Biological and Clinical Observations

Force and field electromagnetic communication theory is not unique to biology, for how else can one explain the sonar and radar guidance mechanisms in the dolphin, salmon and the homing pigeon. How else can we explain how the centripetal and centrifugal forces discovered by Nobel laureate Karl von Frisch (1967, 1974) determine the communication and behavior of bees? Did not the analysis of a bee's unusual behavior enable von Frisch to analyze, dissect, and map out the manner in which a bee (1) smells the electromagnetic configuration called nectar, and (2) generates a "dance" or electromagnetic signal communicating the presence and site of nectar, via cosmically guided reference points and electromagnetic "servo­mechanisms" and "feedback circuits."

Professor von Frisch, now 86, has provided us with detailed knowledge of the extraordinary "language" of bees. By watching marked foragers returning to an observation hive, he concluded that the so-called round dance, in which the homecoming bee moves in a circle, making one or two turns to the left, then reversing to make one or two turns to the right, indicates to the other workers, which soon join in the dance, that a source of nectar has been discovered and will be found in association with the odour adhering to the forager. Another pattern of movement, the waggle dance, in which the forager circles then moves across the diagonal emphatically swinging its abdomen from side to side, transmits a much more complicated message. von Frisch discovered that the pace of the waggle indicates the distance from the nectar source, at ranges of 100–10,000 m. Moreover, the direction of the diagonal indicates the direction of the food source, to an accuracy of 3¡. When performed on a vertical surface the dance is even more complex, for the sun is then used as a reference point, and the position of the diagonal relative to the vertical corresponds to the position of the food source relative to the sun. So amazing is the bee's ability to navigate and so remarkable the elaborate coding and decoding of sensory impressions that it involves, that von Frisch's announcement of his early discoveries was greeted with considerable scepticism. The doubts were soon dispelled, but even now, 50 years after his first published work on bees, biologists are still puzzled about how animals find their way and how they use their physiological clocks to correct their bearings for the varying position of the sun. [Muir, 1973]

In retrospect, did not von Frisch discover the forces and fields shaping and determining the bee's "intentional" actions and speech functions? Is it possible that similar force and field mechanisms determine man's function and dysfunction? Are not man's circadian rhythms and clocks "confused" by rapid air flights across large distances with differing time and date meridians? Do we not minimize this "jet lag" by allowing our inner "somatic" rhythms and clocks to adjust to the changing electromagnetic fields operating in each geographic time sphere? Are we not subject to electromagnetic forces and fields? Are we not mere gravitation-dependent specks in the Cosmos? And is our movement, direction, and destiny not determined by our position in space?

In a paper entitled Communication and Empathy, Frank (1961) proposed that empathy in man is a functional, evolutionary derivative of olfaction. Via empathy, one can "smell out" or "tune into" people. In retrospect, it appeared to the author that such communication terms as "beaming in," "zeroing in," "getting a fix," and being "on the same waveá length" must have a "Freudian" symbolic neurodynamic and psychodynamic significance. Might not these terms symbolically indicate man's ability to project and receive electromagnetic signals? And has the latent, background, or unconscious "dream" significance and determination of these various linguistic expressions been denied access to scientific investigation and consciousness by virtue of intense scientific resistance forces motivated by "cosmic denial"?

Interestingly enough, schizophrenic and other psychotic individuals, regressing to the bedrock of their organismic origin, almost invariably develop delusions of being influenced by radio and/or television beams and vice versa (delusions of influencing others). At times, they blank out altogether and their thoughts are interfered with or filtered out of consciousness. How are we to comprehend these latent dream-like symptomatic derivatives?

The neurodynamic analysis of these delusions of influence were assumed, in retrospect, to suggest and represent symbolically the presence of primitive somatic receptive and projected electromagnetic signaling mechanisms in man similar to those described by von Frisch in the bee. Does this assumption not explain the meaning, significance, and universality of delusions of influence, reference, and interference? Would not the existence of electromagnetic signaling and communication mechanisms explain the grain of truth no doubt underlying extrasensory perception and phenomena.

Furthermore, if, indeed, mothers are "tuned into" their newborns by extrasensory mechanisms, have they also been chemically "tuned into" and synchronized with their embryos? Is the reverse true as well? Are embryos and infants tuned into their mothers via chemical and/or electromagnetic reverberating circuits? Have not adopted children been observed clinically and/or psychoanalytically to forever search for their "real" or lost parents (Levinson, 1966)? Do they not then by analogy resemble the homing pigeon or bee instinctively searching for, or tuned into, a specific electromagnetic lock-and-key configuration or gestalt? Is the never-ending search by orphaned children determined only by psychological factors? Or is this search determined by electromagnetic mechanisms as well? May externally induced electromagnetic desynchronization predispose some adopted children to emotional disorders in a manner similar to the method whereby emotional desynchronization may predispose children to neurotic, psychotic, and psychosomatic disturbances? Might we not envision emotional desynchronization, and the resulting illness, as an ontogenetic recapitulation of electromagnetic or phylogenetic desynchronization and illness?

May individuals with genetic, ontogenetic, or acquired traumatic or infectious defects in electromagnetic synchronization or "contact" be predisposed to schizophrenia and the primary nuclear schizophrenic symptom of estrangement-the inability to appropriately "fix" and "cathect," or "lock-in," human foreground objects externally, the inability to normally inhibit the expression of one's own somatic instinctual source, and thus the inability to resist foreground/background emotional and identity contamination, scrambling, and confusion.

As a result of this reasoning, the author assumed that the inability to harmoniously and meaningfully "fix" and cathect object relationships while maintaining normal background emotional separation results' in severe catastrophic identity confusion, anxiety, and a host of regressive neuropsychological responses-often to the bedrock of man's mental-somatic existence. Furthermore, the destabilization or desynchronization of emotional "fixation" and emotional "sequential tracking" or cathexis was assumed to result in a series of aphasic-like, typical schizophrenic speech disturbances, as well as compensatory neuropsychological attempts to regain one's bio-emotional equilibrium and mental balance.

In retrospect, it appears as if Freud's use of such terms and concepts as instinctual fixation, object cathexis, object relationships, energy discharges, displacements, projections, introjections, internalizations, condensations, symbolization, omission, and insertion clearly suggested his intuitive understanding of both centripetal and centrifugal energy forces in biomental functioning, development, and dysfunctioning. The author's combined neurodynamic and psychodynamic "pursuit" of the heretofore strange and unusual delusional symptoms of influence, reference, and interference, and his attempt to explain and harmonize this data with the biomental-emotional mainstream of man's existence and derivation from phylogenetic forms, has unexpectedly triggered a series of heretofore denied or repressed insights into (1) the etiology and treatment of nuclear schizophrenia and related psychoses, (2) the nuclear basis of man's communication with both his internal and external environment, (3) the forces maintaining separation of internal and external foreground/background reality, and thus identity, and (4) the source and action of Mind and mental forces.

As a result of a personal communication with Dr. Jan Frank, nuclear schizophrenia was postulated to be a somatopsychically determined disorder primarily of viral and/or genetic origin. Because his analysis of the regressive nuclear schizophrenic's symptomatic trail inevitably led to the presence of traumatic (CNS) fixation points and developmental arrests dating back to the early ontogenetic development of the child, Dr. Frank assumed that a "slow" viral encephalitis occurring in utero or during the early part of the first year of life was later triggered to activity during and following puberty by endocrinologic and related somatic and emotional circumstances.

Furthermore, this viral schizophrenia hypothesis appeared consistent with the author's clinical data collected over twenty years, indicating that the recurrent psychotic and "compensatory" schizophrenic episodes most frequently occurred "spontaneously," and were thus independent of current primary exogenous psychogenic and nonpsychogenic triggers—although exogenous triggers did at times precipitate decompensatory bouts. Thus, current emotional conflict and stress, infectious processes, sleep deprivation, airplane flights and "jet lag" were occasionally correlated to acute psychotic episodes. In many ways, the reasoning utilized to deduce clinically the somatic origin of schizophrenia was similar to that utilized to deduce the c-v origin of dyslexia and a host of related somatopsychically determined mental disorders.

