Brad Fregger: There was a comment earlir about being 52 years old and something that comes with it, wisdom, or peace, or both. I haven’t charted the ages of the members of this panel, I do know, however, that the next speaker and I are furthest from this wisdom according to that definition.

Tom Gates has been a friend of mine for quite a while now. We met when we put together a Lockheed thing with Terry Ross, which was an exciting thing too, and Tom was involved with it, and I was involved with it and we like each other. Tom is the head of the Space Science Center here, is involved in everything, including psychic phenomenon and UFO’s and the future and just about anything you can say. Tom has a broad mind and always a lot of interesting things to say. Tom Gates.

 Mr. Tom Gates

“THE FUTURE AND SELF-AWARENESS”

I’ve got some hard acts to follow you know, and it occurs to me that a lot of the material that I wanted to talk about is much more beautifully addressed by Willis, by John, and by the entire panel. So I thought to myself, “Now I’m going to have to look at these statements and try to apply my comments to all of them.”

I find that we substantiate something that continually goes through my mind. That goes back to the business of buzz-words. They’re all talking about the same thing. The constructions that we use to describe it may be slightly different, but I’m continually amazed at the fact that we are struggling with the same thing. I think perhaps that could be summed up as saying “existence.” To put that into a theological sense, it comes out in God saying, “I am.”

To look at it from the standpoint of science, religion, and self-awareness, since I’m talking about the future and self-awareness, I would have to say I am aware of a conflict that has gone on between science and religion. I’m aware of the fact that in that conflict, a good many of us, if not all of us, have been asked to choose sides. But maybe we have been fooling ourselves about which side we’re on and that perhaps the beauty of what’s happening now is that we’ve reached the point where we don’t have to choose sides anymore. Changes are going on, such that this disparity doesn’t exist to the extent that it used to; it’s melting away.

We speak of unification, unity, oneness. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” I find that to me, if that’s the religious buzz-words I use, it can describe some of the unification that I can begin to see happening. I think all of this has to do with self-awareness.

It seems that a slight bit of historical perspective gives better understanding to where we are right now. Certainly one of the greatest difficulties that man has always faced has been that of fear. Fear as an emotional construction to me has been the basis of the business of the belief boxes that are constructed. Fear has been the driving force which has prevented man from making greater discoveries.

We have talked in the talks today about our perceptions being limited, that we crawl into constructions and hang on to those constructions that do not permit us to realize more is already there, such as the illustration of walking into the forest, but we can only see as much as we want; or the flashlight in the dark closet, and we can only shine it on what we wish to see. That’s going to be the extent of our awareness when we do that.

So then, the question becomes, “How do we expand that awareness?” Perhaps even more basic is, “Do we want to?” I would suggest, probably we don’t want to, that fear is one of those mechanisms preventing it from occurring.

If I go back in history and look at what is taking place, I find that superstition, which is riddled very much with fear, was the guiding force in man’s behavior and man’s description of the world around him; the business of ascribing to God all those things that were not knowable. I find that all of this was a great externalization of everything that is beyond one; that is, beyond one’s ability to know; that’s beyond one’s ability to deal with. It seems to have had a great deal to do with how man perceived reality and interacted with it.

I find that in looking at the western approach to life, at least as far as I’m concerned, it has been somewhat the antithesis of some of Christ’s statements. I think that western civilization is much more materialistic than most of the others that I can view, and I view materialism, as a goal, as being anti-Christ; against the values that he set forth.

I find that science itself develops attitudes which set up conflict with religion. Attitudes like empiricism, meaning that we had to know it though the five senses, it had to be measurable; and determinism, the mechanistic point of view. This more or less stemmed from the attitudes and thoughts of Aristotle. If we look at some of the other great Greek philosophers, we find that they did not have the same approach as did Aristotle. Plato, for instance, made the statement that the real world was the world of thought and that reality, as we perceive it in the material world, is thought image.

In looking at the beginnings of organized Christianity, at the very first there was somewhat of an interplay in just which set of scientific values would be embraced. Augustine embraced the ideas of Plato. Thomas Aquinas was the one who more or less settled the issue and Aristotle seemed to have won at that point. I think, then, it was simply a matter of organizational structure at that time having gown to the point where the conflict came to a real catastrophe in the time of Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler.

Here we find that the Church had arrived at the point of setting itself up as absolute authority. It had a problem. In becoming absolute authority, it found that its authority, as stated at that time, could no longer deal with what seemed to be reality. The central focal point of all of the issues seemed to be the Copernical theory with the sun at the center of the solar system. I suspect that there is a lot more to it than that, and we can simply say “there was an absolute clash.” The Church at that time had set itself up as an authority.

