A Cosmological Hypothesis

Athanasios Kafkalides


Added on November 19, 2020

Dr. Athanassios Kafkalides conducted clinical research into the psychotherapeutic application of psychedelic drugs. His research concluded in major findings in the field of the prenatal and perinatal stages of human life.

Axiom 1

The matter – mass – energy directly or indirectly perceived at all points in the universe is secondary in origin and is created from the «anarchon».

Axiom 2

The «anarchon» has a material nature incomprehensible to the human intellect. The «anarchon» has neither beginning nor end and is non-spatial, atemporal, indestructible and ageless.  The «anarchon» always acts in a « reconciliatory » way, that is, it does not attack the entities composed of « secondary matter »

Word meanings and notes:

a. The quality and structure of the «anarchon»  cannot be comprehended, because of an intrinsic deficiency of the human brain, the organ of intellect.

b.  In an effort to describe the «anarchon», even if imprecisely, to make it somewhat understandable, one uses words with a conventional meaning, e.g. « it has a material nature », « it acts in a reconciliatory way », « it exists » etc.  Of course these words are unable to describe and define what exactly the «anarchon» and thus they are written in italics.

c.  The process of creation of the matter – mass – energy from the «anarchon» cannot  be understood by the human intellect.d.  Although the «anarchon» is incomprehensible to the intellect, nevertheless, it can be evoked by the subjective human experience.  

Axiom 3

The secondary matter – mass energy is not something unified[3] but is an aggregate of an infinite number of secondary material entities.

Notes:

a.  Each secondary entity has material boundaries which distinguish it from the rest of the secondary entities.  The latter form the external environment of the former.

b.  The secondary entities are subdivided into living and non-living systems.

c.  As a secondary entity we consider any free subatomic particle, any free atom or molecule of a chemical mixture, e.g.  a grain of sand, a handful of sand, a sack of cement, the quantity of water contained in a glass, a river, a mountain, a live butterfly, a live tree, a planet etc. Attention:  The term secondary entity is a broad and relative concept, e.g. the sun is a secondary entity in relation to the megacosm, but it consists of an infinite number of secondary entities.  Also, a human body is a secondary entity containing many other secondary entities, e.g. various microbes, and chemical substances (proteins, fats, hydrocarbons, etc.)  

Axiom 4

Each secondary entity has internal force of an unknown and incomprehensible nature which:

a.  creates material boundaries which distinguish the secondary entity from its external environment without isolating it or making it independent from that environment.

b.  creates the subjective sensation of the secondary entity’s existential identity.

c. activates the secondary entity having as a goal the preservation of its structural cohesion and its integrity for the longest possible interval of time i.e. crates for the secondary entity the subjective sensation of self-preservation.  The latter is always achieved at the cost of the other secondary entities.

d. activates the secondary entity in a way that brings it almost incessantly into collision with its external environment.  This collision causes a gradual or abrupt change of its structure.  The final result is the secondary entity’s death and annihilation.  

Notes :

a.  After its death a secondary entity breaks into new secondary entities which may be further broken into yet other secondary entities with their internal forces and tendencies towards self preservation and so on. (ax.7)b.  Each of the above mentioned secondary entities has its own existential identity/self preservation as well as the other properties mentioned in axiom 4 

Conclusions:

a.  The sum total of secondary matter-mass-energy, that is, the set of secondary entities, is divided into two worlds:  On the one side is found the subjective world of each secondary entity, and on the other is found its external environment i.e. all the rest of the secondary entities that surround it and which the Cartesians call the « objective world »

b.  Each secondary entity belongs to both worlds at the same time, because for itself it is its subjective world, and for all the rest of the secondary entities it is a part, however small it may be, of their objective world.  In other words it is not possible to separate the “subjective world”  from the “objective”.  

Axiom 5

The «anarchon» exists within the matter-mass-energy which it creates.

Notes:

a.  The behaviour of the «anarchon» is diametrically opposite to the usual behaviour of  secondary entities and is always « reconciliatory ».

b.  The usual behaviour of secondary entities is as a rule aggressive against their external environment.  The result is the almost incessant clash of each secondary entity with its external environment.

c.  The reconciliatory behaviour shown periodically, by secondary entities to their external environment is the result of the remaining “reverberations” of the «anarchon» that exists in them. 

Axiom 6

The moment of creation of matter – mass – energy from the «anarchon» is considered as the zero time of the matter – mass – energy in question. 

Axiom 7

Simultaneously with the zero time, the secondary matter – mass – energy begins to follow a series of morphological changes that ends with its total annihilation and what is left is only the «anarchon» from which it was created at the zero time.  

Axiom 8

The secondary entities preserve the imprints of memory of their common origin from the «anarchon» and of the different phases of their morphological changes as well.

Note:The reactivation of the imprints of memory mentioned in Axiom 8 is a result of experiences of a mystical and transcendental quality (see procedure of a session with psychedelic drugs.)  * Autopsychognosia sessions continued after 1972 and with them the emotional  and intellectual realisations that complemented and broadened the content of the  sessions held in the 1960-1972 period. Along with the realisations came an  amplification of the guiding presence of the trains of thought generated by the effort to  answer certain burning questions. Following various paths through the maze of ideas  produced by my cerebral insufficiency, the trains of thought led to conclusions that for better or worse – were defined as axioms of a Cosmological Hypothesis (CH).It should be noted that the CH had initially been formulated within the  framework of the Cartesian “rationalism” with which Ι had been imbued by my  academic education at Western-type universities. Subsequently, various novel clinical  findings from autopsychognosia sessions gave rise to the conviction that Cartesian  “rationalism” constituted not just a brake but even a barrier that inhibited psychiatric  trains of thought. My options were either to abandon the effort to formulate any CH at  α11 or to overcome the barrier of “rationalism”. Ι preferred the latter alternative, which  resulted in a revision of certain points in the initial CH and in its final version as  published in this paper.The fundamental principles of the CH:- The nature of both the secondary matter-mass-energy and the “anarchon” is  material.- The human senses and intellect cannot grasp the material nature of the  “anarchon”.First and foremost Ι would like to clarify that the CH in question was written  as a lark.Ι cannot say with any exactitude when and how Ι began to tackle the drafting  of the CH. Ι do, however, recall that certain questions had occurred to me when Ι was  at university. The questions remained unanswered and became problematic ones in the  light of the autopsychognosia sessions. Amongst these (see The Power of the Womb)  was the following question: “What is the main feature of human behaviour and what  motivates it?” At some stage in my study of everyday human activity, through the  prism of autopsychognosia sessions, it became clear that this basic characteristic is  either conflict or reconciliation with the external environment. (ΝΒ: conflict includes  a) aggression against the environment and b) escape or distancing one’s self from the  environment). The general pattern is as follows: 

 ‘The fact that substances of a well-known chemical type (ethyl alcohol, LSD,  hydrochloric ketamine, inter alia) trigger an exacerbation of one or the other type of  behaviour militates in favour of the view that the motivation of the latter is of a  material nature. This process is roughly the following:   

Ιn accordance with Figure 2: a) the basic motivations for behaviour are affective and intellectual b) the “behaviour motivation – behaviour” process is one of  a material nature. The effort to understand it runs up against the inability of  bioneuroanatomy and bioneurophysiology to provide answers. (See The Power of the  Womb). Putting aside these inabilities, trains of thought give rise to two questions: 

Question 1: Do the motivations for conflictual behaviour differ from those for  reconciliatory behaviour and if so in what way?

Answer: Yes, they do differ, and the difference is one of a qualitative nature.

Observation: The conflict in question cannot be a quantitative one. Let us take any  conflict-generating stimulus, for example a punch or a sarcastic remark. However  quantitatively slight the punch or remark may be, it could in nο case give rise to  reconciliatory behaviour. The latter could occur only if there were a change in the  emotional quality of the stimulus. For example, if a person who is being punished for  some act he has committed and which he himself considers to be one deserving of  punishment, the quality of the punishment is changed from one producing conflict to  one generating reconciliation. 

