The Philosophy Science and Religion of the Star Wars Films

Indeed Luke, with Ben’s help, is reversing the natural pattern of human behavior in turning away from pain. He is taking the mini-Death Star as a tool of learning: what he fears most is actually his helper, in that it can deliver him into the Via Negativa and the knowledge and bliss that follows.

One last point is interesting. The bullets that the mini-Death Star shoot as we have indicated above are “bullets of light”. This also is a clear indication that light is what the mini-Death Star delivers, and that regardless of appearance, just like everything else, the mini-Death Star is made of light and energy. Now consider the real Death Star, which has the strongest torpedo of all. This is like saying that the more one fears a thing, the more light and energy it can make us realize.

It is interesting to note that during this scene, Han is through most of it wholly uninterested. He is fiddling with the gadgets of his spaceship, and doing other things to fill up time. He has total doubt and ridicule toward the Force. This is another good lesson in we get from the Star Wars movies. The typical person, what we called above the “natural person”, is oblivious to, if not threatened by, any of the many concepts from Eastern philosophy.

In the Return of the Jedi, one thing some might have noticed is that it is very difficult to figure out of Luke Skywalker has become a Jedi or not. He believes and appears to intuit that he is, but Yoda, near the beginning of the film, tells him he is not quite done with the training yet.

In Zen philosophy, unlike traditional, or Indian, Buddhism, the concept of enlightenment is rejected: it is held that only those who have no understanding of true reality have a belief in “attainment of enlightenment.”

I will suggest in this chapter that in the second three movies (A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi), R2D2 and C3PO, who follow Luke around endlessly and due his wishes (to some extent), are really just representations of two halves of Luke’s mind. I will also suggest a similar line of reasoning for Anakin in teh first two movies, where R2 and 3PO are parts and pieces of Anakin’s mind placed on the screen for us to see. This will give us very interesting ways of analyzing the philosophical issues of the Star Wars movies.

Throughout the Star Wars movies, we can see that as Luke and Anakin change through their lives, so do R2 and C3PO. For example, at the moment that Anakin develops rage over his mother’s fate in Attack of the Clones, C3PO comes to life. As another example, Star Wars: A New Hope, when Luke first meets Ben, C3PO shuts down—in fact he shuts himself down. We can see throughout the films all sorts of interesting dynamics such as these. What do they tell us?

Very early in A New Hope, 3PO calls R2 a “priest”. Not much later, while wandering on Tatooine, 3PO calls him a “mindless philosopher”. This appears to be Lucas’s way of showing us, early on, what exactly R2 is. R2 has one goal: find Luke, delivery message. This cleary shows us what is at steak. In Joseph Campbell’s words, R2 is

…a manifestation of the powers that are breaking into play… the “herald”; the crisis of his appearance is the “call to adventure”… [T]he call rings up the curtain, always, on a mystery of transfiguration—a rite, or moment, of ... passage… the familiar life horizon has been outgrown; the old concepts, ideals, and emotional patterns no longer fit; the time for the passing of a threshold is at hand…[1]

R2 is indeed a foreign visitor, coming to Luke. But, again, I will maintain that we can best understand R2 and 3PO by understanding how these two droids are “on-film” portrayals of what is happening in Luke’s mind, and Anakin’s mind. The overall pattern we will observer is in the last three films, 3PO becomes more like R2, and is pacified to the point of not resembling the robot we typically think of him as: fastidious, haughty, and so on. In the first two films, where 3PO is associated with Anakin, we will see the opposite scenario, where 3PO runs amok, and R2 is out of the picture and forgotten to some degree. This would imply that what 3PO represents about the mind is dominant in Anakin, and what R2 represents about the mind is dominant in Luke.

So what do these two droids represent? I have good reason, as I will explain, to suggest that they represent the following: R2 represents a priest, and 3PO is what can be called “the natural man”. First I will discuss 3PO, and then R2.

3PO a natural man, a man who does not study himself, who does not do more than seek riches and shallow leisure, and thus is a man who becomes lost and confused, endlessly pushed around by the forces of life. In Attack of the Clones, when 3PO has really taken a dominant role in the film, just after the crisis between Anakin and the Sand People, Anakin is caught in a factory, which is an astonishingly busy place of commerce and toil—where an army of mindless soldier-killers are being built. Anakin finds himself in one jam after another, to the point where the viewer of the film even tires of the scene due to the frustration it brings. This is a brilliant filmmaking move on Lucas’s part, for it unearths and generates the feeling we all have, right there coming from the film, of most moments of our daily life, which is the life of the natural man.

The natural man is taken by the forms of nature, by the endless parade of images he finds streaming across his mind—like an endless television that one cannot turn away from. What are the characteristics of this man? Early in his life, he is industrious and polite to no end, both in his efforts to acquire status and wealth. C3PO reveals this to us early in Star Wars: A New Hope, just after we have first met him, when he is talking to another “natural man” of the world, Owen, a miserable, frustrated, thoroughly un-thought-out man who is Luke’s uncle and Anakin’s brother, where 3PO informs Owen that he (3PO) is “E-tee-ket and Pro-to-call” are his primary function (I have spelled these out in my own way following the way the words sound). It is unmistakable that these words sounds like etiquette and protocol, and thus 3PO has informed the audience just who and what he is in the consciousness of Luke in the last three movies and Anakin in the first two. Notice also that Owen replies that what he really needs is a droid who specializes in the “binary language of moisture vaporators.” This too is very interesting, and is Owen informing us of his status as a “natural man”. The phrase “moisture vaporators” sounds like a reference to a machine that generates evaporation of water. I have been told that Owen is a farmer of water, he gets it from within the air, and thus it might seem that “moisture vaporators” refers to his trade. But it seems that this would be to misunderstand what he really says. Apparently he is not referring to his trade here, since “vaporators” clearly is not a reference to condensing air, and getting water from vapor, but the opposite: getting vapor from water. If Owen is in need of something, such as a droid, that can turn water into vapor, this seems to fit his persona: he is one who does away with water, which is the fluid of life. Water is a sort of symbol of life, and to indicate that you are a “vaporator” of it is to indicate that you wish to do away with life, and dwell in old age and live a life of death. Further, when Owen tells us that he wants a droid that can speak a “binary language”, this too seems to indicate something about Own: in being a man of the world, he is concerned with words, and with the dual, rather than with the domain of feeling, and with the monistic domain of reality. Ina religion such as Hindu Advaita Vedanta, for example, non-dualism and feeling, rather than dualism and language are held to be the path to happiness, and other paths are all about erroneous perception, and about the misguidance that logical language gives.

When we first meet 3PO, in his all-out persona, we find him in the desert of Tatooine with R2. C3PO seems utterly lost, as if he is merely following R2. R2 has direction, motivation. 3PO pathetically complains to R2: “We seem to be made to suffer; it is our lot in life.” Interestingly, when he says this, we can see from observing the pod right behind him, that he has not traveled far, and his pitiful complaining has started right at the outset of their travels through desert. C3PO has uttered a Buddhist maxim, but C3PO is not facing his pain, he is merely being driven and tormented by it. In the film Fight Club, when Tyler puts poison on his friends hand, he does so because he is saying that he must look straight at his pain, and only then will it go away. This is what has been called the Via Negativa.

If we look directly at our perpetual suffering, not only does it vanish, but a feeling of happiness and peace settles into us. But 3PO, and almost all others (except Jedi and perhaps some Sith), have no idea of this basic religious technique. If we were to embark on the religious life, and put our glance to some degree on our inner life, we would see that most moments of our life are filled with these feelings that 3PO has exhibited for us. If we were to look into ourselves and take note of and be honest about how we really feel, we would find that we are most of the time suffering like 3PO: we are dejected because we want to get away from our jobs and spend all day thinking about leaving work to go home; we …We do not notice these feelings within us because we are not looking inside of ourselves to see them, instead we are looking out at the world, and our minds are merely on “auto-pilot”. In the end, we are strangers to ourselves, and as many religious people will know, we have no knowledge of reality as it really is. Further, we find ways to make sure that we cannot take the time to become aware of our inner life. Television is an excellent tool for keeping one’s mind occupied, for hours and hours daily, so in order to have no possibility for one’s inner life to come rumbling to the surface.

So 3PO is driven to a life of misery. The Buddhist maxim that “all life is pain and suffering”, or dukkha, as they call it, is only realized when one embarks out on the religious life—that is, when one downgrades the outer world, and takes their perception from it to the inner world to some greater or lesser degree. Notice that through this desert walk, which would be misery for almost any natural person, R2 is peaceful and subtly filled with a joy we can just glimpse if we pay attention. In fact, throughout the film R2 always maintains this playful temperament, which is perhaps not surprisingly the same temperament that Yoda exhibits at times.

It is interesting to note how radically different 3PO is at this moment in the desert when he is pathetically whining, as compared to a few hours later, when talking to Owen. In the second scene, 3PO appears entirely confident, sure, and free of any inner suffering. It is as if he personality has “turned on a dime”. This surely is another trait of the “natural man”. The natural man changes his face, his personality and talk, in order to fit himself with the world around him and hopefully impress and manipulate those around him as much as needed for his own interests. On the other hand, R2 is unchanged, in his being always a bit joyous.

When Luke firsts talks to Ben, it is interesting to note that C3PO is nowhere in sight. It is as if Luke’s contact with the person who can deliver to him the information and knowledge about the true nature of reality, which is found through teh way of R2, not 3PO, the non-transcendental part of Luke’s mind shuts down, as if he has a first moment of subtle awareness into the nature of reality.

It is at this first meeting that Ben gives Luke the light saber—the sword that is made of light. (The light saber has enormous significance, and will be discussed in detail in the chapter on the Jedi). The light saber is Luke’s “life-force”, a power he h as that wells up within him and which comes directly from, and is a direct emanation of the Force. When Ben gives Luke the light saber, right at that moment, 3PO says, “sir [Luke], if you will not be needed me anymore I will shut down for a while.” So here again, Ben’s influence is the real start of Luke’s new life, a life without the domination and torment of the mind of the natural man.

Regarding Han Solo, there are some interesting dynamics that occur between him and 3PO, if we can assume that when 3PO is with Han, he is a reflection of Han’s consciousness. In the Empire Strikes Back, when Han reaches the cloud city with Leia, Chewi, and 3PO, as they enter, 3PO is blasted into pieces and he is outside of Han’s sight for some time. This is interesting since Han is at the lair of his “old friend”. His disdain for, and disgust with, his old friend, coupled with 3PO’s destruction, shows Han may be going through some sort of mental transformation. Further, near the end of Empire, when Han is about to be frozen, 3PO is still in pieces. Joseph Campbell has disussed that this scene, where Han is about to go into a transformative sleep, perhaps analogous to Sleeping Beauty, Christ’s three days of death, and so on, is heralded by the consciousness of the “natural man” (represented by 3PO) being in ruin.

That the mind has these two halves is not well known. I sense that some readers, at this point in the book, might be finding this chapter odd and obscure. Lucas also is well aware of this issue.

The mind is not what we typically find our selves looking at in the rush of our daily lives. We typically find ourselves looking out into the world, getting caught up in the world and all its busyness. It is rare, even almost unheard of, for one to stop what they are doing, and take their eyes that they usually and automatically place on to the world and place them right on their own mind. This is the mark of the religious quest: to turn inward.

Lucas’s universe is filled with two sorts of groups. (1) the Jedi, who are few in number, and who are concerned with the inner powers developed by their Samurai-like, and Zen-like, methods. (2) The “natural” folks, who are very large in number, and who are unconcerned with, or even scared of, the inner worlds of their minds, and thus who are completely oblivious to its mechanics.

Lucas points out these issues repeatedly in all five films. First, right in A New Hope, when 3PO and R2 jettison from the main ship in the tiny pod, it is interesting to note how the two patrol men watching the event react. One says to the other: “hold your fire, there are no lifeforms.” Following all the reasoning given so far in this chapter, this can merely be reinterpreted as his saying: “no need to shoot, there is nothing living or active there anyway.” We can safely say that he says this because he is a natural man, working for the massive tyranny of the Empire, and he has no idea that there is an inner life, right there, for him to explore, and that many world religions inform that that is the only place that happiness can be found.

Another way Lucas points out that group (2) is a group that ignores and avoids their inner life is seen in the way that droids are prejudiced against in the films. It might remind one of the way the United States were before the 1960s, where it was acceptable to ridicule and persecute Black persons. Following what has been said to this point, this appears to be an implication that when natural persons look at the elements of the mind, they are repulsed, they do not want to see them, they want to go back to their daily life, not bothered by something inner.

It is also interesting to note the way the Han Solo ignores the droids, especially 3PO, early in Empire Strikes Back. This implies that he is not turning inward in a gesture that he is on the religious quest of leaving the world behind in order to live an inward life. I believe most people took Han to merely be ignoring the robots, but if you look likely at the start of Empire Strikes Back, it is more as if he is at some times unaware of their existence, rather than haughtily ignoring them. Lando Calrissian does similar things as this in Empire Strikes Back. 3PO has an instant liking for Calrissian in Empire, indicating the Calrissian and 3PO are interlocked.

Lucas has revealed on many occasions that there are not six episodes to Star Wars, but nine, and in the last one, it is finally revealed that Princess Leia is the has the Force more than any others. This is interesting when we look at Star Wars: a New Hope. Right at the start of the film we see Leia give R2 the message, and manipulate his inner machinery in some way. Really, this gets the entire adventure in the last three movies going. So R2 is a carrier of the knowledge, and informer, but Leia is really the catalyst. Just after Ben first tells Luke about the Force, R2 becomes excited, and he only then unleashes his message—a hologram (movie made of light) of Leia—where these scenes flow in such a way that it is as if Leia has emanated from R2 to be a further revealing of the Force within R2 in the form of Leia. On our first glimpse of light here, Leia is clearly made of pure light, like a light saber, or light the bright center of the galaxy. When Ben goes to R2 just before the message is unleashed, Ben says to R2, “now let’s see who you are my little friend, and where you come from.” And at that point, Leia is revealed, and thus clearly, like Leia, we have the knowledge that R2 comes from the Force, and what he has within him is the Force.

Another interesting point about Leia is that right When Leia first talks to Vader, if you look closely, her eyes, right at the center, have a flashing white light in them. This is an unusual event in the film that does not appears to repeat with any other character. The significance of this is interesting to note, in that Leia is the ultimate carrier of the Force, and in this scene it is as if we can see deep within her, but also welling up from within her, a brilliant light. Later in A New Hope, Luke refers to “the bright center of the galaxy”. Perhaps this is a reference to Leia. Conversely, in the conversation that Leia has with Vader, Vader’s eyes are completely black, emanating, well, nothing at all!

I have heard many people compare the Tao—a principle in Chinese philosophy—to the Force in Star Wars. I will however argue that this is surely a falsity, and the Force is more like the philosophical concept of panentheism, or much like Henri Bergson’s (French philosopher) élan vital, or vital energy: a creative life-force behind nature.

The Tao is like a source or reservoir that pervades the universe, but which his also identical to the universe. This is clearly not at all like the Force discussed in the Star Wars films. The Star Wars films always hold that the Force is in all things, rather than being identical to all things. This is very different from the Tao, and it implies that the Force in the Star Wars saga has the following nature: there are two parts to the universe: (1) the Force, and (2) those things, such as trees, people, and any other object that has the Force. (1) and (2) together would make up the universe and reality:

Therefore, when we look at a tree or a lion, or a city building, rather than holding that these things are the Force, as a Taoist would maintain, rather, if we are to follow the Star Wars films, we would have to instead hold that these things have the Force. There is reference to two things, those of type (1), and those of type (2), and thus we have no reason to believe that the Star Wars films are an account of a Taoist universe, which only has one thing.

To me, it does not sound at all like the Force in the Star Wars films is the Chinese principle of the Tao. Honestly, in all my philosophical training, for reasons I will discuss in chapter, the Force is not like any philosophical item I have seen in any philosophy or philosopher, ancient or contemporary. Lucas could be inventing his own phraseology for the principle of nature he is discussing, perhaps stemming from his own personal experiences. He is surely not talking about the widely discussed Eastern concepts (Tao, Brahman, Nirvana, etc.), which ubiquitously discuss one item—reality is one—rather than two (1) and (2) above. Rather, the Force is a mere part of reality, albeit the most important part. Therefore, reality is not one, but at least two—(1) and (2)—according the account of the Force given to us in the films. It is not like Bergson’s élan vital or any form of Vitalism. It is not pantheism, God, or any other spiritualism I have encountered. Typically, the concepts of Tao, Brahman, vitalist creativity, and the other spiritual energy fields or spiritual realms discussed by the regions of the world involve the energy, realm, or force as

(a) the creator or generator or sustainer of our empirical reality (Christianity, vitalism, etc.),

(b) as identical to our empirical reality (Tendai Buddhism, perhaps Einstein’s relativity and/or modern quantum physics, etc.), or

(c) empirical everyday reality as an illusion, and only the energy, force, or realm in question is real (Advaita Vedanta, Chinese Zen Buddhism, ).

Clearly, however, the Force is difference than (a), (b), or (c). As for (a), I discuss how the Star Wars films clearly state that life creates the force. I discuss this in the next section of this chapter. As for (b), I already discussed that it appears, for several reasons, that the Force of the Star Wars films is an entity distinct from the material objects that have it, and that are bound together and interconnected by it. I will however discuss this point more in a few of the sections of this chapter. And as for (c), I will discuss that there is no claim such as this in the Star Wars films.

The aspect of the Force I find most unusual, but at the same time most intriguing, is the concept that life creates it, rather than the other way around, where the Force generates and is behind life. If we removed this one aspect, then the Force would start to sound similar to a few of the models of ultimate reality of various religions and philosophies. It would have a few things in common with the vital force that the vitalist philosophers, such as Henri Bergson, discussed in the early 1900s. More interestingly, I find that with a little discussion it could be seen that the Force would be very much like the model of ultimate reality in Tendai Buddhism (a form of Japanese Buddhism), where even the Dark and Light side of the Force would have clear interpretations. But we cannot merely disregard one of the aspects of the Force if we are to understand the Star Wars saga on its terms, rather than on terms convenient for the interpreter. Also, removing this aspect (“life creates it”) would be a sure way to not understand in any way the nature of the Force, since that aspect of the Force is one that is brought up by the characters in the Star Wars films perhaps more than any other.

So, clearly the Force of the Star Wars films is not like the concepts typically found in Eastern or Western religion or philosophy. We then have the opportunity to learn about just what the Force is. We can also attempt to find if it is a more coherent description of ultimate reality than the concepts typically found in Eastern or Western religion or philosophy.

It is well-known that Lucas was strongly influenced by the concept of the Life-force in Carlos Castaneda's Tales of Power, and perhaps by looking that that quasi-anthropological tale we can start to try to get a clearer view of the Force that is everywhere. In Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, Dale Pollock wrote that "Lucas's concept of the force was heavily influenced by Carlos Castaneda's Tales of Power, an account of a Mexican Indian sorcerer, Don Juan, who uses the phrase 'life force'."[2] I will use information from this book as I go through this chapter.

In Star Wars: A New Hope, Ben tells Luke that the Force “is an energy field, created by all living things.”

It is safe to assume that by the word “field”, Lucas means something like a field found in physics. When physicists describe physical objects, they refer to them as collections of particles which are connected by forces and fields. In listening to Yoda discuss the force in Empire Strikes Back, and OB1 in A New Hope, we get the idea that the Force discussed in Star Wars is the ultimate Force that binds together all things.

When mathematicians, philosophers, and physicists discuss the items of nature, such as a lion that is a collection of cells, a proton that is a collection of quarks and gluons, a flock of birds, a galaxy, a beach, a portion of empty space, a collection of books on a bookshelf, or a force or field, they freely refer to these as single things (mereological wholes)—single things (wholes) are made up of many things (parts). Philosophers and mathematicians typically assume this by asserting that there are relationships or the forces or fields (but ultimately just relations)—between the parts of the composite material objects in question, are responsible for the composite object being single objects (wholes) (or, as discussed in a previous section, direct attachment between items is responsible for single object being made of many objects.)

Referring to the collections as single entities, in Cian Dorr and Gideon Rosen’s words, “is false, strictly speaking”.[3] Even when we consider entities that are considered to be wholes that have distinct parts that are obviously unattached (not directly touching), as in the case of galaxies or flocks of birds, we typically believe we are considering single objects (wholes). Philosophers will commonly tell us that, for example, star S₁ is part of the galaxy because S₁ shares the asymmetric relation, parthood, with the entire collection of stars, but the speck of intergalactic dust 15 billion light years away from the galaxy does not share this relation with the collection of stars, and thus it is not part of the collection of stars. The metaphysician will often tell us, however, that the spider shares other relations with the books, such as the relations, at a distance from. (Classical mereologists will tell us that that there is a mereological whole that consists of the stars and of the speck of intergalactic dust.) When we look at a piece of paper, from our normal macroscopic perspective, the paper appears very smooth and uniform. If we merely take a magnifier of some sort and with enough power, we will see that the paper, when looking at it closer, is not smooth or uniform at all, but is rough and jagged beyond any degree we’d likely have imagined it to be from the macroscopic viewpoint. Depending on how we are looking at the paper—microscopically or macroscopically—we might miss certain features of the paper. If we are looking at the paper macroscopically, we will miss the roughness, and if we are looking at the paper microscopically with the magnifier we will miss the illusion of the smoothness.

Analogous reasoning can be given regarding just about any material object we believe we observe macroscopically. When we look at, for example, a sheet of paper, lake, or piece of glass macroscopically, these items appear to be single items since we cannot see at the level of the microscopic domain. But if we look at one of these items closer, at a microscopic scale, perhaps with the help of the physicists or chemists magnifying instruments, we find that what appeared at the macroscopic level to obviously be a single entity, and what appeared at the macroscopic level to be a smooth and unbroken mereological whole without interstices amid the smooth expanse of the surface, in fact appears astonishingly different at a microscopic scale. When we look closer we find that these items involve vast interstices—and the bits of matter observed at the microscopic scale typically are not even directly attached or touching due to vast interstices between them. At the macroscopic level, objects might appear to be single objects, and they might be referred by scientists and philosophers in their work as single objects (mereological wholes), but our experience of these at the macroscopic level appears obviously to not be accurate when we do the simple task of taking into account the quantum physicists’ work.

Since I imagine that many readers will immediately object to the nihilistic aims of this book since nihilism may seem to imply that they do not exist, I feel I should mention at this early point in the book that my arguments in chapters below do not lead to the conclusion that a self, a person, or a person’s mind do not exist. My arguments show that personhood, selfhood, or mental reality do not exist only if they are believed to be composite spatially extended material objects. For example, if it is believed that a person is a mere physical body made of meat and bone, or a mind is a mere portion of the brain, then if my arguments in this book are correct, persons and minds do not exist. But if it is held that a person, mind, or self are something other than a skin-bag of meat and bone, then the arguments in this book do not support the position that mental reality and personhood do not exist. I am not arguing that you do not exist. I am only arguing that what you believe to be your body does not exist—and the issue of what you are, or what your consciousness is, or what your self is, is another issue.

A few contemporary philosophers, such as Trenton Merricks,[4] Cian Dorr and Gideon Rosen,[5] and Peter Unger,[6] have argued for nihilistic or at least somewhat nihilistic theories. I will have nothing to say about their work, or about any possible comparison between my work and this book. It does not seem that such a comparison or discussion is relevant to the topics of this book since my arguments are entirely different than theirs. I do not compare my arguments for nihilism to any other philosophies that might be considered similar to nihilism, such as Quine’s metaphysics, some varieties of elminitavism or reductionism, or some aspects of Buddhist metaphysics. Also, unlike other philosophers who offer seemingly incredible and unbelievable theories but do not give any sort of knock-down arguments for their positions,[7] I avoid this sort of method of philosophy, and attempt to only use argumentation to back up my positions: only inferences are used in coming to my nihilistic conclusion.

The direct attaching or touching of chunks of space or matter, or of regions of space or matter, is one way that bits of space and matter (allegedly) give rise to the structure and composition of nature. Block A directly attaches to block B whereby a third item comes into existence: C, which is the composite whole composed of A and B. I will discuss that an all-out nihilism cannot involve any direct attaching of atoms of space or atoms of matter, or any direct attaching of composite regions of space or matter, since there cannot be any such object C in a nihilistic reality. I will however show that traditional atomism cannot involve any atoms that touch since the atoms can only be point-sized (sizeless). I will argue that it is impossible for any atoms or regions of space or matter to touch or to directly attach to one another, and thus composite material objects and composite spaces cannot be composed any touching, attaching, latching, or linking atoms or of composite objects.

In addition to the direct attachment of pieces of matter and space, the composition and structure of nature is also accounted for in another way. Although accounts vary, the standard post-ancient theoretical accounts of nature given to us by physicists, mathematicians and philosophers are typically one of the following:

(I) Matter and space ultimately consist of an interconnected network of spatial locations, and an interconnected network of basic (atomic) material building blocks (true philosophic atoms).

(II) Matter and space consist of interconnected spatial regions, and interconnected chunks of matter, each of which are infinitely divisible. There are no atomic building blocks.

In other works of mine (see my CV page) I argue that (I) and (II) are each impossible (I do this in most detail in my paper on Brahman in JICPR). I argue this by showing that there appear to be fatal problems involved with the relations involved in positions (I) and (II). The relations that (are alleged to) hold individual spatial locations, spatial regions, atoms, and composite material objects together are commonly assumed by physicists, and are ubiquitously assumed by philosophers and mathematicians, to exist outside our thoughts as real fundamental constituents of nature. If these relations were found to be described by contradictions, then the theories based on such relations would be based on contradictions. In this book I argue that the descriptions of space and matter we have been offered by philosophers, mathematicians, and physicists—descriptions which consist of matter and space being composed of interrelated philosophic atoms, interrelated spatial regions and locations, and interrelated composite material objects—are described by contradictions due to problems I will reveal to do with the aforementioned relations. This is a topological account of reality. Topqological theories. I will discuss that topological theories are an array of theories that involve various sorts of networks of interrelated items. The universe and any spatially extended parts of the universe, such as any collections of atoms,[8] spatial regions, and any composite material objects, have been described for us by mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers with topological theories: physical reality ultimately consists of interrelated (interconnected) pieces of space, and interrelated composite physical objects, and interrelated atoms (if there are philosophic atoms). To illustrate my point, consider a passage from a recent article on quantum mechanics by Jenann Ismael, a philosopher:

The heart and soul of quantum mechanics is contained in the Hilbert spaces that represent the state-spaces of quantum mechanical systems. The internal relations among states and quantities, and everything this entails about the ways quantum mechanical systems behave, are all woven into the structure of these spaces, embodied in the relations among the mathematical objects which represent them… This means that understanding what a system is like according to quantum mechanics is inseparable from familiarity with the internal structure of those spaces. Know your way around Hilbert space, and become familiar with the dynamical laws that describe the paths that vectors travel through it, and you know everything there is to know, in the terms provided by the theory, about the systems that it describes.[9]

The description of nature as a field (an interconnected network of spatial locations, or spatial events[16]), is found in, for example, Einstein’s work. Stenger writes:

So general relativity does away with the need to introduce the gravitational field. However, in its place another field is introduced: the metric field of space-time… [T]his metric field was not the same form at every point in space-time, but varied from point-to-point… Thus the metric of space-time is a field, denoting the geometry of each point in space and time. (Stenger 2000, 76)

Einstein seemed to believe that his non-Euclidean space-time continuum was “real.” He rejected any application of positivism in favor of a Platonic view in which reality, whatever it is, may be more deeply manifested in mathematical equations and concepts of theoretical physics than the objects, like particles, implied more directly from observations. Many theoretical physicists today lean in this direction and claim the authority of the greatest physicist of the age. (Stenger 2000, 79)

Many other examples could be given from Newton's work, Faraday, Kepler, and so on. But Gribbon discusses the basics of what a field is, in the modern parlance:

In classical physics, a field is something which stretches out from an object and conveys a force (there are really only two forces in classical physics, gravity and electromagnetism). The force can be described in terms of ripples in the field. Or waves. But in quantum mechanics we know that waves can be described in terms of particles. So the concept of a field in the classical sense is replaced by the concept of particles which carry forces as they are exchanged between other quantum entities. The classic example is the photon, which mediates the electromagnetic force… (Gribbin 2000, 316-17)

Gribbin notes that a field, is in fact a set of particles. This leads to the question of what, exactly, is holding together the particles that make up a field. There are three options: 1. relations hold field particles together, 2. more particles hold field particles together, 3. there is no item responsible for holding field particles together, and they are not “held” together. Regardless of which is the case, nihilism follows. If metaphysical relations are (allegedly) responsible for holding the particles of a field together, if my reasoning in other works is correct, and there are no relations between non-identical spatial objects (such as field particles), there in fact are no such relations. That would leave the second or third option: field particles are held together by other particles, or there is no item at all responsible for holding field particles together. If particles hold field particles together, on this account there are only particles that are unconnected and unrelated to one another, and there is no item—such as a force, field, or network of relations—that makes the particle set an assemblage that is one entity (a mereological whole). This is also true if 3 is the case, and there are no items of any sort that hold field particles together.

“The Ability to Destroy a Planet is Insignificant Next to the Power of the Force”

In Star Wars: A New Hope, Darth Vader says, “The ability to destroy a planet it insignificant next to the power of the Force.” This implies that the Force is bigger than the titanic event of destroying a planet. In fact, this would imply that the Force is beyond the concerns, the pain and suffering, fleeting joys and occupations, of human, or any of the other consciousness beings in the Star Wars universe.

But on the other hand, in Star Wars: A New Hope, when Dantooine is blown up by the Death Star, Ben says that “he felt a great disturbance in the Force,” and this makes it appear that the Force is not so lofty after all to be beyond the destruction of a planet.

The conclusions in this work are very much in line with the ancient atomistic theories. Elder lucidly discusses them:

Suppose that a tree is chopped down and run through a wood chipper, or that a sweater is unraveled. The matter of the tree still exists, as does the matter of the sweater. From this it is sometimes inferred that nothing has really been destroyed—that what has happened is just that this matter has assume a different… arrangement. This inference is, of course, of ancient lineage… [I]t is one basis, though not the sole basis, for contemporary views according to which the workings of the world are really just alterations in the careers of the microparticles affirmed by current physics,… or of the ‘physical simples’ which some successor theory may report… The contemporary views I mean may allow that sentences such as ‘Trees exist’ or ‘Sweaters exist’ are true, but hold that what makes them true is that something more long-lasting passes through a tree-like phase… Similarly they hold that when any familiar object appears to have been destroyed, what has really happened is that some other objects (or objects) has (or have) been altered.

Hence, the views I mean all deny that, literally and strictly, there are in the world such familiar objects as trees and sweaters… for I shall take it as a starting assumptions that trees, if there are any, cannot cease to be tress without ceasing to exist; that parcels of stuff (or collections of simples) in a tree-like phase can pass out of that phase without ceasing to exist; and hence that parcels-in-a-tree-like-phase are not trees, but rather objects other than trees.[58]

In Star Wars: A New Hope, OB1 tells Luke that the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, it penetrates us, and it binds the Galaxy together. In the Empire Strikes Back, Yoda says to Luke: “Life creates it; makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us, and binds us… You must feel the Force around you…” This indicates to us that the Force is a bio-energy field.

Another thing to note here is that if anybody is trying to hold that the Force is the Christian God, it is apparently not so, since it is not the creator of life, as the Christian God is alleged to be, but rather life creates the Force.

The points listed here tell us that the force is a product of matter, it has a quality of a living things, namely it grows, and if it grows then it has some sort of increasing nature: it becomes more intense, larger, or in some way changes.

In Star Wars: A New Hope, there is a series of statements that follow when Ben and Luke are first on the Millennium Falcon. Hans Solo says he has seen a lot of strange stuff in the Galaxy, but never an “all-powerful Force controlling everything.” This statement comes right after Ben and Luke have discussed that the Force only partially controls one’s actions, but it also obeys your commands. The statements by Luke and Ben are different than Solo’s. Solo assumes that the Force is something you can look for and see with your eyes. But this is not the case. Also, Solo holds that it controls all events and actions, but Ben has just said there is at least one action that is not controlled by the Force, namely, one’s commands.

Immediately as soon as we first see the inside of Jabba’s palace, it becomes apparent that we are completely closing ourselves off from normal life, or from any sort of familiar or typical grasp of life.

Just after 3PO and R2 enter, they travel down a long tunnel, perhaps reminiscent of a distasteful near-death experience, or a near-death experience in reverse, where the bright light of the outside world closes behind. As it is closing, a spider-like robot comes into view inside the palace. This is a very unusual creation in Lucas’s work in that it is has a morphology that is insectile. In all the amazing creatures we encounter in the Star Wars Galaxy, I can’t think of any other insectile form we come across. Typically we experience creatures that are more-or-less human, reptilian-like, and basically mammatlian-like. So having this creature suddenly come into view indicates that something new, and very interesting, is surely going on in the Star Wars saga at this point. Next we find R2 bumping right into a slimy lizard—which provides another interesting clue as to what might be going on at this point in the films. For these and other reasons, we can guess that what is happening is that the films are taking the viewer into what Freud called the domain of consciousness called “the id”. Hillman explains what some of the criteria of this domain are:

...[The] space of the id should be imagined as incomparably greater than that of the ego... Freud says, 'We can come nearer to the id with images, and call it a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement; [Ego and Id p. 98]... 'It would be possible to picture the id,' suggests Freud... 'under the domination of the mute but powerful death instincts...' [Ego and Id, p. 59] In the id, the laws of logic do not [hold], and the id knows no values, no good and evil, no morality... Above all, in the id there is no recognition of the passage of time...[67]

The question arises: Why now in the Star Wars saga do we see a submergence into the id?

Despite being on a desert planet, Jaba’s palace is a moist place. It is as if when one sets foot into it one is transported into an entirely different realm. The creatures there are obviously water-based creatures: there are lizards drooling, frogs living in things that are like fishbowls, and Jaba himself emits puss. The creatures emits earthy pusses and fluids, in this desert environ. If Jaba’s palace represents the id, as I am holding it must (as is well known, Lucas used copious mythic symbols in his films, and the id-descent is a primary mythical adventure), this means that the id is in places we would not suspect it of being, such as in a desert where survival is difficult, and where it appears that creatures are doing little more than focusing survival.

Why would this scene show up at this point in the Star Wars saga? It is well known that Lucas was concerned with the dynamics of a spiritual quest, such as the Buddhist quest. This question is typified by a move an inward focus, rather than a focus on the world. For example, we do not know much of what the very influential, and still widely discussed Presocratic ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, but we know that he said, “I searched myself”. This also is much of the focus of Plato’s Republic, Immanuel Kant’s earth-shattering philosophy, and so on.

Typically in that quest, just before reaching the endpoint (heaven, nirvana, Brahman, etc.), the journeyer must retreat to the darkest place possible. All of the Jaba’s palace adventure for Luke, resembled this question. Consider what mythologist Joseph Campbell writes:

This popular motif gives emphasis to the lesson that the passage of the threshold is a form of self-annihilation… [I]nstead of passing outward, beyond the confines of the visible world, the hero goes inward, to be born again. The disappearance corresponds to the passing of a worshipper into a temple—where he is to be quickened by the recollection of who and what he is, namely dust and ashes unless immortal. The temple interior, the belly of the whale, and the heavenly land beyond, above and below the confines of the world, are one and the same. That is why the approaches and entrances to the temples are flanked and defended by colossal gargoyles: dragons, lions, devil-slayers… These are the threshold guardians to ward away all incapable of encountering the higher silences within. They are preliminary embodiments of the dangerous aspect of the present, corresponding to the mythological ogres that bound the conventional world, or to the two row of teeth of the whale. They illustrate the fact that the devotee at the moment of entry into a temple undergoes a metamorphosis. His secular character remains without; he sheds it, as a snake its slough…[68]

This is indeed what all of Return of the Jedi amounts to for Luke—he goes directly into what he fears most. (This is true for Indian Buddhism, but is not true for much of Japanese Buddhism, where it is held that one merely has original enlightenment now, and it is our ignorance to suppose that we do not.) Interestingly, throughout Return of the Jedi, it is always extremely vague as to if Luke has reached Jedi status. He thinks of himself as a Jedi, but then Yoda tells him there is one more thing to do. Debates like this go round and round in Return of the Jedi, and this implies that if it is unclear if Luke is a Jedi or not even by himself and by the experts, it implies he is at the final phase of his journey, and thus an abysmally dark mythic and philosophic underworld journey is at hand for him. This happens most at the start of Return of the Jedi, but then the entire film is about his confrontations with the darkest levels of reality.

