The intangible energies: made measurable and practical

Metasensensorial Physics



Luc Sala 25 June 2012


In this essay I will try to show you, that we have, in our materialistic view of the world, ignored the magical and intuitive aspects at the cost of a holistic, wider view of reality, limiting our ontological (being) and epistemological (knowing) understanding. We, as humans, have (via our meta-senses) access to much deeper levels of what is than what the physicist, biologists and brain-researchers and in general science let us believe. We can sense and even measure more and deeper aspects of the isness of things and using these data to construct, analyze and synthesize a much wider worldview and thus create a new understanding and connection. This realization in a way topples the present paradigm of science, causality and deterministic science, but has roots in all older paradigms and belief systems.


Ever wondered why we do not measure beauty, balance, intent, holiness, spiritual energy?

I did, for as we look far into the cosmos and deep into the world of elemental particles, we have no yardstick to measure the things that matter to us most in daily life, the intangible energies and qualities that make us like and dislike, fight or flight, feel and think.


I believe, because we can sense those intangible qualities, we can measure them, be it subjective, but reproducible and therefore we can quantify our relationship to the unseen, the intangible. We have (meta-)senses beyond the normal five, that tell us how beautiful, holy, dangerous, etc. something is. Quantification of these intangibles can be (and I believe is) the basis for a whole new field of understanding of our inner-outer and ideal/transcendental worlds.


This, however, means that we have to separate us from what is today called science and rational, and accept and honor that our senses reach beyond the tangible. It supposes that we as humans have far more access to the wider reality outside Plato's cave than has been assumed since the “enlightenment” enslaved us to the Cartesian prison of rational causality and the tangible. In a way nothing new, intuition, esp., prophesies, sorcery, all were part of culture and in fact an essential part before rationalism and science took over. No holy book talks about subatomic particles, but all are full with stories of magic and prophets.  


In a way we have to enthrone again the magical, the otherworldly, if you want the divine, reducing science and physics to a mere subset of what can be known about the wider reality that involves love, information, chi, and magic. I believe we have to accept that our meta-senses yield real information, real understanding of structures and that there are ways to quantify those signals, using divination techniques. Dowsing, geomancy, using a pendulum, tea leaves, reading entrails, touch-for-health, or brain scans to reach beyond our mask and rational screening into the deeper layers of our awareness, and uncover the treasures hidden there.


This is not a new idea, the use of intuitive knowledge has been part of most cultures, divination as a way to access the otherworld has come in many forms, from reading the stars to throwing dice. Divination can be seen as a way to use the intuitive, to unlock the meta-senses and thus go beyond the tangible and physically measurable.


We all experience and feel the intangible, our lives are much more influenced by feelings and emotions related to the intangible aspects than by the hard reality of space-time. I believe we have primal sensors/actuators (“primes”) that connect us to those aspects, but they are deep inside our system and more or less subconscious. They are the meta-senses but also the meta-actuators we use to relate to, sense and influence the wider world of feelings, emotions, and intangibles. Those primes give access to the intangible, but the relationship to our other senses and our conscious thinking is not a straight one.

The travel of the information or better signals we receive or radiate from there to our normal consciousness and vice versa is complex, often compromised, and goes through layers of archetypical projection, emotions, traumatic repression and are often changed  as we color them, partly suppress them, enlarge or exaggerate them. Some people, at some times and under some conditions, are better at (consciously) interpreting them, they are the prophets, the holy ones, the sensitives, and those radiating from there are the sorcerers or healers. But we all, at some time, have experiences that indicate we are connected to those primes, but rationality and the common sense we ascribe to scientific thinking has become a serious obstacle to acknowledge them as real. Some do belief in those powers, and all of us use them unconsciously, but very few acknowledge them for what they are, links to metasenses that connect to the other worlds beyond space-time objectivity. The inner world of ideas, the outer worlds of intangibles, ideals and maybe even the divine dimension.



And yet, what if we could access those metasenses and the information from the intangible in a systematic and reproducible way, if we could measure them in some significant way and from there explore that otherworld in a more systematic way. This sounds like magic, and it is in many ways. But just remember that old cultures were more familiar with these phenomena and places a high value on those who had access to the metasenses and understood and used the links between the world. The Veda’s core message is “Ya Evam Veda” indicating that he who knows the connections (correspondences is the proper word describing magic) has the power and vice versa.


But how can we measure beauty, balance, health, intention or trust the outcome of what a pendulum tells? How can we accept subjective data as a base for developing a worldview. Well, there was philosophy before we measured, and as a physicist I have learned that all measuring is subjective in a probabilistic sense, so why not work form the subjective, given that there is a reasonable degree of repeatability. Why can’t I take subjective, but consistent data, to develop a thesis, a model and the expand it so it can be tested against more objective criteria and falsified or not.