Who, then, deposed that authority? Well, it would seem that science was the aggressor that “knocked off” the Church at that time. So if the Church could no longer be authority where do all human beings now turn to get that pronouncement of how they should conduct themselves, how their behavior should be? Who is going to be the “authority” to tell them how to live their lives?

Once again looking into my own mind, it seems that science moved into that role. I don’t want to accuse all of science of doing this; as was pointed out, science should be and was regarded some time ago as a philosophy.

To me, science is a process approach for gaining knowledge and, as Jacques Vallee has pointed out, not the only way to gain knowledge. But I think that certain aspects of science grew up into becoming what Kim Malville in his book, A Feather for Daedalus, points out: a myth.

Science then became the new authority and, once again as Willis was pointing out, we find that through the use of technology our environment seemed to come into a problem. For those people who were subscribing to science to promise that the world was going to be “okay” forever and ever and ever, to promise that the future had hope, suddenly it didn’t seem to be holding true.

Something is now deposing that aspect of science which seemed to mask itself as the new authority. So if science is to be deposed, where do we turn? I think that part of this is responsible for the change of position that we are experiencing in science. Once again as had been pointed out, science is not being conceived in mental construction in the same way. The new science ideas are attempting to grapple with areas in which it was not used to dealing some time ago. The “irrational,” Jacques Vallee was calling it.

The areas of psychic phenomena, para-normal phenomena, and so on. Do these really exist? Or are they things which we should debunk and leave alone? The answer isn’t complete. We haven’t all the facts, but at least it’s being studied. Biofeedback, that mechanism certainly begins to represent a change of thought. To me, it’s very interesting that we are now talking about paradigms; in other words, paradigms instead of absolute laws.

When I took science in high school, that’s how it was presented to me … Here is the absolute law … this is a fundamental truth which will not be violated. … And at the time that I first took physics, I remember there was a law of conservation of energy and a law of conservation of matter, and we didn’t talk about the inter-connection between those two. But those were violated because it was found that there is a common bridge between them. So what I’m saying is, that aspect of science which perhaps posed as something of a myth or a religion in itself, set itself up to get knocked off again.

So then we are left having to say, “Where do I turn?” “Who now is the authority that I need to embrace?” The old idea of the natural scientist as the impartial observer totally removed from the observations, which was the approach to the scientific examinations, is now switching to the idea that the observe must necessarily participate in the event.

It’s interesting to note that this shift of attitude, that the observer in the event, is coming from the field of quantum mechanics. Well, I would like to ask some questions. Where does this participation end? And what are the limits to a person’s participation in the universe? What are we finding out by this?

I see we’re beginning to open the door to agreement with thought construction; with the values and with the beliefs expressed religiously. Isn’t that exactly what religion is saying? We participate. We participate in God’s universe. I also begin to feel, as I suggested earlier, that we’re ceasing to externalize God so much.

Which, to me again, was more or less of an Aristotelian concept. Instead of feeling separate from God and apart from God, we’re now beginning to feel more a closeness, we belong to God. I see the perception of man beginning to go in that direction.

One of the beauties of all this for me, and one of the great bits of excitement I would hold, is to watch this coming together in a common ground, seeing this business of staying in separate camps beginning to dissolve away. In particular from the science side of it, it may not be exactly correct, but one of the paradigms is a construction of what is called the physics of consciousness, in which consciousness is being perceived as an energy form perhaps capable of being in complete communication with all consciousness through a network of mini black holes.

So you see, we’ve gone from the astronomical black holes in the universe to the concept idea of mini black holes at the center of each and every atom, or every particle if you like. In particular, there are a few theoretical physicists, who are attempting to explore this idea. In the present, it’s more or less a working idea.

I think Christ has been beckoning for mankind to know of our connection with the deeper reality of this universe for some time. When Christ said, “I am the Way,” I get from that that we, too, can accomplish that. But it occurs to me that most of western civilization chose to subscribe to science. I felt that most of it for a good long time has been paying lip service to what the message of Christ is really about. Because, in fact, we were really placing our trust in science. Science was going to carry us through. But now that science is being deposed, now that science is being accused of destroying the environment, where do we turn? I think this is causing a great spiritual unrest.

I see a lot of movements which are generated to handle some of this conflict. You see such things as Transcendental Meditation, EST, Scientology, Berkeley Psychic Institute, Esalen, Creative Initiative, Sierra Club, on and on the list goes. Some of these are things that are going on within the organized religious structure, some of them outside. I even look at what happened in terms of Patty Hearst and the SLA, as being connected with this spiritual thirst. It occurs to me that in that case the conflict, “Where do I turn now,” just simply took an expression which was destructive and catastrophic.

