Rumination 3; please read 1 and 2 before reading this

In a way that is possibly similar to the verbally disorienting but mathematically reliable formula  in quantum physics known as the wave-particle duality theory, perhaps it is reasonable to understand the soul (universal creative energy) as simultaneously one and the same on going eternal process which appears and is experienced as differentiated as it manifests itself in temporal functionality.

Relying upon the wave-particle duality theory to provide analogical acceptance, that verbal formulation would declare that the soul is always both universal and individual and only appears to be one or the other or non-existent depending upon the  verbal/cognitive construct used by the individual to process and try to make sense of a particular physical experience. The reality exists; how we understand it is determined by how we perceive it. Since our perception of reality determines our way of living into it, we establish a loop of behaviors that are re-enforcing until we encounter what we describe as a transformative experience and begin to develop a different loop of re-enforcing behaviors.

But even if we accept the ideas, one that the word “soul” is simply a synonym for the processes of creative energy manifesting itself into matter, and two, that we humans are simply another manifestation of this eternal process, and three, that the perception of an individual soul as distinct from the universal soul is just that, a perception, we are still left with the question as to whether or not anything related to a lifetime of identity development makes a lasting mark upon “our” soul.

I find my response to that question in a controversial and often overlooked experiment done in 1953 by an irreverent academic Dr. James McConell. For reasons I cannot discover, I’ve remembered this experiment for years. I do not know if the experiment has fallen into obscurity because it was so difficult to replicate or because Dr. McConell was so irreverent. Nor do I know why among all the experiments I’ve learned only to forget, I have remembered this one. Unless it was to find its place in what I am about to write.

Dr. McConell  taught a group of Planarian worms to run a maze. After they had improved their time about as much as they could, he chopped them up and fed them to another group. He then had that group and a control group run the maze. The control group took about the same amount of time to learn how to run the maze as the original group did. But the group that ingested the first group learned to run the maze much more quickly. The implication, without getting more scientifically specific than my own learning allows, is that the information was stored somehow in the bodies of the first group and stored in such a way that it became influential in the learning process of the group that ingested it.

Three thoughts emerge from the recitation of that experiment: one, the custom of ancient warrior tribes to eat the heart of a brave enemy in order to become more brave; two, the ritual of communion and the notion of the transmutation of (or symbolic representation) of the body and blood of Jesus in order to better lead the life of a dedicated disciple; and three, the possibility that we may leave some marks  of our personal identity upon our “portion” of the eternal soul. If that were so, than some kind of mutual recognition taking place in the “after life”, longed for within the funeral wrappings of so many of us, might find some kind of final fulfillment.



  1. David Lee · · Reply

    I am not sure if it is relevant, but let me blunder on. “Wave-particle duality theory” does not have to be “verbally disorienting” if it is explained in a different than I have read in various books.

    We are talking about light and how Einstein explained how in some circumstances, light can be in two places simultaneously. However, Einstein borrowed a devise from Max Plank. Plank solved a question about heat that is called “the blackbody problem.” Plank solved the problem mathematically by allowing light to be lumpy, though he made it clear he did not think light was made of lumps.

    Let me blunder further. When you say the soul is both universal and individual, another idea from Einstein might be helpful. Einstein did not name his theories “relativity”. He called his theories the opposite, “invariance.” (Newton said all speeds are relative.) Einstein held that the speed of light was fixed, and every other speed was relative to it.


    Einstein didn’t solve the question about light mathematically, but asserted that in the physical world, light was actually made of “packets of waves” and said the packets (particles) were of the length of the frequency of light times Plank’s constant or 6.626 X 10 (to the power of -34) joule seconds (a measure of energy extended over time.)

    My understanding is that for quantum field theory, particles have won the day, even if they come up with zannies like “virtual particles”.

  2. David — I think your corrections are, indeed, enlightening.

    But a bit unfair.

    I think the bottom line of this particular blog is: the early worm gets the bird!

  3. David Lee · · Reply

    I certainly made a mess of my previous message. In the future, I shouldn’t do a quickie before I rush to work. However, I am not certain about Rumination 1’s , “If you substitute “energy” for soul there is no dispute about immortality.” As a hard-core idealist, I don’t think we know what energy is.

    Einstein himself may agree. He first wrote the quoted equation as M=E/c(squared). I am told that that is inelegant. Further, I have heard the conjecture that Einstein’s “failure” during the second half of his life was because he tried to become a good mathematician and threw out his workable “thought experiments”. However, when he settled on the E=mc(squared) he may not have only been trying to make his formula look slick, but also he emphasized that we need to understand what is energy.

  4. David Lee · · Reply

    More trivia from Dave.

    James McConnell suffered a severe and permanent hearing loss when he became a victim of the Unabomber (? 1984). Also, I don’t know the source, but in the 1960s, he held that America was going to be programmed by psychoactive chemicals and he supposedly would say that he preferred being the programmer than one programmed. Maybe his prediction has come true. I know nothing about his work except, as you said, he thought memory was chemically based. Memory RNA.

  5. David Spector · · Reply

    A little knowledge is dangerous thing indeed!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: