For two reasons it is a delight and pleasure to be asked to provide
a Foreword to this remarkable book. - First, the human-field has been one
of my major research interests for over thirty years now, and the author
inquires at length into its remarkable intricacies.- But second, the manner
in which the author has constructed and presented his inquiry is
representative of a highly desirable way to think about things - and this
needs a brief explanation.
We might say there are two basic ways to think about things. In the
first instance, we might think of things from fixed points of view, a way
of thinking that is most prevalent. However, this manner of thinking might
be referred to as the "closed loop" type, since one ends up back where one
started - which is to say, ends up back at the fixed point of view.
Fixed points of view apparently result from adapting to believes,
attitudes, assumptions or sentiments people think are truly fundamental,
and as such cannot be challenged. This type of thinking makes it easier to
accept or reject information and phenomena. In other words, whatever fits
into the fixed points of view is accepted, while what does not fit is
rejected. But in a certain sense this is a lazy way of thinking, and more
or less defeats innovative progress when new factors truly need to be
considered.
In the second instance, we encounter a more invigorating and
rewarding way of thinking. It is a manner of thinking pertinent, for
example, to the problem-solver, the detective, the true scientist, the
inventor/innovator, perhaps even to the creative genius.
This manner of thinking has fascinated me for many decades. It is
understood to exist and has been referred to in various ways - although one
seldom sees pristine examples of it. For my own purposes, I´we dubbed it
"multiple-scenario" thinking. And it is this important type of thinking the
author of this book has used, perhaps intuitively, in presenting the
information in this book.
The basic distinction between closed-loop thinking and
multiple-scenario thinking is very important.
In closed-loop thinking, one proceeds from just one central scenario and
interprets every-thing according to that one scenario.
In multiple-scenario thinking one works to establish, independently
of ones favoured points of views, a large number of possible or probable
scenarios in order to contrast or recombine them.
The obvious advantage here is that ones thinking is extended beyond
limited points of view, a factor that is absolutely necessary in order to
achieve what might be called "creative" or "peak" thinking.
And if there has even been one, certainly Einar Thorsteinn has
created a pristine example of multi-scenario thinking - for this book
contains well over a thousand possible and probable scenarios regarding the
potentials and meaning of the human-field.
Einar Thorsteinn refers to his multiple scenarios as "hypotheses".
But that is what an hypothesis is: It is a scenario, hypothetical in
context, but possibly relevant and true, while both scenarios and
hypotheses remain to be seen as pertinent or not.
From the fixed-point-of-view thinking paradigm, one of the initial
drawbacks to multiple-scenario thinking is, that it might seem that
everything, including the kitchen sink, is being included. And it certainly
might at first look this way when superficially scrutinising so many of
Einar Thorsteinn´s hypotheses.
But the topic of the human-field is a complex one, and it is
doubtful in the extreme, that it can be reduced to just a few fixed ideas
about it. As to what the human-field IS, in the modern or contemporary
sense of how we think about things, it should be realises that less than
fifty years ago, the modern sciences of the West held that it didn´t exist.
However, advancing physics soon came to accept that "something" did
exist within, which the human bio-body was incorporated. And this
"something" was first described as having wavelength, frequencies,
bioelectric magnetism - all of which came to be equated with "energy".
So the human-field was at first considered to be an energy field.
This concept equated quite well with the earlier "non-scientific" concept
of the "energy-body", and which concept has a long multi-cultural tradition
dating back into antiquity.
But it is limiting to exclusively consider the human-field as an
energy body, for there may be more than one field. And as well, some
aspects of the field cannot be said to be energy-like, at least insofar as
we currently define energy. And indeed, energy itself is known to exist in
quite a number of formats, some of which cannot be measured against
material or conventional standards.
Most recently, beginning perhaps in the late 1960s, the human-field
was conceived as a bio-electromagnetic field, since certain, but not all,
components of the field could be seen to have relevance and relationship to
electromagnetism, especially concerning geo-electromagnetism.
However, if the relationship to electromagnetism were the only
aspect of the field, then the case would bee closed, and the field firmly
understood, defined and delineated. But with the precursors dating from the
1930s, it became understood during the 1980s that the human-field possesses
memory, or at least the near equivalent to it - a type of memory which is
now understood to bring about the unfoldment of our genetic materials.
Without this type of memory, our genes would not work, and we would not
exist at least in any concrete biological sense.
A further complexity, and one which has been considered a blessing
by many, is that our thinking and awareness processes clearly can
transcend, not only our biological but also energetic nature, and their
special predetermined patterns. And it is this aspect which especially has
been considered the chief hallmark of our species.
And it is at this point that our available nomenclature breaks
down, thereby increasing our difficulties, when it comes to articulating
what needs to be - except possibly in the case of inspired and inspiring
poets. It is to the author's credit in this regard that he has provided an
excellent Glossary, and which might be read before tackling the book
proper.
Perhaps the one sure thing that can be said about the human-field
is that it is an astonishing recombinant thing. Which is to say that it is
a shape-shift thing, entirely capable of recombining data and phenomena in
transforming ways. Of course, recombinant thinking is THE key to almost
everything, for without it, we would be more or less like stones on a
beach.
And it is this recombinant sense that no single discipline so far
can adequately tackle its essential nature, if indeed it has an essential
nature, in the sense of how we so far understand the concept of
"essential". Indeed, this book is very worth while reading if only to
experience a recombinant experience rather than a linear book which
presents data in a strict A to Z format.
Regarding all of the above, briefly mentioned, and all of the
"more" to come in the future as the human-field is unravelled, it is now
variously understood that the field consists of the largest panorama
confronting humans everywhere.
But it is also increasingly understood that this panorama will not
be resolved via one fell swoop, via one simplistic theory or hypothesis or
scenario. It can only be approached piece by piece, part by part,
ingredient by ingredient - while the increasing sum of them all results in
expansion of comprehension and understanding.
And something along these lines is the arduous, albeit majestic
task, Einar Thorsteinn has set himself to unfolding by presenting a
sequence of hypotheses each of which is meant to be recombined with the
others for whatever realisation and insights will be yielded to each
reader. Who in turn is a participant and therefore also a recharger of the
human-field.
It is well known that people drink from the well only as much as
they want. Einar Thorsteinn has provided a rather big and deep well - and
which can be returned to again and again.
Ingo Swann
New York - December 29th 1996
General Info - Contents - Foreword - Order - Excerpts - Links