New article with amazing book suggestions on historical fantasy with natural magic! These are some of my very favourite books: I hope you'll check them out! Read the article here.





Posted by Mary-Jean comments (0)

 My new historical fantasy, Night of the Immortals, is now available on Amazon as an e-book and print book! 


ZACHARIAS SWANWICK, twenty-one years old and living in 19th century Bristol, England, has discovered a young man named Wyndor from another world. In this world of Erala, starlit beings called Velans dwell. Drawn to the mystery, Zacharias decides to help Wyndor find a Velan object that can return him to Erala and which is currently within a manor owned by a man named Jeremy Lipking. Without this object, Wyndor is slowly dying.

This object belongs to a group of Chinese spiritual adepts called the Lung Hsieh. Four members have come to Bristol from China to retrieve it and discover how someone could have stolen it when it was so heavily guarded. The presence of this object in the city has drawn Dragon Kings, misty spirits following the Lung Hsieh, to sweep through Bristol. Although they are invisible, they emanate a chilling presence in their wake and have been gaining strength. Jeremy Lipking’s daughter, Arianna, finds herself drawn to one of the members of the Lung Hsieh and pledges herself to help find the object before it is too late.

Throughout his adventures with Wyndor, Zacharias learns more about the powers inherent in other worlds and dreams, and he comes to make a decision that will change his life forever.



The sequel to Aizai the Forgotten, Shadows of Aizai, is almost here! If you pre-order an e-book copy from Amazon or Barnes and Noble, send me your order receipt and you will receive a FREE e-book (format of your choice) of the first book, Aizai the Forgotten.

 Send receipts to maryjean_harris@yahoo.ca or through Facebook.


Historical fantasy is just what it sounds like: fantasy set in a historical time period. Or you could think of it as a historical tale with fantasy elements. It depends on the author as to which side of the coin they focus on. Personally, in my writing, I usually focus on fantasy and have it take place in a historical setting. This isn't a blog about promoting my writing though; it is about writing in general, and so I'm going to explore why historical fantasy is so appealing compared to, say, high fantasy and urban fantasy. Of course, everyone has different tastes, but for me and many other readers, historical fantasy is our pet.

 I find that fantasy often "fits" better when it is written in the past, in a time where things are less known, where people have not yet explored, and where you can't find someone with technology in an instant. The mystery of the past lends itself to the mystery of fantasy, that mystery where you can wonder about something unknown, something magical or wonderful. Most places in the past were uncharted ("terra incognita"), and even if they were known, you could find wide spaces of land where no one has ever been. The mystery of past ages with magic and sorcery and secret philosophies…all these things are very exciting!

 In most urban, contemporary, or futuristic fantasy, some of that mystery is lost. The way the world works is better known, and so what might have once had a mysterious, magical element is lost to a scientific or technological explanation. A streaking fairy light becomes a comet, a scrying mirror becomes Skype. Of course, science fiction has its own sort of wonder and mystery, and this can be blended with fantasy, but there is also a sense of spirituality and higher dimensions of power and the mind that can be explored in fantasy in a different way. This can also be blended with religions and philosophies of the past to create a fantasy that is rooted in ancient cultures. You can reinterpret spiritual principles and see how they can be modified to create a fantasy of your own, a fantasy that seems to grow out of the historical time period in which it takes place. I personally like to do this with philosophy: for instance, the Buddhist philosophy of other worlds and bodhisattvas lends itself immediately to fantasy, as well as Plato's allegory of the cave [that's a hint for Shadows of Aizai!].

 In principle, fantasy can be set in any location: an entirely fantastical land, the present day, and anything in between. All that must be present is magic in some form or other, something beyond that which is explained by science and so-called rational explanations. Although I also love a good high fantasy (fantasy set in another world), perhaps one of the draws of historical fantasy is that if it happens in the world we know, there is a greater sense of reality to it. Of course, we know that the author added fantasy elements to their book, but to have some parts of the story real, like the setting or perhaps some of the characters, gives us an anchor to the world we know and so makes it a mystery to solve about our own world rather than one entirely foreign to us. And if such magic happened in the past, then why not now, in the present? It is all part of being put under a spell by the author's writing, being led into their world that, in many ways, resembles the historical past, but also includes fantastic elements that draw the reader to a sense of wonder and possibility of magic not only in the characters' lives, but in our own.