Much has been written about this subject with respect to the Star Wars saga. For that reason, I will take a more philosophic approach, and I will discuss a philosophy I have not seen discussed with respect to the Star Wars sage and the philosophical journey.

The Australian aborigines—desert beings—have a very similar aspect to their philosophical way of life, which is called Dreamtime. It is only in the desert, out in the solitude of the desert, that the richness of consciousness is grasped.

I will first discuss the environment of one group of Aborigines, the Pitjandjara. Ayers Rock, in central Australia, is an monolith rising vertically eleven hundred out of a level sandy desert. It is called Uluru by the Pitjandjara, and is situated on the eastern of boundary of the Pitjandjara people's tribal country.[69]

The aborigines, however, do not look on their land as strictly limited area, but as a number of small clearly defined hunting territories, each of which is the home of a family group, or clan territory, and the aggregate of which forms the land of the Pitjandjara tribe.[70]

The tribal land of the Pitjandjara is usually very arid and hot, with an average January temperature of 80^oF, average July temperature of 53^oF. Summer highs can be over 120^oF. This area consists predominantly of parallel lines of drifting sand-ridges, the bare crests of which move, under the influence of the prevailing wind.[71]

The population density is so low (by contemporary Western standards) that Western maps label the area as "nonproductive land"—meaning, nothing Western really goes on there—nothing familiar to the group of people who have constructed the map. Yet grotesque it is: "The sides of the sandridges are covered with spinifex and low shrubs, and the swales between with occasional stands of desert oaks, mulga and the ever-present spinfex.[72]

Spinifex is like a beach grass. It is needlessly hostile beyond anything else in an already malicious land. Its blades will take leather off your shoes... On the end of each blade is a tiny barb with some noxious substance... Each clump of spinifex is an autonomous floral hell, repugnant in itself and a yellowed sepulchre of... venomous snakes... ferocious lizards... scorpions, ants, [and] flies.[73]

The stunted mulga trees--along with spinifex--have developed innovative ways of collecting water from annual rains of less than five inches. During the days, all seems dead and silent... but cool nights bring a frenzy of activities by snakes, kangaroo rats, goannas, geckos, lizards, beetles, scorpions, and centipedes... Frogs bury themselves until rains come; marsupials store food reserves in unusually fat tails; short-lived creeks and water holes release myriads of freshly hatched fish after sudden downpours when wild flowers appear miraculously; and birds species such as wood swallows and zebra finches fling themselves into a flurry of instant breeding. The ephemeral lakes draw a sudden profusion of galahs, budgerigars, herons, kites, and gray teals.

The weather records of the desert are sparse and incomplete. Those taken in the Musgrave and Rawlinson Ranges show an average rainfall of eight inches a year, while a four-year record at Curtin Springs which, being in the open desert, is free from the influences of the ranges, show a record of only five inches. This low rainfall, almost equally distributed throughout the year, coupled with high temperatures and a mean relative humidity of twenty-five percent, has created a country of considerable aridity and limited water supplies, conditions which have determined the types of plants and animals that can live there.[74]

The area, even by un-enculturated opinion, is alien and bizarre. Flies get in one's eyes, clothes, throat, etc. And they thoroughly enjoy any blood they can find (many flies don't even drink water--just blood). But worse--much worse--are ants; they are the most dominant insect. Few ants are benign, many are, frankly, surreal and satanic. And more, they are everywhere, constantly underfoot, if not in mad swarms. The 1½ inch Mymecia species is devilishly violent, unafraid to routinely pursue humans. Others are so fierce that scientists have not studied them. Daily and nightly anguish exists for anyone residing within a few feet of the nearly undetectable entrances of underground nests of hordes of savage ants.[75]

And if the aridity, heat, flies, ants, and countless tiny surrealist beasts is not bad enough, add to this that nearly two-thirds of Australia's snakes are poisonous, some unnecessarily so—Australia is commonly known as having the world’s nastiest snake population. The tiger snake has enough poison to kill 118 sheep with one fang snap. The taipan, 200. But the brown snake is the most feared, and it is ubiquitous. One species of brown snake can hurl itself over one’s head—and will do so, with no more provocation than its having got up on the wrong side of its hole that morning.[76]

For the Pitjandjara people of central Australia, gathering food is the most important part of their lives.[77] They depend upon the productivity of the ritually stimulated behavior of nature that produces regional and seasonal variations in their quest for food. The availability of food and water necessites movement from place to place, and thereby affects social relationships.[78]

All members of the family group from the small children to the old men and women are engaged in the continuous search for food, each one having a profound knowledge of the rhythm of the country. From earliest childhood they have learnt almost unconsciously the time of the ripening and fruiting of the vegetable foods and where they are most plentiful; the season of the year when the reptiles wake from their winter sleep; when the animals reproduce; and when and where there is water to drink. The aborigines have also developed a calendar based on the movements of the heavenly bodies, the flowering of certain trees and grasses, the mating calls of the local birds, the arrival of the migrants, and many other signs.[79]

They seldom remain in any one place for more than a few days: the women quickly exhaust the supplies of grass-seed, yams and fruit within walking distance of their camp, while the hunting activities of the men and the presence of so many people near the water supply soon drive the animals... to another locality... The family moves to another place in their tribal country, where experience has taught them there will be food and water.[80]

Hunting can be illustrated by using two favorite game-animals of the Pitjandjara. The euro [a large reddish-gray kangaroo] is very difficult to capture. It is naturally camouflaged, keen, and speedy. But the euros can be hunted away from the rocky hills, out in the open plains where their color makes them noticeable. Running from hill to hill through the flats, euros form paths which the aborigines frequent. Hunters set fire to the flats forcing the euro to take to its paths where other hunters are waiting concealed and ready to spear, rarely missing a kill. The other method of hunting is quite similar, and involves the red kangaroo. Kangaroos, when traveling to a favorite feeding ground, tend to follow the same path. Hunters position themselves on these paths while other hunters disturb the feeding kangaroos and lead them to the waiting hunters.[81]

A third hunting method is stalking, which the Aborigines are quite skillful, they can sneak up to a kangaroo and spear it. The Aborigine knows that kangaroo vision is basically like a snake's: based on movement; he uses this to his advantage, never letting the kangaroo detect motion coming from him.[82]

The men contribute the larger animals (and meat) as described above. Women contribute:

Seeds are made into flours and flours into edible cakes, all involving skillful techniques.[83]

The equipment of the women consists of: carrying dishes, string carrying bags, digging stick, grinding stones; while for the men: spears, spear-throwers, boomerangs, and cutting tools.[84]

There is a clear-cut division between the food-gathering activities of the man and women. The men's [tasks] involves unrestricted movement and often long, tiring journeys. The women... laden with children and their food-gathering equipment, travel by a comparatively direct route from one waterhole to the next, gathering... Women are the more reliable of the food-gatherers. Many days the men will return to camp empty handed, for desert animals are wary and difficult to capture; but the women will always bring in some food.[85]

In general, the desert does not yield an abundance of food compared to other types of landscapes, but the desert is simultaneously so varied and heterogeneous that the aborigines do not suffer from deficiency, just as long as they can freely move about continuously to find food (see below). As mentioned, the women always can bring in a good supply of carbohydrates. Hunters often do not process their kills, and thus not receiving the most desirable parts of the animal, leaving those for the processor. The food distribution system is amazingly smooth and efficient. In the end, everyone receives equal shares and needed amounts.[86]

The desert aborigines, whose life is one of continuous movement from one waterhole to the next in their search for food, have learnt to gain a livelihood with a minimum of equipment. They are extremely mobile. Should a family move from one camping ground to another, the men have nothing to do but pick up their spears and spear-throwers and the women to pick up their carrying dishes on their heads and take their digging sticks in their hands; then, whether they are absent from that locality for days, weeks or months, they have all they need to gain a livelihood.[87]

Among the Pitjandjara (and other Australian aboriginals), conceptions of tangible and intellectual property are well developed, associated with either

Many desert Australian Aborigines not only relate specific individuals to specific tracts of land, but also incorporate social mechanisms—often quite elaborate—to regulate access to one another's territories.[88]

Throughout much of Australia, people identify very strongly with particular sites, and with areas of land which they refer to... as their 'country'. In the desert, these countries are frequently defined by dependable water sources. People do not live out their entire lives in their own country, but older... men often express a great deal of sentiment for their country, and they desire to die in it.[89]

"Religion is nearly the whole of life among the Aborigines; war, peace, sex, food, and entertainment all flow from it."[91] The Australian native peoples claim to have “memory” of the realm of the “dreaming spirit” dating back nearly 150,000 years. They see “reality” in two aspects:

They call this primary world 'Dreamtime', which in their view contains all of the past, present, and future. From this realm the world of mind, matter, and energy continually arises as a dream, not only long ago but even today, suggesting that the universe... is dreaming all of what we experience into existence and that this dream overlaps into what we experience as reality... This realm is ontologically real, and as the Australian Aborigines... suggest, it may just be more real than the reality we [Westerners] perceive.[92]