A review of the literature by Ornitz (1970), revealed that Schilder (1933a, b), Hoskins (1946) and Bender (1956) discussed the possibility of a vestibular dysfunction in schizophrenia, and that a number of investiga­tors reported abnormal responses to vestibular stimulation in both schizo­phrenic adults (Pekelsky, 1921; Claude, et aI., 1927; Joo and von Meduna, 1935; Lowenbach, 1936; Serel and Vinar, 1937; Angyal and Blackman, 1940; Fitzgerald and Stengel, 1945; and Leach, 1953) and schizophrenic or autistic children (Pollak and Krieger, 1958; Colbert, et aI., 1959; and Ritvo et aI., 1969). Ornitz (1970, p. 1970) summarized his own data as well as the others':

Clinical and experimental studies of responses to vestibular stimulation in schizophrenia and childhood autism suggest that central vestibular mechanisms playa fundamental role in the pathogenesis of these conditions. It is suggested that the vestibular system normally regulates the mutual interaction of sensory input and motor output during both REM sleep and waking. The disturbances of perception and motility, which occur in schizophrenic adults and autistic children, are attributed to vestibular dysfunction during these states of consciousness. This failure of adequate vestibular modulation of perception and motility appears to be maturationally determined.

He did, however, footnote the following comment:

While the neurophysiologic mechanisms in this paper tend to implicate the vestibular nuclei, particularly the medial and' descending vestibular nuclei, the possible influence of cortical or cerebellar or pontine centers on the vestibular nuclei is not to be excluded.

Interestingly enough, the abnormal Bender Gestalt and Goodenough figure drawings of schizophrenics, as well as Holtzman's (1974) abnormal ocular-motor findings in schizophrenia, were also consistent with the presence of a vestibular dysfunction. Although the abovementioned literature demonstrated the presence of vestibular mechanisms in schizophrenia and childhood autism, and investigators were led to postulate that central ves­tibular mechanisms playa fundamental role in the pathogenesis of these conditions, the author reasoned differently. If, indeed, dyslexia was due to a primary c-v dysfunction, and if the vast majority of dyslexics were neither autistic nor schizophrenic, nor predisposed to such disorders despite their c-v dysfunction, then the vestibular dysfunction characterizing childhood autism and schizophrenia must complicate rather than determine the pathogenic or pathophysiologic basis of their respective disorders.

In other words, childhood autism and schizophrenia were postulated to be of a diffuse CNS origin, and the vestibular findings found characterizing these disorders were merely coincidental or contributory factors.

Might Ornitz's footnote be a clue to the determining pathogenesis and pathophysiology of childhood autism and schizophrenia? According to hypotheses initially proposed by Dr. Jan Frank, and later elaborated upon by the author, the symptoms characterizing nuclear schizophrenia would be dependent upon the pattern of CNS functions impaired, as well as the resulting compensatory neurophysiologic, immunologic and psychological defense mechanisms triggered. Moreover, childhood schizophrenia and/or infantile autism were assumed to be of a distinctly separate pathogenetic origin, despite the presence of similar psychotic and vestibular mechanisms.

These hypotheses are currently under investigation, as is a new screening method enabling the early detection of schizophrenia and a new approach to pharmacologic treatment utilizing transfer factor obtained from recovered schizophrenics. Furthermore, it is anticipated that future investigations will eventually lead to a meaningful pathophysiologic, pathopsychological and pathogenetic classification of the various psychotic and borderline disorders and symptoms affecting both children and adults (i.e., autism, childhood schizophrenia, nuclear schizophrenia, hysterical psychoses, etc.).

Does not normal communication among men consist of patterns of projected and received centrifugal and centripetal electromagnetic signals traversing space without structural interconnections and feedback circuits? Might we not conceptualize this traversed distance as analogous to a giant synapse?

If verbal, symbolic, electromagnetic communication is indeed a phylogenetic elaboration of "empathic" directed electromagnetic communication, and if nonverbal and nonsymbolic forms of electromagnetic communication exist in the animal kingdom as well, then the thesis that (1) ontogenetic or primitive forms of "bee-like" centrifugal and centripetal electromagnetic signaling mechanisms may exist in man, and (2) electromagnetic communication and integration may occur in extracellular space via "giant synapses," appears possible, and even plausible. One may further assume that the frontal lobes and verbal language centers developed in an adaptive functional-morphologic relationship to the limbic system, so as to modulate and dramatically enhance "empathic" directed, electromagnetic signaling and receiving (Frank, 1961). Moreover, it is proposed that the directional and orientational nature of all communication signals must be "guided" by c-v orienting, tracking, and processing functions in relationship to such Cosmic reference points as the sun, moon, and stars.