 Some of my favourite historical fantasy novels are Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy (actually 4 books, but whatever), The Infernal Devices by Cassandra Clare, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke, Wildwood Dancing by Juliet Marillier, This Dark Endeavour by Kenneth Opal, The Invisible Order by Paul Crilley, The Once and Future King series by T.H. White, The Crown's Game series by Evelyn Skye, and Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus Trilogy (also actually 4 books).

 Though you can draw inspiration from historical novels too, especially the Classics. For example, you can't do much better than read Alexandre Dumas' Musketeers series (there are 5 books in all) and The Count of Monte Cristo. If you think Game of Thrones is thick with plots, intrigue, and many point of view characters, then take a look at Monte Cristo. It's definitely one of my all-time favourite books.

 So when you read your next historical fantasy book, try to imagine the general story being told in another setting. Would it be possible, or is the story so tied to the setting that it would be out of place in another time or location? If the answer is no, it is not possible, then that is what true historical fantasy is about: fantasy tied to the historical time period to make it real and to bring the plot alive.

One of the greatest religions and philosophies is Taoism, an ancient philosophy initiated in China by the teachings of many sages, the most famous of whom was Lao Tzu. There is so much amazing philosophy in Taoism, but for today, I’ll just look at the concept of reversals, as illustrated in this quote:


From Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching (6th century B.C.):
“The sage, putting himself in the background, is always to the fore. Remaining outside, he is always there. Is it not just because he does not strive for any personal end, that all his personal ends are fulfilled?”

The basic principle in the universe according to Taoism is, of course, the Tao. Although it isn’t possible to understand the Tao with discursive thinking (sequential thoughts one after another), we can get at least some idea of what it is by describing it as the source of all being. It is not being itself, and so is nonbeing. It is “the beginning of Heaven and Earth.” There is nothing that is not within the Tao, yet the Tao cannot be described as any particular thing. Thus, it is not correct to call it by any name, because we can only name things that are determinate with certain qualities. For example, we can call a certain creature a dog if it has the nose, ears, tail, etc. characteristic of dogs, but the Tao has no such characteristics. Thus, it is only called the “Tao” as a way of identifying it, though “it” is not really a thing at all. To grasp it fully would mean transcending thought and existence as we know it: becoming one with it and so becoming one with everything in the universe.

One important principle that a potential sage must understand before they are able to achieve such enlightenment the law of reversals. In nature, we see reversals happening all the time: the seasons, going from hot to cold and wet to dry; a thrown stone going to is maximum height then falling to its lowest point on the earth. This also happens in the human world: people and nations rising to a height of power and then collapsing to destruction. Such reversals are all in accordance with the Tao and the laws of the universe.

The knowledge that both times of turmoil and times of bounty will not last can help to bring wisdom when we accept them as facts of life. It will bring us hope in our darkest times, and it will help us remain modest and not given in to hubris in times of triumph. The true sage does not let him or herself be carried away by the events of the world, the “wheel of fortune” that is ever turning and changing the fates of everyone from the lowliest beggar to the most exalted king. Unlike most of the people caught up in striving to attain their own ends, as we saw in the quote, the sage does not strive for any of this. Yet he still attains his personal ends. How is this possible?

Well, how many times have we striven to our utmost to achieve something, fighting our way to our goal, only to fall short? This could be the very problem, the fighting to get it, which is unnatural, rather than flowing along a more natural route that is in accordance with our natures as human beings. Of course, with the constant flux of fortunes due to the laws of the world, it is not possible for anyone, not even a sage, to always get what they want, but it is possible to turn the balance to be successful more often than not. The sage does not want to obtain riches, but to live tranquilly and benefit others. Such objectives are in accordance with the nature of human beings, and so we should not have to fight to get them. If we do not act with artificiality, we can achieve much and not tire ourselves out with unnatural action. This is the idea of “no action” espoused by Taoists: it is not about doing nothing, but doing nothing that is contrary to nature, both human nature and the nature of the world around us.

We are also told: “Diminish a thing and it will increase. Increase a thing and it will diminish.” This may sound paradoxical, but if we think about it in terms of the law of reversals, it makes more sense: when something reaches its extreme, it will head in the other direction. A tree starts as a tiny seed, it progresses to grow upward as it matures, and then when it reaches old age, it becomes weaker and is more prone to decay and destruction by natural events. It will then decompose and the cycle will start again.

