phenomena could be described by one equation. So far one equation has been successful enough to include everything but the force of gravitation in its description. Like everybody else I used to assume it was simply because the graviton particle is too small to be detected. But after listening to Kent I’m not too sure that there is a graviton particle."

Kent: "Just because someone could explain particle physics to you, you believed everything they told you. Our scientists further sold us the neutrino and the quark because the phenomena ‘behaved’ as they learned to expect and they could perform experiments to prove it. This knowledge meant power, awesome power.

"But it has proved to be a knowledge which is essentially incapable of explaining a simple, common, everyday fact: gravity. And because we all bought into these particulate explanations too deeply we stopped looking for other answers. Our scientists looked and looked for a particle that would define gravity. When they couldn’t find it by determining it was too small to see, they created a new paradigm called string physics. But they will never find anything with those kinds of expectations in their minds.

"Why? Because at the very heart of every equation, every question, is a concept, not a point, not just some kind of algorithmic particle/wave packet, but a willful intention of being, an intentional pattern in the process of describing itself. And gravity is an anarchistic orchestration of phenomena, not just a single discrete manifestation. Doubt me all you like... Gravity is like water in that the more you try to isolate a single discrete drop of water within a bucket full of it, the wetter you get and that's all...

“This problem we have with grasping the phenomena, gravity, should be seen as an excursion down different path of truth. It is a primrose path I lead you into now. On the other side, the unifying factor in life.

“As human beings we endeavor to conceptualize. And about what do we conceptualize? The world we live in, the Universe from which we sprang. Is our ability to conceptualize the world a remarkable set of coincidences? Is it a God given ability: poof! Or is it a result of intentions (one built upon another) creating a design of conceptual associations?

“Well then consider this, is the ability to conceptualize an idea a unifying factor, or is it simply a singular ability? It is an important fact to remember that you don’t always have to completely understand most physical phenomena before you are able to perceive them.

“But let me explain a force to you that does unify things. It is a phenomenon more intrinsic to our nature than the forces which move the universe. Something so important, that if we didn't have it, nothing else would matter to us: our awareness. Most definitely yes, awareness is a unifying field. Why? Because through our perceptions we are aware of experiencing the phenomenon of life - which we all agree is real.

“Perception leads us to this awareness, never forget that. Perception is one conceptual step away from awareness. It's the difference between seeing (perceiving) a bee and the ability to determine (be aware) whether it is looking to sting you. It seems to be a step called wisdom; but it’s really just the ability to recognize your relationship to the world around you. The concepts of awareness and perception are almost interchangeable in discussions, except for the fact that you can be using your

top