The shift that we now have in the philosophy of science though is allowing for consistency in scientific and religious thought. We no longer have to be choosing between the two camps. If they can be found to be consistent, we can resolve that conflict. Spiritual interest and religious thought have changed, too. We’ve watched the authority that I was talking about go from the rules of the church to the rules of science. Where, then, do we go?

I did a little KCBS radio thing not long ago which really sums it up for me, and it goes something like this, with apologies to Archie Bunker:

“Science has got our environment all fouled up,” said Archie Bunker.

And somebody says, “Oh no, it’s just technology that takes the findings of science and turns it to these uses which contaminate the environment and fouls it up.”

Somebody else says, “Oh no, technology wouldn’t be used that way if it weren’t for the greed of the business and economic concerns; in their desire to turn a buck, they’re the ones who really used that as a tool.”

And somebody else, (I can see in particular Bruce Coleman making this statement) saying, “No that greed would not be realized if it weren’t for the consumer who is willing to buy his product, and therefore play into his hand for the greed.”

And who’s the consumer? That’s you, that’s me, that’s each and every one of us. So what am I saying by that? I’m saying that the authority really comes back to each and every one of us. I don’t believe that any person, or any structure, really has authority except that which we vest in it. It’s like each and every one of us would have a little sack of authority, and we decide that we can give that sack of authority to this or that person. But when we do that, we turn the responsibility over to him, too, and he can become the scapegoat.

So, I say that’s a hot potato and we don’t like to handle that. Who wants to be responsible for his own life? One may have to answer to some pretty devastating questions.

I see that this growth in self-awareness is beginning to embrace the fact that we are responsible for our own lives. Are we going to choose to find some structure that’s going to make us feel comfortable? To find a position within that structure which has a viewpoint? To try to maintain that viewpoint so that it keeps us comfortable?

Is that the way, or instead are we going to decide to live with this uncomfortableness which will, perhaps, permit us to begin to expand that flashlight beam of awareness or be able to sense more of those trees in the woods?

I think that’s what is beginning to occur in the business of realizing oneself. I see that very neatly all of science and religion are involved in this because I do believe they are both attempting to determine truth. They’re both dealing with it.

There are interesting things that we do as part of our attempt to remain secure. One of these was talked about a great deal by Joseph Chilton Pearce, not in his first book, The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, but in his sequel to it, Exploring the Crack in the Cosmic Egg, in which he looked at enculturation as a process by which we attempt to make everybody like ourselves so we can remain comfortable, which is related to this structure building process.

One of the best techniques that we use is a technique called “guilting.” That’s the best one we can use for holding people in line. Why can we effectively use that as a manipulative tool? We can use it because it’s based upon that old emotional element that we all still harbor, and that’s called fear. We’re afraid to be different. We’re afraid to reach out, particularly when somebody’s going to put the finger of guilt upon us.

So I see then, the age is coming when we can shake off that fear. That’s probably not going to happen within our lifetimes, but I would like to suggest that there have been those individuals all the way down through human history who have been very self-aware individuals.

We find that the wisdom of the ages seems to be as correct then as it is now. Why is it that we still bother to repeat the follies of history? I think it’s because, as was earlier described, that perhaps in losing your sight you are able to see things you couldn’t see before.

What did Jesus mean when he said, “Those who have eyes to see; those who have ears to hear?” I can remember nodding academically, “that sounds correct” to hear some of the wisdom of the ages when I used to hear it in classes. How much more it means to me when I begin to experience it to the depths of whatever emotional capabilities happen to me. It’s like I never knew it before.

I have a very good friend who’s worked with me for a long time in the business of talking about science and accomplishments in space science, and back in those days. Both of us worked in the Morrison Planetarium in San Francisco, and we used to lecture about exactly how the program would go. The Mercury Program, the Gemini Program, and the Apollo Program, this is how we’re going to get to the moon. This is what the inside of the capsule will look like—these are the launch vehicles. It was easy to go through all the academic routine, and then suddenly when Apollo XI touched down on the moon and Neil Armstrong got out, this friend of mine said, “My God! That’s a real spaceship!”

Suddenly, the realization hit him as to what he’d been talking about all this time. He suddenly experienced it emotionally. I’m not quite sure, but I suspect that might be part of the rebirth process. If we really experience it emotionally, it becomes very difficult to continue to live a lie, or to go on in an expression, which has been averse to something we have learned emotionally. There’s nothing that’s learned as well as something that’s had an emotional revelation within.