When it comes to human beings, what exactly constitutes one’s “limit” is up to interpretation. If, for example, we believe that we are rich and famous and at the pinnacle of our achievements, this arrogance will set a limit in itself: from here, the only place to go is downward. If instead we are humble and do not let ourselves be consumed with greed and arrogance, we will be able to attain more. If we are meek and preserve our strength, we will be able to be strong: if you already think yourself to be a strong person, why would you try to improve? This does not mean that we should be discontent with what we have, but to recognize our own failings and so leave room for improvement. If we don’t think we can improve, we will not, because our mind will set up a barrier to any further improvement. If you believe that something is possible, and if it is in accordance with the laws of the world, it will be. If we have too many desires, we will go against our natures in attempts to fulfill them, and so will easily be discontent.

So by living in accordance with the law of reversals, we can achieve a more tranquil life, taking a step toward understanding the Tao and uniting with it, the ultimate goal of the sage. What may seem like paradoxes are often great truths, such as “The conquest of the world comes invariably from doing nothing.” When we realize that our nature requires only simplicity, we can come closer to achieving a truer source of happiness and fulfillment.

The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote a wonderful set of Stoic meditations, and although they have been compiled into a book, they had originally been intended for himself to practice in his daily life. I recently finished reading the book and there are so many amazing parts of it, but I'll just pick one main quote to focus on for today.

From Marcus Aurelius's Meditations (~161 - 180 AD):
“Keep this refuge in mind: the back roads of your self. Above all, no strain and no stress. Be straightforward. Look at things like a man, like a human being, like a citizen, like a mortal. And among the things you turn to, these two:
i) That things have no hold on the soul. They stand there unmoving, outside it. Disturbance comes only from within--from our own perceptions.
ii) That everything you see will soon alter and cease to exist. Think of how many changes you've already seen."

I'm not going to get into any historical details about Marcus Aurelius and Stoicism, but if you're interested I'd definitely suggest looking it up. There's a lot in the quote, but the heart of it is really simple. All the events that happen around us are no more than sensations and events: they have no real value apart from what we give them. "Disturbance comes only from within": it is the importance that we ascribe to them that causes us to be stressed, angry, or grieved. The truth is that things just happen. The world follows natural laws and we have very little control over our surroundings and the actions of others. What we do have control over is our mind. We can control our own actions and how we view the world. If we see the world fraught with emotions, with the ability to cause us pain, fear, happiness, etc, rather than bare sensations to make of as we will, then we will be constantly plagued by the vicissitudes of the world.
For example, let's say you break your leg. There is real pain--that is a sensation of the body which we can't control--but to look on it as a tragedy, or at least, a huge inconvenience, and to remain bitter that you can't go out and do things while others enjoy the summer, arises from our minds. We can choose not to experience these feelings: we can't choose to be unbothered by the pain of our broken leg: it's an event that has already happened and we can't change the past. But we can accept it, and move on to more important things. Something else Marcus said about pain is that "pain is neither unbearable nor unending, as long as you keep in mind its limits and don't magnify them in your imagination"--quite true, because in the scheme of things, this little experience is neither important nor long-lasting. Even if it was long-lasting, there is still no need let it affect you because there is nothing you can do to change it and to let it sap both your physical and mental energies is not necessary.
What is worth keeping in mind are these three keys: "Objective judgement...unselfish action...willing acceptance...of all external events." In the case of pain, the objective judgement says that you can't change the past, so there is no benefit in feeling any negative emotions toward it. The unselfish action is to not affect others by your pain, and the best way to do that is to not be disturbed by it yourself, since we all know that the state of our minds affects the people around us. And lastly, the most important part, is willing acceptance of all external events--good or bad. It is only by accepting what we can't change that we can focus on what we can and so actually succeed in life. It's about placing importance on things that matter. It might even be helpful to make a list of things we can't change and things we can, just to put things into perspective. Because when it comes down to it, what we can change is within our mind--our outlook--and what we can't is everything else that happen around us. To be able to go from saying "It's unfortunate that this has happened" to "It's fortunate that this has happened and I've remained unharmed by it--not shattered by the present or frightened of the future. It could have happened to anyone. But not everyone could have remained unharmed by it...the thing itself was no misfortune at all; to endure it and prevail is great good fortune."

