Log24

Journal of Scientific Exploration,
Vol. 18, No. 4 (2004), pp. 547-570
"Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality"
Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
Princeton University 
D-334 Engineering Quadrangle
School of Engineering/Applied Science

"… Consequently, the inferred models of reality are limited to those substances, processes, and sources of information that constitute conventional contemporary science.

In this paper we ally ourselves with the sharply contrary position that there exists a much deeper and more extensive source of reality, which is largely insulated from direct human experience, representation, or even comprehension. It is a domain that has long been posited and contemplated by metaphysicians and theologians, Jungian and Jamesian psychologists, philosophers of science, and a few contemporary progressive theoretical physicists, all struggling to grasp and to represent its essence and its function. A variety of provincial labels have been applied, such as 'Tao,' 'Qi,' 'prana,' 'void,' 'Akashic record,' 'Unus Mundi,' 'unknowable substratum,' 'terra incognita,' 'archetypal field,' 'hidden order,' 'aboriginal sensible muchness,' 'implicate order,' 'zero-point vacuum,' 'ontic (or ontological) level,' 'undivided timeless primordial reality,' among many others, none of which fully captures the sublimely elusive nature of this domain. In earlier papers we called it the 'subliminal seed regime,' (2,3) but for our present purposes we shall henceforth refer to it simply as the 'Source.' "*

References:

2. Jahn, R. G., & Dunne, B. J. (2001). A modular model of mind/matter manifestations (M5). Journal of Scientific Exploration , 15(3), 299–329.
3. Jahn, R. G. (2002). M*: Vector representation of the subliminal seed regime of M5. Journal of Scientific Exploration , 16(3), 341–357.

Note:

* This assortment of contexts, labels, or models should not be regarded as mutually exclusive or hierarchical; nor are they isomorphic to one another. Rather, they represent different perspectives on the same basic search, and hence should be respected as collectively complementary. Where they reinforce one another, or display common features, this may indicate some degree of basic insight. Where they disagree on details, testable hypotheses may present themselves.