Question 2: Ηοw can the qualitative difference in behavioural motivations be  interpreted from a materialist point of view? Answer: My trains of thought reached an impasse with this question and came to a  temporary halt, for it is impossible for the same motivations to cause conflictual  behaviour at one time and reconciliatory behaviour at another. My conviction  however, that the process of behavioural motivation  conflictual or reconciliatory  behaviour is one of a material nature since alcohol and other substances of a wellknown chemical type can cause one or the other type of behaviour. And it took me a  long time to pose the question: “Is the matter-mass-energy function perhaps  complemented by something else, the structure and function of which are  imperceptible to the human brain?”It took even longer for me to accept an affirmative answer to this question. My  trains of thought led subsequently to the hypothesis that there are two forms of matter: One form is responsible for conflictual behaviour. Here we have the matter-mass-energy that can be perceived by the human senses, the whole of which is made up of an infinite number of integral material entities, e.g. sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules of chemical elements and substances as well as other living and nonliving systems in constant conflict with one another until the final death and disappearance of each integral material entity. The fact that each integral material entity gives birth and inevitably disappears and dies shows that it is secondary. 

Conclusion: Matter-mass-energy is secondary. The other form of matter is responsible for reconciliatory behaviour, which never lead to death and disappearance, that is, it functions in a way contrary to that of secondary matter-mass-energy. And this guess is supplemented thus: the form of matter responsible for reconciliatory behaviour is “anarchon”, that is, having neither beginning nor end. Secondary matter-mass-energy is created from the “anarchon”. 

Conclusion (II): The human body is composed of secondary matter-mass-energy and from “anarchon” matter. The conclusions from the above trains of thought were added or rather mixed with unconscious basic convictions of mine moving with momentum within the space defined by Cartesian “rationalism”. This mix of convictions and trains of thought created in me an intellectual ambience of uncrystallized principles.

Result: the initial Cosmological Hypothesis included contradictory axioms. I was able to perceive the cause of these contradictions thanks to the realisation that an unconscious Cartesian dogmatism was motivating my thoughts. This anarchon gave rise to a fresh intellectual ambience which was, in turn, affected by the following factors: a) transcendental experiences during autopsychognosia sessions and b) the realisation that the emotional and intellectual impasse to which Western man has come has been caused by the complete and humiliating indifference of Cartesian “rationalism” to the subjectivity of the human factor.The re-examination and revision of certain axioms of the initial cosmological theory were unavoidable within this fresh intellectual ambience.  


[1]The following pages by Dr. A. Kafkalides have been taken from his book (in Greek) Beyond the Boundaries of the Womb which was left unfinished in 1987 due to his death.  We thank John Alevizos , Nicholas Biniaris and Jody Morgan  for the  translation of the pages into English.

[2]The word “αναρχον” in the Greek original of Dr. Kafkalides’ paper is translated as just “anarchon” despite its unfamiliar sound in English.  This we do for the following reasons:  1.  In greek αναρχον means on the one hand “that which has no beginning”, and on the other hand “that which has no principles or laws”.  There is no English word which does that.  We could use “Anarchic” but it evokes only the second meaning and in a very awkward way.  2.  Words like “beginningless” or “unbegun” etc. are closer to the meaning of αναρχον but still do not convey it exactly.[3]Unified is an imprecise translation of the Greek  ενιαιο which means something unit-like, of one unit, of one piece and not the result of an effort to compose many things into one as the term unified implies.   For such a result of composition the Greek term is ενοπιοημενο.  The best English term would be unitary taken in the sense used in philosophical writings, but it is avoided because it carries (in mathematics) the connotation of that which refers to number 1 which is irrelevant to ενιαιος.

Leave a reply

Go to top ⇡