In order to actually carry these practices out, what is important is to have strength of mind. The strength to see things for what they are and not get blown away by the unexpected, or even the dreaded expected. To "no longer be shocked by everyday events--as if they were unheard-of aberrations." If we see things in the light of their significance, and "that everything you see will soon alter and cease to exist," then we will not cling to the impermanent, will not lament about the ever-changing fortunes of the world that come your way. These basic principles of Stoicism are the same as Buddhism: if we cling to the impermanent, we will suffer, and the only way to go beyond that is to develop a strength of mind which, in the Stoic case, is focused on knowledge and clarity of thinking, and in the Buddhist case, on meditation and enlightenment, though they both overlap: Stoics can strive for enlightenment and Buddhists develop intellectual skills as well. They also both focus on the fact that the place of an individual is in society so that he or she can help others, a universal duty for everyone.

 I hope that this little bit of Marcus Aurelius's philosophy can help inspire you in your daily life. Even just a little shift of mind and perspective can lead to great effects, so that eventually, we can "be like the rock that waves keep crashing over. It stands unmoved and the raging of the sea falls still around it."


[*I also have another Stoic post from last year that builds off similar ideas.]




When we try to understand what the universe and people really are, we come up against a stumbling block. We can understand that we and the world around us are physically made of particles, but the fundamental nature of these building blocks still eludes us. What is a particle really? What is a thought, and how is it connected to the matter making up our bodies? We can certainly find correspondences with thoughts to certain parts of our brain, but they might be no more than impressions that the mind, which we cannot really understand, exerts on the body. I’ve recently been reading a book that addresses some of these issues, and that’s what I’ll quote from today. It’s quite an ambitious book: the author says in the preface that the goal of his work is to “harmonize the revelation of the Spirit and the faith of the Christ with science,” and that if he succeeds in this task, he shall “reveal the mystery of all religion, the key to all scientific knowledge, and shall unveil the mystery of life and the means by which men may conquer death and thus be saved and become saviors of the people from the cause of their suffering and death.” (!) That’s probably the most ambitious goal of a book I’ve ever read, but even if it falls short of its goal, which I’m nearly certain it will, it’s still an illuminating book that’s worth reading!

 From H.E. Butler’s The Goal of Life, or Science and Revelation (1908):
“If…all is mind and all is the product of the Creative Word, then we are compelled to recognize in all these activities of the universe the functioning of mind."

 Whatever force or god created the universe, there was at one point in time a beginning, and, in the quote above, it is expressed as the ‘Creative Word.’ Butler also says that “the will being simply a force acting in obedience to the thought, and thought being form and order, then, to the end that there may be order in any form, there must be a mind to direct the force, for in all nature’s activity order is the direct manifestation of the mind.” Such a center of activity, called a “mind-center|, contains a will, a center from which action and organization emerges in the world around it. This is a kind of force comparable to the physical force of, say, gravity, except to control it involves a highly developed mind that can understand itself and the thoughts and wills around it. Of course, as humans we cannot simply change things by willing it (not usually, at least), but higher beings may be able to connect to the world directly with their minds and could be certainly be these “mind-centers” from which real change can occur. From here, it isn’t a huge step to extrapolate to see that God can be thought of as a mind-center as well, the mind-center from which such lesser mind-centers originated.


Butler says that this is the origin of the phrase in the Bible that “God created man in his own image.” If, then, God created the universe and we are his image, then everything is a kind of “mind-element” of God. So, to a lesser degree, we as mind-centers can also create “universes,” as could other intelligent beings on other worlds. Butler also says that “the bodies of these humanities are mind-centers brought into manifestation by their controlling center which holds in unity all its worlds, controls every action and keeps them ever revolving through space around itself, their governing center.” So we have something like a fractal: we are mind-centers who were created by a greater mind center (the “controlling center” in the quote above), and after a sufficient period of evolution, we too may be able to create a lower level of mind-centers. And going the other way, the god that created us might just be one of many mind-centers created by a higher god, and so on. Indeed, Butler talks about the Elohim, who are enlightened individuals who have attained union with God and who created our world and possibly others. He talks a lot about the existence of other worlds, and looks at the possibility that other planets in the universe harbor life. Regarding the Elohim, he says that “they have reached heights of attainment so far beyond the possibility of our conception that they have become the Creators, Preservers and Rulers, not of this earth alone, but probably of the whole solar system.”
By turning our “thought and aspiration” toward what is above us and to be “able to give free expression to the life that animates” them, we can truly become an image of the Elohim, to possess true free will to be able to recreate not just ourselves but the world around us. For “the life of man is the same life—on a lower plane—as that which animates Yahveh Elohim [this is the Elohim].” There is the microcosm and the macrocosm: our personal world around us as well as the universe of which we are a part. Ultimately, they reflect each other: the same laws of the universe and the structures within it exist on all levels. Although the book is primarily philosophical and religious, we can see this in science as well: in quantum mechanics, the physics of the very tiny atoms that make up all matter and energy, experiments have shown that we can influence matter with our thoughts, and although at this stage it is in a very primitive sense, such as influencing the outcome on a random number generator to give higher or lower results, or having patterns in water reflect our emotions, it is the first step in evolving to be more like creators of our world rather than just inhabitants within it.