"These people believe that the imaginal world is more real than the sensory world. It is the world to which the sensory world must look for guidance."[93]

[The] Dreaming... [is] a period during which mythological beings moved across the land, their paths or tracks memorialized for their Aboriginal descendents via the topographical features they created in their adventures, and by a rich body of mythology, ritual, and songlines... [Men] have responsibility for learning the stories and knowledge associated with those of their country [which is associated with the "Walkabout", see below]. The Dreamtime also forms the cultural logic through which people negotiate their identity with each other.[94]

[The] landscape is seen as tracks of the totemic animal spirits that once walked the earth and, indeed, by becoming stone themselves, became the earth. Just as everyday animals leave their tracks on the ground, these totemic being/animal/spirits left theirs. Certain areas such as great Ayers Rock... are known as sacred grounds.[95]

The] Dreaming... was a time of heroes... when men and nature came to be as they are now. It was a time long ago... However neither time nor history is actually being used in the meaning of Dreaming... Dreaming means a complex state... [such as] tribal law [which may be] regarded as Dreaming.[96]

Through an exhaustive set of theories, Fred Wolf links Dreamtime with modern Western biological and anthropological views by stating that what we commonly refer to in the Western world as “dreams,” and “dreaming.” are advantageous for the survival of the individual replicating[98] organismic unit:

Our dreams are purely survival requirements in a world of uncertainty... It is called 'the dreaming' or the 'Dreamtime' and is the basis for the survival of a whole people--the Australian Aboriginals.[99]

Dreamtime is a way of mapping the landscape through naming and labeling through mythic, subconscious themes. Everyone is given a certain section of the landscape to take care of. So the environment is not as homogenous to them as it would be for Westerners. Dreaming tracks are routes and maps of the entire continent. Rock art functions more or less as road-signs. This is all a way to organize and pass on information, markings of resource areas and water sources. It can designate who has access to what by creating boundaries (clan symbols, etc.) and describe events that do or have happened at a location. With this symbolic information, the Aborigines carry an unbelievable amount of information in their minds and within their social systems, thus ensuring survival.

There are many notions one can develop from the concept of Dreamtime, why it's there, how it got to be, etc. I will primarily use some loose idea of the unconscious mind in my exploration. The unconscious mind can be assumed as being associated with, or as emerging and being unearthed by solitude, certain religious practices, near-death experience[100], strong emotion, dreams, visions, hypnagogic states, psychoactive drug experience, or a propensity for interest in mental functions and processes. Consciousness is a not a singular entity, but is a multifarious complex used for varying situations in which a conscious agent—such as a human, or some other possible or actual organism or being that might have consciousness—will attempt to propagate its genetic code through finding mates, raising children, acquiring resources, and so on. The point to most note in the preceding sentence is that consciousness is not viewed as a monomorphous or statis entity, but as either

In situations, such as extreme isolation or sensory deprivation—situations vastly different than commonly known to Westernized readers of this essay—varying forms of consciousness appear to be adaptative for the conscious agent, but are forms of consciousness that are very much unlike what is familiar in mainstream Westernized culture.

In this paper, solitude will be used for explaining Dreamtime and as a primary catalyst for unconscious mental uprisings into consciousness. This only a suggestion however; and I make no attempt to offer anything more than that.

Here I take the premise that the unconscious mind is a reality that pervades all of humanity, that has the same basic structure for all humans (just as the drive for sex, food, and security is basically the same throughout all of humanity), and that certain cultures or individuals—due to the varying scenarios of their environments or situations—are more prone to experiencing it than others (through pain, death, stagnation, vision quests, clubbing and killing animals, and so on).

Very few of us in the West take the time to ever stop, and purposefully look into our own minds and study its workings, patterns, systems, natures--to simply see what is going on (as with simply getting up to look out the window to see if it is raining). But if we were to introspect in a more than casual way, and in such a way as the youthful aborigine male likely does in his vision quest isolationism, surprisingly, upon our introspection we find an interesting and crowded world with a mechanics and little studied by us, and which is often oddly familiar, and oddly foreign. However, when one simply stops to study and observe their mind and emotions impartially, scrupulously--like a scientist watching and studying the behavior of a spider, or monkeys, or a lion pride--listening to thoughts, watching memory, desire and fear flash about maddeningly and endlessly, the first thing one usually concludes is the existence of a clear division between a conscious and unconscious mind[101], where-- and much more importantly-- the unconscious mind is seen to be much more "real", while what was formerly assumed to be the conscious mind takes on an appearance of being highly illusory, and “less real”: A reactionary haze that is little more than the persona being subject to the pushes and pulls of the forces of life, with all its pressure, stress, anxiety, and hardship. These are experiences that a student of serious introspection might likely have, even if just a beginning student of introspectionism. Similarily, experiences with sensory deprivation, isolationism, psychoactive substances, migraine headache auras, extreme emotivity, near-death experiences, the experiences of trauma (especially the death of a close comrade), and so on, all have the causal power to transform consciousness in such a way where experiences similar to introspectionism might be experienced.

The Pitjandjara have a specific sort of “vision quest” ritual that brings young boys into “a new stage of life”. But this ritual also (possibly) causes these youths to experience a varied form of consciousness that lead to the realization of internal mental mechanics described above.

The less the stimulus from the outer world that one has, the more one is prone to an “altered state of consciousness”, such as those that occur in experiments of extreme sensory deprivation. This consciousness might be what the Pitjandjara refer to as Dreamtime.

As is well known, caves and mountain-tops are often sought for religious sensory deprivation experiments among hunter-gatherer cultures and Buddhistic groups around the world. Similarly, the practice of deprivation and solitude is very intense with the "Walkabout" of Australia, where young boys are completely solitary for long periods of time, off alone in the desert learning about the land (i.e. "the Dreaming"), gathering information, and exploring the tracks of the mythic dream-beings.

Now consider the stories below of Western accounts of solitude and deprivation. Perhaps, then, it will become clearer that this solitudinous Walkabout experience could produce an "unconscious", or Dreamtime, experience, as happens with cave sensory deprivation, or with cold, starvation and other deprivation experimentation.

An explorer named Admiral Byrd spent six months alone in the Antarctic because he said he wanted to taste peace and quiet. Dr. Alain Bombard sailed alone across the Atlantic Ocean for sixty-five days on a life raft. Each reacted to their isolation and loneliness almost identically. "Due to the oppressive monotony of their environments they felt themselves withdrawing deeply into themselves for emotional sustenance. Both suffered sever depression, hallucinations, delusions, and anxiety." Bombard stated that he began to feel that he was incapable of discriminating between the false and the true impressions of the world.[102]

There are copious other Western accounts widely known of. So one can hypothesize that with the Walkabout, and with all the riotous consequences it could have upon one's worldview, the Pitjandjara naturally see the world through the scope of "Dreamtime". Religion, like food gathering, encompasses the whole of Pitjandjara life, and the basis of religion for the Pitjandjara is Walkabout: the generator of unconscious experience.

Now, I would like to take this above hypothesis of solitude and Walkabout as an instrument of unconscious or Dreamtime religion, and combine it with the fact that unconscious experiences and images, of any nature, when they appear, carry the impression that they are all-important. This is seen with the Pitjandjara claim that the primary world (Dreamtime) is more real than, and even the creator of, the physical world. Unconscious experiences and images are often experienced as "all-important" even if the experiencer realizes that they are completely arbitrary and deranged to the rational mind (or daytime mind). All this leads me to the concluding hypotheses that Dreamtime experiences are based in and created by a mental mechanics of the unconscious mind which is common to all humanity, but relatively unknown by Western science and culture.

In conclusion, it would seem only accurate to say that Dreamtime is a shamanic system, probably initially invented by shamans or those with shamanic-systems training (such as to do with "Walkabout"), and then given to the rest of the Pitjandjara who may do nothing more than "believe" (without the experience). Dreamtime and the unconscious need not be spooky and esoteric, but rather just another aspect of nature for our objective study. But lest we stoop the to contemptible level of the churchmen who renounced Galileo because they did not simply look through his telescope, we cannot say that the Dreamtime is more or less true, real, or accurate than our noble Western sciences, until we go and see its reality for ourselves, and go and look through Galileo's telescope for ourselves, thus experiencing serious sensory deprivation and Walkabout for ourselves.

It is odd that the Dreamtime contains the surrealistic reality that it does. World art movements—movements that concentrate on getting their material from the inner mind—such as Dadaism, Primitivism, Surrealism, and so on, all find a similar elements as the Dreamtime’s transcendent landscapes, with their anthropoid beasts, and their grotesque yet godly denizens. These are the mechanics of what could be called the id-scape. Why is it that this consciousness is part of the repertoire of our experience? And why is his consciousness—the id-scape—structured that way it is, resembling at times an art-world of nihilistic bestiality, and at other times an atemporal, energetic world that modern physics often describes. Why this consciousness has the adaptative value it does is not thoroughly worked out currently. But for now, we can know that this experience—this consciousness—is has an adaptative value as it exists across the span of humanity..