So it is, then, that I see the growth into self-awareness is that kind of growth being able to “see” on a whole new level of comprehension and I see this as part of consciousness. I was thinking about what John was saying, communicating two days out of three with his wife. They were talking about biofeedback; maybe there is a consciousness feedback mechanism at work. Maybe we’re beginning to look at the fact that we can begin to experience each other on a level which is like that.
It certainly is obvious to all of us that language is a terribly cumbersome vehicle to use to communicate. By selection of the proper choice of words, we really hope to convey an idea. Most of the time we don’t manage to convey exactly the same idea or image that we have in our mind. It’s too bad we can’t circumvent that. Maybe in all the research going on with the brain, some way for all of this will be found.

At any rate, I find, personally, that almost everything that Christ said takes on new and deeper meaning. It doesn’t necessarily negate what I used to understand before but all of a sudden there’s a deeper, much richer meaning to everything he said, more insight belongs to it.

I was thinking in terms of some of the discoveries in science. Because Einstein has become the new father figure of science for the moment, does that mean that Newton is now deposed and what he said is no good? Not at all. It simply means that what Newton had to say explained, at that time, the data they had to work with, and still explains it. But it didn’t explain all the new data that came up, all the new discoveries; so Einstein was an enrichment.

I see, then, that we are in the process of continuing to climb, of discovering this mountain of truth, or existence, if I can call it that. Too bad I have to use something physical to describe it. But it’s like knowing that little bit, or going back to the closet mentioned earlier, where we have been watching that beam of light on one little thing, and then we slowly begin to realize that there are other things to see.

I would also like to suggest to you that the business of discovering is not a linear rate of climb. I think that once we begin to move that flashlight beam around and discover more and more things, it seems that the rate at which we begin to really expand is an exponential curve, that it grows quite fast. This is what I think the future is holding for mankind.

Down through history you can always find individuals who have had great amounts of self-awareness. The difference that I feel now is that a greater percentage of all mankind than ever before is achieving greater levels of self-awareness. This, I think, is happening. In other words, the base I beginning to expand and grow larger. That’s an exciting thing! As we being to do this, we are less subject to the manipulative ploys of such things as the structures, the guilting process. I see this is being manifested, too. People are beginning to think for themselves.

For instance, it was also mentioned in one of the talks earlier that the decisions involving science principles, Freon for instance, is one of those. The public will find out what it needs to know to make a decision. That says to me that more people are willing to take on the authority where it belongs, within. I think that’s a revelation in self-awareness.

We are beginning to move from this business of someone giving us an image of what we should be, and then attempting to make of ourselves that “should be.”

We’re beginning to accept the initial statement of I AM, and I accept where I am. I may want to change where I am, but “I am.”

And I can relate that very much to a self-awareness statement; also religiously I can relate that. When we do this, we begin to grow and love. We’ve heard it said over and over and over again, “God is love.” It occurred to me in one of the statements made earlier that maybe this is the principle that God is using, not in terms of violating his law, but the scheme is love, and he will always operate in love.

I think I was relating that to what was said about God operating in an anomalous fashion; out of the usual scheme of things. I don’t know that’s the case, but that’s the thought that went through my mind when it was mentioned. I find that seems to be the case as we begin to throw off fear; we begin to love ourselves, not in the ego sort of way, but in a selfless sort of way a confidence grows.

Other people we begin to tolerate much more easily; they don’t offend us because we have nothing to fight anymore; we are secure in where we are, they don’t threaten us.

I find it very strange in relating to all of my employees, and I’ve got the most diverse set of employees emotionally, working for me as anyone can, believe me.

And they even said to me the other day, “How in the world can I stand there and maintain the posture that I maintain in light of what’s going on all around me?”

Well, I would have to say it’s perhaps some growth in some spiritual insight, some growth in some spiritual values. That’s the only thing I can come up with. It allows me to see what’s happening, not condone it, but to still love them, love them as a person, not love what they do necessarily, but to love them, and such be able to work with it in a less explosive fashion.

I think the future is going to see even greater growth in the self-awareness. I think this is a way that we certainly seem to be destined to go. John was pointing out that Pierre de Chardin was talking about the noosphere and I think that he is in agreement with the same sort of thought that I am expressing there. I think mankind may find this to be the key to “Thy Kingdom Come, They Will Be Done.” I think that’s a sense of feeling that I have.

I suggest that as this happens, we will realize our deeper connections with the universe from within, which is also what Christ said, “that God would meet us within.” So all the attempts to externalize and remove ourselves from participation will slowly fade away. We may find ourselves participants in outer space only because we grow in inner space.