 Once people reach a sufficient state of knowing, of understanding the laws of the universe, both those that govern the physical and spiritual worlds, they may be able to transcend these laws. If we understand how something works, our species can eventually evolve to go beyond it. This is the same as when you learn anything: you master a certain level in, say, a video game, then you can go to the next one where entirely new opportunities arise that you couldn’t have imagined while on the previous level. This is reminiscent of the cycle of worlds in esoteric Buddhism (I talked about it in a previous post), and also in Butler’s book, there is specific mention of “higher planets” and “the elder worlds” that have already evolved to this higher state and are untraceable to us now. For if they are so advanced and spiritual, they could be beyond the physical senses we possess, i.e. “There may be worlds that have become so spiritualized as to be beyond the perception of worlds upon lower planes of existence.

 So returning to the quote, every law, every world, in the universe is an expression of the thoughts of a higher being: possibly the highest God or a less powerful god who created this universe rather than all of existence. And if all things, including us as well as matter, are all thoughts, then we are all connected in this web, something of a cosmic mind that exists at a higher level of reality. Whether any of this is true probably can’t be determined until we take further steps along our evolution not only as human beings, but spiritual beings living in a universe that we can come to understand and ultimately control. But eventually, I think it is very likely that we shall.






At long last, Aizai the Forgotten is now an audiobook! It is available on Audible and Amazon here. I'm also giving away free review copies, so if anyone is interested in reviewing the audio, please send me an email (maryjean_harris@yahoo.ca)!
Thanks!
~Mary-Jean

My novella Perilous, an Arthurian story told from the Holy Grail's point of view, is now available to read! You can get a copy here: https://kellan-publishing.selz.com/item/perilous

Today I'd like to share a passage from Marcus Aurelius's Meditations that is particularly insightful (Marcus Aurelius was a Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher). I'm not going to explain it or talk about it because it's self-explanatory, though certainly very useful:

 From Meditations, Book Nine, 42:
"When you run up against someone else's shamelessness, ask yourself this: Is a world without shameless people possible?
No.
Then don't ask the impossible. There have to be shameless people in the world. This is one of them.
The same for someone vicious or untrustworthy, or with any other defect. Remembering that the whole class has to exist will make you more tolerant of its members.
Another useful point to bear in mind: What qualities has nature given us to counter that defect? As an antidote to unkindness it gave us kindness. And other qualities to balance other flaws.
And when others stray off course, you can always try to set them straight, because every wrongdoer is doing something wrong--doing something the wrong way.
And how does it injure you anyway? You'll find that none of the people you're upset about has done anything that could do damage to your mind. But that's all that "harm" or "injury" could mean. Yes, boorish people do boorish things. What's so strange or unheard-of about that? Isn't it yourself you should reproach--for not anticipating that they'd act this way? The logos gave you the means to see it--that a given person would act a given way--but you paid no attention. And now you're astonished that he's gone and done it. So when you call someone 'untrustworthy' or 'ungrateful,' turn the reproach on yourself. It was you who did wrong. By assuming that someone with those traits deserved your trust. Or by doing them a favor and expecting something in return, instead of looking to the action itself for your reward. What else did you expect from helping someone out? Isn't it enough that you've done what your nature demands? You want a salary for it too? As if your eyes expected a reward for seeing, or your feet for walking. That's what they were made for. By doing what they were designed to do, they're performing their function. Whereas humans were made to help others. And when we do help others--or help them to do something--we're doing what we were designed for. We perform our function."

In just under a month, my fantasy novella Perilous will be available to read. You can pre-order it here.

 What's the novella about?
It follows the history of the Sangreal (the Holy Grail) from the Sangreal's point of view. It is a spirit trapped inside a jewel forged by the Archangel Lucifer and fallen to Earth during the war in Heaven. Perilous is primarily an Arthurian story, following the half-Archangels Merlin and Nimue whose lives become tied to the Sangreal and the fate of the kingdom.






In a previous blog entry, I quoted from The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and today, I’ll look at something else in the book, since it’s a really fascinating book with lots in it (though you don’t have to have read the previous post to understand this):

From The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler (1988):
“Unified theories also show us why we observe the World to be governed by a variety of ‘fundamental’ forces of apparently differing strengths: inevitably we must inhabit a low-temperature world…and at these low energies the underlying symmetry of the World is hidden.”



Before getting into the real idea of this, this picture gives the basic idea of what we'll be looking at:



Cutlery aside, there are four known forces in nature: gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Although they usually seem to have very different effects on the substances they act upon, in some circumstances, these forces can be united. For example, I’ve already called the electric and magnetic forces a united “electromagnetic force,” which is because what on large scales looks like two forces is in reality just one. This is evident at small scales when you go down to the level of particles or in certain circumstances on larger scales. For example, there are electromagnetic waves (photons, or particles of light, are a kind of electromagnetic wave), whereas on larger scales, we usually see different aspects of electromagnetism with, say, magnetism in a bar magnet and electricity in the powering of our houses. Other forces also exhibit this underlying unity. The electromagnetic and weak force are often just called the “electroweak force,” representing a further level of unification at higher energies.

The key point to remember is that higher energies mean smaller scales: so if you go inside atoms and probe fundamental particles, that will be at higher energies and temperatures than, say, the energy of a baseball flying through the air, despite the fact that it’s a lot bigger. Early in the history of the universe, energies and temperatures were much higher than they are now, and that is when these forces would be truly unified. This might be easier to grasp if you think of nuclear fusion and fission: there’s a lot of energy stored up inside atoms, as we can see with nuclear bombs that use only a small amount of matter but release huge amounts of energy.

In many physics theories, these are only the first hints of what is known as grand unification, which is not, as it sounds, some political scheme for world domination, but the unification of the physical forces at high enough energies. The ideas is that at low energies, we see these forces as separate, just like with, say, electricity and magnetism, but as you go up to higher energies, which represent smaller scales and smaller particles, these forces unite. Although we haven’t observed it yet, this means that the strong force will also join forces with the electroweak force to form a single “grand unified force” (“electrostrongweak”, perhaps?) at energies of about 10 to the power of 16 GeV (a GeV is a giga-electron volt. It’s big, let’s just say. And 10 to the power of 16 is 10 followed by 16 zeros. Also big). There are many different theories that can realize this unification, and they are all called Grand Unified Theories, or GUTs. This can be seen in terms of group theory: for example, the electroweak force is called a SU(2) x U(1) and the strong force is SU(3), so combining them gives SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) = SU(5).*1 That’s not so important, but what is important is that this SU(5) force acts as its own force, not simply a patchwork of the other forces, but something different entirely. This is the hidden “underlying symmetry” mentioned in the quote: although, fundamentally, all forces are the same, they split up when the universe cooled to lower energies and so we usually observe them as distinct, whereas they are actually united, forming a larger symmetry that we can now only observe when we collide particles at very high energies to recreate conditions similar to the early universe.


As can be seen in the picture above, the three forces converge at high energies.*2  This means that their strengths become equal, and we can see them as being the same force. The strong force, then, decreases in strength as you go to smaller and smaller distances, whereas the electromagnetic and weak forces increase in strength until they meet up.*3 This is very important because if the strength of the strong force didn’t decrease, it would never meet up with the electroweak force and would never be united.

Gravity, however, is a slightly different story. The electromagnetic, strong, and weak forces all act on very small scales (of course, we observe electromagnetism on larger scales too, but it’s also very strong on the scales of elementary particles), but gravity is usually negligible for elementary particles, because it is so weak (weaker than the weak force, even). But at very high energies, at what is called the Planck scale (10 to the power of 19 GeV), it is thought that gravity will also be united with the other three, forming not a GUT this time, but a TOE (a Theory of Everything). Of course, even if we are able to work out a theory that united the four known forces, that doesn’t mean that we’ll have a TOE: there may still be many things left out, such as other forces, other dimensions, souls, etc. But uniting gravity with quantum mechanics (the other 3 forces that act on a small scale) would certainly be a big step forward.