The first time we see Luke in this landscape, he is talking to Jaba, and he is made of brilliant blue light (in the guise of a hologram message to Jaba). He is being released from R2 giving a message, just as was Leia the first time we saw her in A New Hope. When Luke first saw Leia in a message from R2, Luke was entirely taken by the message, and the new life that opened for him due to this message. Jaba however has no such reaction. Standing behind him is a being with long trunk-like appendages coming from his head, pointed teeth, oily skin, and a human-like face with Caucasian-colored skin. I take this being to be a representation of Jaba’s consciousness, must like R2 and 3PO are representations of Luke’s consciousness in A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, and of Anakin’s consciousness in Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. One of the first things we find this creature say after the message from R2 is “he’s no Jedi”. Whereas Luke has the capacity to recognize the Force (to recognize it as strong in a person), Jaba, being the beast at the center of the id-zone, does not.

One of the first things he does is offer 3PO and R2 as gifts to Jaba, as if to offer his teachings—the self-study of the transcendent and “natural person” in his—but Jaba laughs loudly at this.

Jaba is a being of the id-zone, and clearly has no interest in anything but his vile delights: victimizing human women and other creatures, watching creatures devoured by his monster that lives under the palace, eating giant frogs alive, and so on. After rejecting Luke’s message, Jaba throws R2 and 3PO into a dungeon in his palace.

Above I wrote that the Death Star represents what one most fears in their life, but to attain a Jedi-like state of consciousness, it must be faced. Facing the Death Star is exactly what some of the characters in the Star Wars movies do. This represents the Via Negativa, as discussed above. In this chapter I wish to discuss exactly how the Star Wars movies show this process to occur.

In Star Wars: A New Hope, two things can be immediately pointed out. 1. Luke’s state of consciousness, and feeling the Force, escalates as he draws nearer and nearer to the Death Star (the first time he feels the Force is when he is in the Millennium Falcon on his way to Alderon, which is really a trip to the Death Star), and when he purposely attempts to impale it, as when he shoots his bullets of light into it at the end of Star Wars: A New Hope.

In A New Hope, Ben retreats off into a clandestine manner of living when they are on the Death Star, and somehow he knows all the workings of this world. Earlier in the movie, he could recognize it from afar right away, before anybody else had any idea of what it was. This shows us that Ben is fully knowledgeable about the purpose of the Death Star: to give one an entry point into the Via Negativa. Darth Vader informs a general, in talking about Ben: “escape is not his plan…” Ben knows that the true religion resides in what is feared, hated, and there is no attempt to get around that.

Above I wrote that that C3PO and R2 are elements of Luke’s mind that evolve through the films (they represent elements of Anakin’s mind in Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones). It is interesting that when Luke gets to the Death Star, he leaves them behind. This would indicate that Luke is not living the life of the natural man, since 3PO is left behind, but further, he feeling the Force either. This indicates there is a third possibility, that without the covering of self-lies and etc. that the natural man feeds to himself perpetually, and he is closed off from feeling the Force, and he is in darkness. He is inside his worst fears. Also, he has become his enemy (note how he and Han wear storm trooper attire). In the depths of the real Luke, not the false Luke that the natural man’s consciousness had created in him before he met R2 and Ben.

One thing that is very interesting is that just as Luke leaves (with Han) to go save Leia, they are waiting by an elevator and walking by them is a droid that looks very much like 3PO, but this droid is all black. This is very interesting since it seems to imply that Luke has realized the realm nature of his 3PO element of consciousness: its real nature is that it is blackened and scary. Another interpretation of this scene is that there are many different aspects of Luke’s consciousness, that he is seeing when he is in the Death Star, and one is a 3PO-like droid, and its blackness is indicative of its true nature. Notice that Luke only sees this aspects of himself when he enters into the Death Star—a task very rarely carried out by anybody. Thus the knowledge found here of one’s true self would have to be little known by others. Perhaps that is why many Eastern philosophers do not discuss their findings of their philosophical quest: because nobody would understand or believe their findings.

Virtually all religions embody this sort of darkened state that ensues before one reaches, in the Star Wars terminology, Jedi-mind. Jesus met Satan in the wilderness. Buddha had temptations and sufferings.

It is of course interesting to note that the first time Luke sees Leia it is in the Death Star: in the ultimate darkness, Luke meets the highest carrier of the Force.

After they get Leia, she leads them into the garbage shoot, which, interestingly, must be the most disgusting place of an already horrible nightmare that they are in when wandering in the Death Star. But interestingly, right when they get to that nadir, Luke says, “There is something alive in here.” Leia has led him to what appears to be teh pti fo death, but instead they find new life.

In this chamber within the Death Star, Han and Luke try to shoot their way out. They bullets of light are however repelled and cannot get outside of the garbage chamber. This is interesting, it is as if one firing of light from their guns produces more light than before in this nightmarish place. What was a certain amount of energy before, is not a much more massive amount.

In this dark nightmare, the Death Star, as soon as they go and find Leia, one cannot help but note how much more light fills the screen. In the dark nightmare, the place is lit up endlessly by shards of light flashing about. This is because they are getting close to the realization that everything is made of light.

Near the end of Star Wars: A New Hope, when Luke destroys the death star, we see that just before he does, Vader is inadvertently thrown out into space, and then moments later, the entire Death Star is destroyed. This implies that Luke has reached a very high Jedi-state. But note that with Vader still existing, out in the void, Luke’s ultimate fear is still in place, but at a minimum level. Luke enjoys the highest feats of Jedi activity, but still there is his old adversary waiting for him regardless.

This reminds me of the Chinese philosophy of the Yin and the Yang. In the time of greatest Jedihood, there is still the seed of the Dark Side of the Force.

[1] Campbell 1973, 51.

[2] Dale Pollock, Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas (New York: Harmony Books, 1983), 140

[3] Dorr and Rosen 2002, 152. Rosen and Dorr write this after discussing protons, decks of cards, cells of an organism’s body, and the stars and dust of the Milky Way.

[4] Merricks 2001.

[5] Dorr and Rosen 2002.

[6] Unger 1980.

[7] A good example is Peter van Inwagen, in his Material Beings (1990. Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Others have noted the lack of any arguments for his positions in Material Beings. See Hirsh: “An initially surprising feature of his [van Inwagen’s] book is that van Inwagen does not purport to offer any knockdown argument for his seemingly incredible thesis.” (1993, 687)

[8] In chapter 3 I will discuss at length how according to some topological theories distinct atoms allegedly can compose an unbroken magnitude of matter (a material extension).

[9] Ismael 2000, section 1.

[10] In this book I do not discuss similarities and differences of forces and fields at any great length. I only discuss that through history of physics up to the present physicists and philosophers of physics have used both words to refer to the connections between particles.

[11] Jammer 1999, 200.

[12] Jammer 1999, 242.

[13] See Kane 2000.

[14] Langton 1998, p. 106.

[15] MFNS, 96.

[16] See Sklar (1977, 56-58) for a lucid discussion of the position that spacetime points as events.

[17] Jammer, 1999, p. 25.

[18] Jammer, 1999, p. 27.

[19] Jammer, 1999, pp. 35-36

[20] Jammer, 1999, p. 89-90.

[21] Herbert, 1985, p. 32-34.

[22] Faraday 1975, 415.

[23] Zimmerman 1996, 166-67.

[24] Mereotopologically oriented philosophers common hold that mereology and topology on their own are too restricted, and mereotopology offers a less restrictive model. Casati and Varzi discuss this throughout their lucid 1999, book, Parts and Places, and they first introduce it on pages 4 and 5.

[25] Mason, 2000.

[26] Zimmerman, 1996.

[27] Hudson, 2002.

[28] Casati and Varzi, 1999

[29] Smith, 1997

[30] Markosian, 1998.

[31] Wilder 1978, 721.

[43] See Pyle, 1995, 2-4.

[45] Anaximander is often viewed as the Greek who is the originator of atomism. See McEvilley, 2003, 34.

[46] Ehring, 2001.

[47] McDaniel, 2001.

[48] Zimmerman, 1997.

[56] Schaffer, 2003.

[57] Kane (2000, 21-22) discusses at length why some physicists believe “that the electrons and quarks are the true Greek ‘atoms’…” (21)

[58] Elder, 2003, 24-25.

[59] Jammer, 1999, p. 1.

[60] For example, Elder does this:

The microparticles… affected by the explosion call on relations of spatial proximity and electromagnetic charge (or, for quarks, relations with respect to ‘colour’) for their sufficiency to produce violent alterations in the microparticles of the second tier… (Elder 2003, 30-31)

[61] Hudson, 2001, 81-82.

[62] See Makin 1993, 13 for discussion of this.

[63] See Stenger (2000, chapter 11)

[64] As for physics, Herbert writes: “”. (Herbert, , )

[65] Grünbaum 1952, 1955, 1967.

[66] Edgar, 1979, p. 324.

[67] Hillman 18-19

[68] Campbell 1949, 91-92.

[69] Mountford 1965:xiv

[70] Mountford 1965:3

[71] Mountford 1965:3

[72] Mountford 1965:3

[73] Greenway 1972:72

[74] Mountford 1965:3

[75] Greenway 1972:70-72

[76] Greenway 1972:69

[77] Mountford expresses this claim in Mountford 1965:13

[78] See Maddock 1972:26

[79] Mountford, 13

[80] Mountford 1965:13-14

[81] Mountford 1965:14-15

[82] See Mountford 1965:14-15

[83] See Mountford 1965:15-16

[84] See Mountford 1965:8-12

[85] Mountford 1965:16-17

[86] See Mountford 1965:16-17

[87] Mountford 1965:4

[88] See Kelly 1995:163

[89] Kelly 1995:186

[90] Although this paper is not long, and definitions are not extensive, it is best for the reader to suspend, as best as possible, predetermined and enculturated definitions of words such as “religion”, ”dream”, “universe”, “mind”, and so on, which are based on one’s culture, pastimes, and other basic limits of personal knowledge. While many readers will know to carry out such a reading, it is worth reemphasizing to the reader that definitions of many words in the remainder of this paper are quite possibly anti-synonymous with what the words actually mean to the aborigine. Such a vigilance on the part of the reader will be fruitful not only for a possible better understanding of the Dreamtime, and my theory for its specific content, but also will likely help the reader consider the basic meanings of words such as “religion”, ”dream”, “universe”, and how their definitions not only change with the changing of a civilization, but also with the individual treatment of one reader’s careful consideration of them.

[91] Greenway 1972:99 (Emphasis mine.)

[92] Wolf, 1994:19-20

[93] Wolf 149

[94] Kelly 1995:186

[95] Wolf 1994:153

[96] Wolf 141

[97] The word “unconscious” has wildly differing definitions, and often is either invented for “pop psychology’s” almost always erroneous “analysis” that is spontaneously “taken-on” by what Nietzsche referred to as “the herd,” but in this essay, I incorporate the word unconscious but mean nothing more than this:

Unconscious = _df. The workings and mechanics of the brain that are not “know

[1] Campbell 1973, 51.

[2] Dale Pollock, Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas (New York: Harmony Books, 1983), 140

[3] Dorr and Rosen 2002, 152. Rosen and Dorr write this after discussing protons, decks of cards, cells of an organism’s body, and the stars and dust of the Milky Way.

[4] Merricks 2001.

[5] Dorr and Rosen 2002.

[6] Unger 1980.

[8] In chapter 3 I will discuss at length how according to some topological theories distinct atoms allegedly can compose an unbroken magnitude of matter (a material extension).

[9] Ismael 2000, section 1.

[11] Jammer 1999, 200.

[12] Jammer 1999, 242.

[13] See Kane 2000.

[14] Langton 1998, p. 106.

[15] MFNS, 96.

[16] See Sklar (1977, 56-58) for a lucid discussion of the position that spacetime points as events.

[17] Jammer, 1999, p. 25.

[18] Jammer, 1999, p. 27.

[19] Jammer, 1999, pp. 35-36

[20] Jammer, 1999, p. 89-90.

[21] Herbert, 1985, p. 32-34.

[22] Faraday 1975, 415.

[23] Zimmerman 1996, 166-67.

[25] Mason, 2000.

[26] Zimmerman, 1996.

[27] Hudson, 2002.

[28] Casati and Varzi, 1999

[29] Smith, 1997

[30] Markosian, 1998.

[31] Wilder 1978, 721.

[32] Zimmerman 1996, 148.

[33] Many have held the position that the basic building blocks of space are of nonzero size and simple (partless), including Democritus (Democritean atoms) (see Hoffman and Rosenkrantz, 1997, 13, 150-151) and perhaps Aristotle (minima), although whether or not Aristotle held this position is controversial, and I take no position on it (see Pyle 1995 for lucid discussion of minima). Many contemporary physicists and philosophers hold the position that so-called Planck cells, or Planck lengths, are fundamental entities which have a non-zero size. And Ned Markosian argues for an interesting variety of spatially extended basic building blocks, called “MaxCon simples”. (In a recent article, McDaniel (2003) presents well-written arguments against MaxCon simples).

[34] Quantum gravity is a unification of quantum theory and relativity, and is for that reason believed to be the theory that will end the divergence that exists in physics between relativity and quantum mechanics.

[35] Noncommutative geometry is typically called a “geometry”, but it can be thought of as a topological model of space. See Johnes and Moscovici, 1997, especially page 795.

[36] Madore, 2000, 262-4. Also see Lewniewski, 1997. Points in space are not measurable, as position no longer has any meaningfulness at this level. Madore: “…what appears to be a point will, at a sufficiently small length scale, be seen to possess an algebraic structure which can be described by a noncommutative geometry.” (Madore, 2000, 313.)

…[O]ne could modify the microscopic structure of space-time with the hypothesis that at a sufficiently small fundamental length, the coordinates of a point become noncommuting operators. This means in particular that it would be impossible to measure exactly the position of a particle since the three space coordinates could not be simultaneously diagonalized… The position of a particle would no longer have a well defined meaning. Since we certainly wish this to be so at macroscopic scales, we must require that the fundamental length be not greater than a typical Compton wavelength. In other words, the fuzziness which the noncommutative structure gives a point in space-time could not be greater than the quantum uncertainty in the position of a particle. We can think of space as being divided into Planck cells…

Einstein and Bergman (1938) suggested that at sufficiently small scales what appears as a point will in fact be seen as a circle. Later, with the advent of more elaborate gauge fields, it was proposed that this internal manifold could be taken as a compact lie group or even as a general compact manifold… An associated problem is that of localization. We cannot and indeed do not wish to have to, address the question of the exact position of a particle in the extra dimensions any more than we wish to localize it too exactly in ordinary space-time… (Madre, 2000, 3-4) (Underlining added.)

[37] Hawking, 196, 4; Stenger, 2000, 76-78, 85. Also see Quentin Smith, 1993, 1995.

[38] Cohn and Varzi, 359, 2003.

[39] Hawking, 1996, 4

[40] Casati and Varzi, 1999, 48.

[41] Schafer, 2003, 500.

[42] Lewis, 1991, 20.

[43] See Pyle, 1995, 2-4.

[44]A discussion of this position is given by Casati and Varzi (1999), nd it is a position they claim improves on mereology (their new position they call “mereotopology”).

For discussion about the pointy view of fundamental entities, see Zimmerman, 1996, 1; Davies, 1984, 107-108; Herbert, 1987, p. 61; McDaniel, 2003; Pyle, 1995, 1-65.

[45] Anaximander is often viewed as the Greek who is the originator of atomism. See McEvilley, 2003, 34.

[46] Ehring, 2001.

[47] McDaniel, 2001.

[48] Zimmerman, 1997.

[56] Schaffer, 2003.

[57] Kane (2000, 21-22) discusses at length why some physicists believe “that the electrons and quarks are the true Greek ‘atoms’…” (21)

[58] Elder, 2003, 24-25.

[59] Jammer, 1999, p. 1.

[60] For example, Elder does this:

[61] Hudson, 2001, 81-82.

[62] See Makin 1993, 13 for discussion of this.

[63] See Stenger (2000, chapter 11)

[64] As for physics, Herbert writes: “”. (Herbert, , )

[65] Grünbaum 1952, 1955, 1967.

[66] Edgar, 1979, p. 324.

[67] Hillman 18-19

[68] Campbell 1949, 91-92.

[69] Mountford 1965:xiv

[70] Mountford 1965:3

[71] Mountford 1965:3

[72] Mountford 1965:3

[73] Greenway 1972:72

[74] Mountford 1965:3

[75] Greenway 1972:70-72

[76] Greenway 1972:69

[77] Mountford expresses this claim in Mountford 1965:13

[78] See Maddock 1972:26

[79] Mountford, 13

[80] Mountford 1965:13-14

[81] Mountford 1965:14-15

[82] See Mountford 1965:14-15

[83] See Mountford 1965:15-16

[84] See Mountford 1965:8-12

[85] Mountford 1965:16-17

[86] See Mountford 1965:16-17

[87] Mountford 1965:4

[88] See Kelly 1995:163

[89] Kelly 1995:186

[91] Greenway 1972:99 (Emphasis mine.)

[92] Wolf, 1994:19-20

[93] Wolf 149

[94] Kelly 1995:186

[95] Wolf 1994:153

[96] Wolf 141

Unconscious = _df. The workings and mechanics of the brain that are not “known” to the human thinker; or, more simply yet, the workings of the mind that one is not aware of.

[98] For a more expansive and advanced treatment of the idea of “replicators”, see the work of philosopher David Hull.

[99] Wolf 139

[100] Near-death experineces are not at all limited to the Western ideas which include a light at the end of a tunnel, a glowing faced man at the end, and other culturally biased ideas

[101] The reader must note that this statement says that the student of introspection experiences what appears to be a division between unconsciousness and conscious mind. This is, however, just an experience, as far as can be verified; and such a division is to be studied further, and not assumed to exist just because of numerous experiences. Such an experiences of this division might also just be a product of the experience of introspection, and have no reality in itself at all, independent of the human mind.

[102] Gowan 1975:99-100

n” to the human thinker; or, more simply yet, the workings of the mind that one is not aware of.

[98] For a more expansive and advanced treatment of the idea of “replicators”, see the work of philosopher David Hull.

[99] Wolf 139

[100] Near-death experineces are not at all limited to the Western ideas which include a light at the end of a tunnel, a glowing faced man at the end, and other culturally biased ideas

[102] Gowan 1975:99-100