If Mind is conceptualized as a resultant external spatial-temporal electromagnetic organismic field derived from all cell units, and if this electromagnetic field is assumed to be in dynamic equilibrium with cosmic forces and capable of "computerized intentionality," then the missing programmer and computer have been found and explained without relying exclusively on structural circuits and religious theory.

One may, thus, speculate that over an almost infinite evolutionary time span, a spatial-temporal electromagnetic computer species developed that Could program itself and "think"; and that, furthermore, this "thinking field" with maximum survival value eventually became known as man. Upon stretching one's imagination to the limit, man's organismic mind may be viewed as an ontogenetic recapitulation of "phylogenetic" and even "cosmic mind." From a psychodynamic point of view, God would then symbolically represent this hypothesized complex, powerful, external, spatial-temporal, invisible electromagnetic field organization influencing and directing man's mental and somatic functioning from within (organismic Mind) and from without (cosmic Mind). This hypothesized electromagnetic computer system called Mind would thus appear to be in harmony with:

1. Einstein's belief in cosmic determinism. In stating that God does not play dice with the universe, Einstein clearly expressed his view that there is an inherent cosmic order, and that cosmic determinism cannot be explained by probability and randomization theory alone. Could Einstein's concept of cosmic determinism be termed "cosmic Mind"?
2. Freud's theory of psychic determinism. Freud proposed that there is an unconsciously guided inherent purpose, direction, and/or intentional function to such mental events as thoughts, acts, symptoms, dreams, slips of the tongue, memory, etc. No doubt he would have explained man's religious conceptualizations of God, God's Will, and Heaven as unconsciously motivated defensive projections of psychic determinism, as well as personifications of man's mental, super-ego, ego, and id functions and conflicts.
3. Eccles's theories, as well as those of religious philosophers. Religious theorists have no doubt (symbolically) termed this invisible and indescribable electromagnetic computer system "God."

In retrospect, it would appear that the difficulties in scientifically explaining the site, structure, and action of Mind were twofold. Via cosmic and subcortical denial mechanisms and forces, it was fallaciously maintained and assumed (1) that Mind existed in structure, and (2) that Mind acted only via structure. However, as long as Mind was conceptually localized and "locked into" somatic structure and internal synapses, and as long as Mind's function was thought to be a resultant derivative only of the total organism, Mind's mosaic site, structure, and action remained impossible to conceptualize scientifically. As long as Mind was assumed to act only via structure, the vast majority of complex mental events remained impossible to understand and explain. It appears, in retrospect, that scientists were linking and/or fusing Mind and its structural origins too closely, and were thus concretely searching for Mind in the wrong clinical-theoretical "haystack."

Interestingly enough, religious conceptualization of God and Heaven have apparently come closest to solving the mind-body problem. If one equates God and His powerful functional descriptions with both Man and Mind, and if one equates God's location in Heaven with external synaptic space, then the external spatial-temporal configuration and function of both Mind and God becomes obvious. If we return to the analogy of the moon probes utilized in the introduction to this research effort, it becomes readily apparent that structure and function may be separated by "light years," and that invisible electromagnetic waves are very effective "sensory-motor" feedback circuits. Thus, although the televised function and action of the moon probe took place on the moon, the Mind guiding this action was on Earth, or perhaps circling somewhere in orbit.

Perhaps these hypotheses regarding cosmic and organismic Mind, as well as the author's reasoning in presenting them, can best be illustrated by a further space analogy. As the reader might recall, many years ago Buck Rogers was a fantasy of spacemen traveling to distant planets. America's moon landing and space probes have transformed this science-fiction daydream into scientific reality. Astronauts, spaceships, and robot structures can be accurately programmed to function and act with direction and intention by minds hundreds of thousands of miles away via electromagnetic "sensory-motor" feedback and integrating forces and field circuits—clearly illustrating the thesis that a functional mind-body unity may exist without the mind being encapsulated and confined to the structure from which it is derived and through which it acts. One hopes that this cosmic field theory of Mind will trigger researchers to apply space-age technology to structural neurophysiologic and psychodynamic theory, and thus once again utilize "science-fiction" as the catalyst with which to transform scientifically acceptable traditional concepts into progress and a new scientific reality.