So that’s the basic physics idea behind GUTs and TOEs. But if we take it a step further, it could be possible that this is only a small segment of a larger process that occurs in the universe. Take one of our “separate” forces, say, the strong force. What if that force is really the unification of other forces that have already merged? It would then be a more basic force than they are, but would split when the universe cooled to lower temperatures. You could go the other way around too. After gravity, when you have your TOE force (sounds awful, I know. I’ll call it the Everything-1 force, or E-1), there could be other forces that could merge with it too. So as you go to higher and higher energies, ones that are hardly imaginable now but that we may reach in the future, you could get an Everything-2 force (E-2), then an E-3 force, and so on.


This could also tie into the notion of higher dimensions, whether physical dimensions, such as adding a new “direction,” or a spiritual dimension that encompasses a higher level of existence, like a more enlightened state where things are less bounded by restrictions imposed by matter. What appears to be many forces here can in fact be united under a universal law when you are at higher energies or some form of higher state. As usual, the analogy of the glass prism works perfectly here: you have a very basic force that acts on everything, say E-100, and that splits into multiple forces as you go to lower levels of being, just like white light is split into colours as it passes through a prism. All the more particular forces, like all the colours, are all just aspects of E-100, but won’t be united unless they pass back through a converging prism that reunites them.

This ties right into Plato’s Forms: the more complex Forms derive from simpler ones that are more fundamental. These continue splitting as you go to lower levels of existence until you reach the world here, where there are particular objects that partake in many of the individual Forms. To reach enlightenment, one must ascend to higher levels of existence and eventually become one with the higher Forms. This is common in Neoplatonism, where the goal is to ascend to the One, which is the highest level of being. This can also be seen in Buddhism: the more enlightened one becomes, the simpler one’s existence is. Matter is much more complicated than the Forms, and the lower Forms are much more complicated than the higher ones of, say, Number, Symmetry, Beauty, and Motion (for instance, a moving baseball is much more complicated than Motion in general, because Motion is not a particular motion, but the source that all instances of motion derive from). In understanding and becoming in tune with the higher Forms, you can return to the source of all those levels of existence below you and be able to understand them in a unified way rather than as fragmented from one another.


So from a philosophical point of view, the ideas from GUTs and TOEs belong to a more universal pattern of getting to a more fundamental source, whether that is a more basic physical law or a higher spiritual existence, and thus, it will hopefully lead to a more comprehensive view of our universe. But the question is, where does it stop?




*1 There are other options too, such as SO(10), but that’s not important for the concept here. For those who are interested, S = Special (determinant for the matrices in the group = 1), U = Unitary, O = Orthogonal, and the number in brackets is the order of the group. So you have 2 x 2 special unitary matrices in SU(2).

*2 The picture is slightly deceptive because it doesn't show electromagnetism and the weak force uniting before converging with the strong one.

 *3 The reason that the electromagnetic force’s strength is greater at smaller distances is because of virtual particles. Electrons can emit virtual photons that can then turn into positron-electron pairs (a positron is an anti-electron). The positrons, being of a positive charge, are attracted to the original electron and screen its charge by cancelling some of it off with their positive charge. At larger distances, there are more of these pairs, and so the force is screened more, but as you get closer and closer to the electron, there is less screening, and so the strength of the force increases on smaller scales, which is at high energies.

I just finished reading War in Heaven by Charles Williams, which is now one of my favourite books, so I thought I'd give a brief book review to share what I thought of it and hopefully convince more people to read it. Note that I'm not giving away any major spoilers, and although there are some things I mention that happen later in the book, it won't ruin the story to know them ahead of time.

***


This was an AMAZING book! I'm surprised it isn't more well known. It had an exciting plot, the characters were great, it was very insightful, suspenseful, and it was beautifully written. It blended mystery with adventure and the occult, and the setting of England in the 1930s gave a quaint, homely feel to it that nicely complemented the otherworldliness of the Holy Grail and the strange occult rituals Gregory and co. were engaged in. The whole story, in fact, was a blend of everyday reality with a supernatural world that lies both hidden within it and beyond it. Most of the characters worked at a publishing house, and besides Gregory and the Archdeacon, none of the main characters had any connection to the supernatural before the events of the story began. I didn't find the book at all creepy or over the top in any manner, but there were definitely uncanny parts to it.