There are things we can measure and those we cannot, but intuitively perceive. The measurable things are the basis of physics, as we now see it, ignoring what cannot be measured, at best trying to develop ways and means to measure ever deeper, faster, dissecting the micro and macro-kosmos into manageable parts. “To measure is to know, the adagio of the physicist and the engineer, ignores the holistic, the totality, the interrelatedness of everything, and has led to the reductionist worldview that has limited our worldview, trying to imprison life as a mere material phenomenon, denying the soul, the divine, the intangible.

Most of us, however, experience life in a different way, as a much wider thing, we feel connected beyond the reducted measurability of the material and the mechanical worldview, we sense, know, create, endure or enjoy things that are, according to the materialists and empiricists, not measurable and thus not real. This is not a new question we face in these days of Higgs particles and Big Bang theories, it's an age-old issue. How do we know that what we know is real, what is real, is there a reality we can perceive, is everything illusion, maya, how can we relate what our “self” perceives and thinks to what is outside. Plato believed in two worlds (the tangible and the ideal) but prized thinking and ratio, Aristotle looked more at the tangible and organised and categorized our reality, but both of them dabbled in the other dimensions (Plato accepted prophetic communication with the Gods, Aristotle was a kind of sorcerer himself.) David Hume, empiricist and challenger of the idealist thinkers, notably Immanuel Kant, didn't deny the other world, he just stated that we can never know the real causalities, never be sure what caused what, so let's limit Philosophy to what we can perceive (and measure). In the process, however, this all became limited to what the four dimensions yield in rational, repeatable, explainable data. But information is a lot more than data, our psyche and body capable of a lot more than using a yardstick or microscope.



Galilei stated that we should measure what can be measured, and make measurable the unmeasurable. He himself did a good job, but then science limited itself to measure only the fourdimensional time-space phenomena. This  gave us technology and power over our world, but alas, also a mechanistic, reductionistic and material worldview that has emprisoned us in the limited and material dimensions we call reality.

Materialistic and in a way deterministic and fatalistic we deny the soul, the intangible and the divine, chaos rules, we are a chance event. We have now come to the point where people like Dawkins and Damasio try to explain everything from that fourdimensional subset, not even allowing some divine or consciousness overall presence like the empiricists and rationalists of the Hume, Spinosa or Kant era did, tracking Plato and Aristotle and all the great sages.



The string theorists and “new” physicists tell us about the mathematical necessity that there should be 11 dimensions, including maybe more time dimensions, but they will not look at what that means to understand the issness of things, das Ding an Sich. How could they, their world is das Ding an Mich, not only accepting the limitations of perception, but unable to incorporate the consciousness factor their quantum and probability theories require into their worldview.

Plato made it clear, we are more than what can be measured, detected or wrung out of super-colliders or cosmic observations, and his concept of world (a dimension) of ideals was a great attempt to deal with the intangible, his cave-image showing us that our reality is but a shadow of what is, the whole. His dualistic vision, accepting a wider reality that encompasses the ideal as the root of isness, is not very far from modern physics if we take consiousness to be part of it, or even the basic component. It was Popper, who expanded the dualist notion of Plato to a three world view, including the inner world of thoughts, but I would add the divine/information/love dimension to get a five dimensional worldview, tangible outer world, intangible outer world, inner world, ideals world, divine world. And I could speculate that the divine dimension is actually the consciousness, information, love dimension that lies at the root of all being.


The challenge is now to weave the more recent understandings of the basic structure of reality into a non-mechanistic, expanded worldview. Now it is tempting to use the 11 dimension concept to map the intangible qualities and categories, the likes of beauty, balance, intention, potential, energy, free will, information, love. What if they are related to those 7 curled up dimensions? What if intent, beauty etc. are dimensions or aspects of dimensions that are curled up along our space-time. An interesting idea, but the problem is that dimensions are supposed to be orthogenal, independent from each other.


The quantitative challenge 

Let's take another approach, not talking about dimensions but about primary constituents or aspects of the ideal, the intangible, the unmaterial, the mind stuff. We all know those aspects, like beauty, intent etc.  We feel them, gauge them, rate them, live with them, in fact most of our lives are guided and controlled by those aspects of reality. Why have we not measured or attempted to measure or quantify what those aspects are, as they seem to make up the whole of us and it, they are at least part of the wider reality? Beauty, intent, balance, these are aspects we have hardly come to acknowledge beyond the vague notion of “ideals” in the Platonic sense.

Let's start framing the intangible, quantifying the inmeasurable, by using the senses for the intangible aspects that we have, using our intuition, overcoming the limitations of the rational and opening the cage of causality and socalled logic that turns out to be a dead end.  

As stated before, I believe we have metasenses that give us access to those aspects, which I call primes. Some sensitives have already well developed metasenses, (clearvoyance, Psionics, ESP), but a quantitative and reproducible way to get at them is divination. This can be done in many ways, and although it is not done by traditional physical instruments, quantitative results can be obtained that can be reproduced and stand up to critical scrutiny. The Bovis scale for water/food quality is a good example, it gives a numeric indication of the holistic (not the chemical) quality of water. The scale can be checked against tangible reality, not by the not very scientific crystal pictures of Emoto, but by doing experiments with plants. Better water yields better crops. The concept of quantitative scales for other phenomena, things like beauty, health, etc. is thus not new, many dowsers use scales, diagrams and come up with all kinds of numbers, but this is not considered scientific or objective, and remains the domain of the believers.


Now I am a dowser (with a pendulum), I had to learn this in order to deal with certain food allergies-intolerances where normal methods were impractical or impossible. How to assess whether a certain sauce or dish contains MSG or trans-fats? A pendulum turned out to be a practical and fairly exact tool to do this. As a physicist I was amazed that this worked, was this superstition or what. Over time I have learned to use the pendulum in a more precise way and found it to be a way to access knowledge and data far beyond the accepted boundaries of time, place, causality and logic. In fact, I began to notice I could find out things that were considered paranormal, although I never considered myself as a “sensitive”.  I started developing theories about why this worked, got interested in ontological en epistemological questions, and widened my scope of application of the dowsing. By looking in many area’s I have develop models, matrices, ideas about the wider reality, the present essay is but one of a whole series of studies and projects. Many concern the human psyche and it was mainly through psychotherapeutic work that I have developed my notions of metasenses, primes, (sub)-personalities, as the live interaction allows for quick assessment, falsification and further development of the models. I have tried to develop models and theories that would harbor the dowsing data in such a way, that further experiments could establish the validity or uncover inconsistencies.


The assumption that we can measure (consistent) qualities and quantities of other dimensions or worlds opens a new vista for understanding reality. It develops a way to deal with the other worlds and make them in a way tangible.


For actual applications of what I have found and my hypotheses concerning a wide array of subjects, using dowsing to measure relationships, see my website This ranges from a matrix of psychedelic substances and their effects to a model of the human psyche, an elaborated inner child/mask model, ranking of holy men and guru’s, anthropological insight, some of them also on under the mindlifttv channel, notably my monologues.



The above is an application of what I call  multidimensional philosophy, a way of thinking that goes beyond the Platonic dualism in accepting more dimensions than the classic 4 of space-time, including two time dimensions (one straight and one magical) and assumes that intangible qualities like beauty, danger, health (balance) and intention/purpose are aspects of another dimension, with an underlying framework of resonance (love, information). The future in this approach influences the present (and the past), quite a blow to the classical and new physics, the legal and psychological roots of “scientific” thinking. The soul and its tools, like the psyche are capable of sensing these dimensions and, in the magical sense, work them. Science and rationality have led us away from this realization, have hidden our true nature behind masks and ego's, have ignored the magical at the expense of being connected to the all. This model solves or at least addresses in a totally new way questions like evolution, nature/nurture, free will/determinism en hints at solutions for gravity and other phenomena.



Our notion of causality, even with the criticism of Hume and Berkeley, is still very unidirectional, the past influences the present and the future. However, if we assume, as I do, that we can know the future and that prophets and sensitives do a better job at transmitting, that the future also influences the present, things change dramatically. Our whole system, our whole society, legal system, healthcare and what not has to change. Evolution is no longer a chaos thing, but remembering the future, far beyond Sheldrake’s morphogenetic field. DNA not a mere data-carrier, but an antenna into the future. The laws of Nature (as physicist believe they know) have to be rewritten, philosophy reinvented. Or maybe just the old cyclic notion of Vedic thinking re-asssesed.


We will see,








Ir. L.H.D.J. Sala n.i., physicist, information technologist and critical thinker, takes the motto of the seventeenth century British Royal Society (1660) ‘Nullius in verba’, ‘Nothing that has been put in words / written has value” at heart, but extends this beyond the materialist and empiricists notion of those days to include the esoteric, the intuitive, the mystical. He believes we have, like in the days of Kant and Hume, to rethink everything, doubt everything and not limit the 'new philosophy' to critical correlations and analysis of previous thinkers, but start fresh, now, here, feel rather than know, intuit rather than deduct. Let's revive the intuitive wisdom we can and do access all the time, honor the dimensions, worlds and categories beyond the materialistic. Luc believes the “enlightenment” has in fact closed our eyes for the real light of transcendent connectedness, and it's time to let go of the fetters of “science”.