If this field theory of Mind bears fruit, it will have merely further ex­tended a previous postulate which stated that subclinical neurophysiologic dysfunction may exist despite clinical symptomatic compensation. One might now be forced to reason that Mind may influence and be influenced by peripheral or distant cosmic structures, despite the absence of defined concrete interconnecting neurophysiologic tracts, and furthermore that the Cosmos may be conceptualized as a giant neuronal system.

The unexpected discovery that phobias (and schizophrenia) and other so-called psychogenic symptoms were of primary neurophysiologic and/or somatic origin, and the recognition that electromagnetic forces and fields may be important in mental and somatic functioning resulted in the following realizations:

1. The presence of mental symptoms does not justify the conviction that these symptoms are of primary psychogenic or mental origin.
2. The absence of clinically detectable neurophysiologic signs does not justify the conviction that there exists no neurophysiologic dysfunction.
3. The presence of "accepted" and/or unchallenged psychodynamics regarding phobias and schizophrenia by no means justifies the conviction that these psychodynamics are completely accurate. In retrospect, it often appeared that psychodynamic formulations were incomplete or unwittingly utilized to explain only the secondary mental reactions to an unrecognized primary somatic dysfunction.
4. The presence of mental and/or motor symptoms in the absence of clearly recognizable and/or "accepted" structural patterns of neurophysiologic dysfunction by no means eliminates a somatopsychic pathogenesis. All too often, neurologists and psychiatrists alike unwittingly diagnosed CNS-impaired individuals as "hysterics" merely because the pattern of their neurologic signs did not live up to traditional expectations. The fact that psychological reactions may "hysterically" exaggerate and distort real CNS injuries, and that significant degrees of neurophysiologic unknowns exist often goes unrecognized and/or denied.
5. Somatic compliance is a crucial determinant in all mental phenomena, and thus the latter require both neurodynamic and psychodynamic analysis.

It is hoped that these clinically derived postulates will force psychiatrists and neurologists to rethink and rediagnose so-called primary psychogenic disorders, in which a diagnosis of emotional origin is based solely on apparent neurophysiologic or somatic default and/or the absence of clinically apparent or expected patterns of neurophysiologic findings and circuit impairment.

Furthermore, if Mind is, indeed, a structurally derived and dependent external electromagnetic spatial-temporal configuration with programming capability, is man the only species with Mind? Is Mind an all-or-none phenomenon, or are there species-related functional gradations of Mind? Are there living forms within the cosmos with minds superior to man? If God is a projection of both man and Mind, and if man is not the only species with Mind, then perhaps man's historical worship of animal Gods and multiple Gods supports the aforementioned thesis of multiple Minds or Gods in the cosmos? And if man is only one of many cosmic forms with Mind, man's defensive megalomania will once again have been shrunk to realistic spatial-temporal phylogenetic and cosmic proportions.

Might Man's attempt to limit worship to only one God symbolically represent both the species-specific nature of both Mind and God as well as man's defensive attempt to deny the cosmos and thus minimize his cosmic insignificance and helplessness? If these speculations prove even partially valid, have we not found the basis underlying and motivating cosmic denial, cerebellar-vestibular denial, and cortical confabulation?

Furthermore, if man is viewed as a mere cellular microcosm in the universe, might we not postulate the existence of "cellular determinism" and "cellular Mind—thus completing the phylogenetic continuum of man and Mind, and at the same time gaining a telescopic or cosmic perspective of man and Mind relative to the universe? Is man not a mere "giant cell in the universe? And is this "giant cell" not a minor function of cosmic Mind?

There is little doubt that Einstein's dictum about the order of the macrocosm or cosmos is equally valid for the microcosm or atom. Might we not then assume the existence of an atomic Mind?

← Prev: Mind's Data Base and Its Analysis

Next: An Attempt at Scientific and Religious Integration →