 Although the book itself wasn't creepy, the villains-- Gregory Persimmons, Manasseh, and the unnamed "Greek"--were all extraordinarily creepy people. I liked how Gregory became one of the main characters though, because although he really has no morals, he is still a fascinating character. It was just so fun being in his head as a reader and seeing him plot out his evil plans while others remained unaware. The fact that he isn't as powerful and vindictive as Manasseh and the Greek makes him a more realistic and multi-dimensional character and so is probably the most interesting character in the book. Other than him, I really liked Kenneth Mornington, and one of my favourite parts with him was when he confronted Gregory and was going to resign from his job at the publishing house. That part went: "Kenneth had an impulse to say that he resigned, and another to knock Gregory down and trample on him." The Archdeacon was also a great character, at the same time sublime and at peace with the universe but also getting flustered at hilarious trivialities. Also the way he would leap out and snatch the Grail and somehow get away with it was priceless. The inspectors were great fun too, in all their bafflement at solving the murder case and how Gregory, Lionel, etc. fit into it.

 Besides the characters, the story was very unique and the writing and descriptions often made me pause and think. It wasn't difficult to understand, but there were some amazing comparisons and descriptions that made me wonder "How did he think of that??" For example, describing the Archdeacon "glinting like a small, frosty pool" when he is acting cold and reserved. Also the quest for the Grail was not at all typical: the chalice they're all after was suspected to be the Grail but it isn't until later on in the story that anyone finds out that it definitely is. It was mentioned in the manuscript of an unpublished book and everyone really went off from that. And throughout the book, it is not the Grail itself that is important, but the connection with the divine that it represents. Hence why both Gregory and the Archdeacon are loathe to bring the police into the case, and why, at one point, Gregory, Manasseh, and the Greek work to destroy it remotely through some supernatural power.

There were also many philosophical ideas about religion, predestination, and the connection one can obtain with higher powers. Gregory was a particularly philosophical character in his own evil little way, well, I shouldn't say "little" because he really takes the whole universe into consideration and tries to connect with some dark demonic power (his "master") which he sees as someone/thing that will allow him to become a greater being. Lionel also had a very peculiar mentality. We saw more of him at the beginning of the book but then he fades to a more minor character later on. He has a deep-set fear of some unnamed horror that might emerge from the world around him and snatch his life or the lives of his family. It's as if he feels he needs to be prepared for a god to swoop down and blot them out of existence. He can never shake of the unearthly dread which for him seems to creep at the edge of ordinary life. When there is a murdered man found in his office and when his wife seems to be possessed, these fears are only confirmed. I feel like there could be a sequel with him as a main character because despite his odd ways of thinking, he's a very captivating character.

 Prester John (who is the caretaker of the Grail and somehow also the Grail) is also an interesting character. He is more remote and has a strange effect upon everyone who meets him. He seems to amplify the qualities in people that might have been hidden but that nevertheless define them. For those who are immoral (Gregory, his servant Ludding, etc), he seems to make them besot with hatred or revulsion, though it was very subtle so that didn't seem "magical" at all. As for those who are good, he amplifies those good qualities, or certain peculiarities like the talkativeness of Mr. Batesby. John is like a mirror that reflects one's spiritual condition and makes it clear to others, though the person in question might be unaware of how they appear themselves. Though I wouldn't call John a moral character himself. He's not human (at least, not any more, because I assume he's based on the actual Prester John) and so is beyond human morality of good and evil, which ties in to the predestination theme, in that he does what must be done in accordance with the order of the universe, and will not step up to save a life, for example. He is not a god who will fix their problems, but he will help them see more clearly so that they can choose the right path to follow. How he is related to the universe at large and if he is aware of the future (if it is even set) is not clear though.

 All in all, it was a great book, but although it was my cup of tea, I can understand that it might not be everybody's, so I wouldn't generally recommend it to everyone. However, I do think a lot of people would really enjoy this and that it is a delightful masterpiece.

"A Soul Wanderer never knows. He wanders; he makes his own path through the
heights of the universe."

-Sio Larwick


Follow Me on Pinterest

Mary-Jean's books

The Printer's Devil
The Crystal Cave
The Picture of Dorian Gray
The Lost Prince
The Fellowship of the Ring
The Hobbit
Rise of the Darklings
The Fire King
Clockwork Angel
Jane Eyre
Wuthering Heights
The Lost World
Around the World in Eighty Days
The Sum of All Men
Brotherhood of the Wolf
Wizardborn
The Lair of Bones
Sons of the Oak
Worldbinder
The Wyrmling Horde


Mary-Jean Harris's favorite books »
Powered by Blogger.

Copyright 2009 - The Soul Wanderers

Blogspot Theme designed by: Ray Creations, Ray Hosting.