency of means was intended to evoke such a broad interpretive range, we are forced to consider anew the ancient world’s commitment to the idea and the virtue of multiple viewpoints, a both/and approach to the mind’s focused points-of-view that stands in sharp contrast to our inherited Aristotelian either/or dichotomous logic, with its unfortunate winner-take-all presumptuousness.

Hamlet’s Mill implies the probability of a pre-historical proto-culture with the sophistication to understand and to accurately describe the precessional cycle. However, since ancient mythology is understood to be exclusively cosmographic, its thesis does not stand or fall as a consequence of this culture’s historical reality. After all, the motions and cycles of stars and planets can be seen with the naked eye, and precession can be worked out without the use of sophisticated technologies.

LaViolette, on the other hand, boldly asserts the existence of a proto-culture with sophisticated technologies and an advanced understanding. This is because his mythological correlations occur at the microcosmic level, a level we have come to assume is unavailable to any culture less sophisticated than our own. The subquantum level, in fact, is so remotely tiny that it is unobservable in principle. The mythological correlations stand only if this sophisticated proto-culture actually existed. In this regard, it should be noted that a growing body of evidence from numerous fields, while not necessarily conclusive, does support the conjecture that it did exist.
The mythological correspondences in Genesis of the Cosmos may be less than perfect, but I have yet to find any scheme (including my own) of equal breadth which is. More responsible than most, I found LaViolette’s efforts in this direction to be useful, stimulating, and often illuminating. While certainly neither exclusively true nor the only valid approach, he presents us with a thesis whose novelty and overall plausibility are both rare and welcome.

LaViolette, in fact, displays a capacity to think clearly in both a scientific sense and a metaphysical sense. While we would expect a scientist as competent as he to do the science with aplomb, it is uncommon to find this coupled with metaphysical sensibilities.  His study of ancient mythology and cosmology has served him well.  It is encouraging to see the coherence of ancient thought concerning origins taken seriously by a contemporary scientist, especially when these principles are then incorporated into a serious and full-blown theory. 

A case in point is LaViolette’s commitment to the idea of continuous creation (as opposed to the absurd idea of a one and only “first event” in a temporal sense determining all that follows).  His concept of pre-existing space and time is likewise commensurate with ancient views. Despite its divergence from contemporary religious and scientific dogma, it is a cognitive perspective that is both natural to assume and appreciative of the inherent mystery of any arising whatever.

The ancient world’s mythographers and metaphysicians were obviously well aware of the limits of mind with regard to any “explanations” of that which is beyond the reach of mind, even though their traditions enunciated a hierarchically prior reality lying “behind” all appearance.  They had no need to crash and burn at the gates of a theoretical and impenetrable singularity in order to understand the principle of limitation.  Unlike many of our contemporary mathematicians and cosmologists, who suffer an irrational horror of the metaphysical, the ancients could not and did not presume a chummy relationship with the infinite, nor could they have claimed to have “tamed” infinity as our set-theorists have.

Page 4 of 5 pages « First < 2 3 4 5 > Last » - Full Article