The Cycle of Non Personal Energy
Now let's explore the actual cycles of energy. We'll start with the Cycle of "Non Personal" energies.
To do this we'll use a diagram, the one I've placed below.
Now if you look at this diagram, what you will see is a diagram of the Cycle of Non Personal Energy. Here, the word "non personal" is simply a way to refer to the way all energy cycles in and out of everything in the Universe. Including in and out of people. However, this "everything" does not include the parts we consider to be specific to beings; the psychological and spiritual "energies" we see as being specific to the "person."
Thus, nothing in this group functions as a "person," meaning, nothing in this group is considered to have thoughts, or feelings, or the ability to choose to be energized. They all simply exist as some sort of physical "thing" and nothing more. No will. No choice. Just "non persons."
Of course, there is a whole half of all of these things which falls into the immeasurable category. Or into the spiritual category, if you are the kind of a person who uses this word to refer to the immeasurable category. Either way, the energy I am referring to here is that which we can measure going in and out of things. And in the case of this particular diagram, we are going to be looking at only one kind of non personal energy; electricity.
Now if you look once more at the drawing I've placed below, what you'll see is a series of pictures which diagram how electrical energy cycles. Of course, we could also be looking at how any number of other kinds of non personal energies cycle, such as how kinetic energy, nuclear energy, and internal combustion engines cycle, and so on.
Thus, we could plug just about anything from gas stoves to water-cooled nuclear turbines into this cycle.
So how are these things the same thing? Good question.
Each, in its own way, circulates energy in patterns to and from the Universe and itself. This means two things. First, it means that each thing, in its own way, derives energy from the same source. Second, it means that each thing returns energy to the same source. The Universe.
In Theoretical Electronics, they call the first idea, the idea of an "originate-from-place," the "battery," or the "power source." In Emergence Theory, we simply call this source, Layer 10, although sometimes we refer to this place as the "Great Unknown" and sometimes we simply call it, the "Divine."
In Theoretical Electronics, they call the second idea, the idea of a "return-to-place," "earth" or "ground." In Emergence Theory, we call this "return-to-place," Layer 10 as well, which, as I've just told you, we also call the "Great Unknown." Or the "Divine."
Sometimes too, we say simply that this whole magilla is simply our "Universe," albeit, this way of referencing where things come from and where they go back to is more a reference to a Personal Energy than to a Non Personal Energy. More on this somewhat confusing idea in a moment.
Finally, can you see how all I've just said about where things come from and where they return to is yet one more way in which we use the same set of laws only spoken with different words to refer to both the physical, external world and to our psychological and spiritual inner world.
Here, again, we see evidence that Freud's brilliant leap of faith was just the beginning. We are all connected, after all.
Some of you may now be thinking, alright already, enough of the philosophizing. So what about how energy cycles? Well, here we go.
Waste to Raw Material: the First Stage of the Cycle
Endings to beginnings. This is the nature of the first stage. Thus, the breakdown of one material and the beginning of the next always occur simultaneously. In truth, though, while we refer to these things as being two separate processes, they are, in fact, one and the same process. We only pretend they are two different things.
What makes us do this?
For one thing, we call these processes by two separate names because we imagine they begin and end separately. In other words, we imagine that the end of one material initiates the beginning of the next. Moreover, we believe that these two events occur in separate and sequential time.
That time separates these two processes; "using up energy" and "getting new energy," is merely an illusion though, as both events are the very same process and occur in the very same moment. What this means is, our imaginary sense of how time works makes us separate these two events.
What else makes us refer to these two events being two different things then? Something else which is imaginary. Imaginary value. What am I saying?
We refer to these two processes as two different things because we assign two different meanings to these two different processes. In truth, they are one and the same process. However, we see them as being two different processes, one a good process, and one a bad process.
So what makes us do this?
We do this because we organize our information about each process differently. In other words, we see the break down of an "energy" source into what we see as "waste" as "a good thing becoming a bad thing."
But isn't this true though? Isn't the break down of an "energy" source into what we see as "waste" a "good thing becoming a bad thing?"
Actually, not at all. So why do we refer to this process this way? We do it because we separate into two groups what is recognizable and what is not. In other words, the way we assign these good and bad labels is almost entirely based on how well we can recognize the patterns within these materials.
Go slow now. What I'm saying here is actually pretty important, given you want to understand human consciousness.
What I'm saying is, we prefer things that exist in recognizable patterns. Carbon as diamonds or coal. Hydrocarbons as gasoline and diesel fuel. People as recognizable personality types. And so on.
So now, can you see how energy and time inextricably relate, in that time is merely a way to refer to the current state of an energy, in a sense, how recognizable it is? And that we label things "good" and "bad" largely based on how finely organized they are?
In a way then, we could say that what defines something as being "energized" is that we assign special meanings to things which are organized in such a way as to disorganize quickly. The more potential a thing has to disorganize quickly, the more we call this thing "an energy source." Moreover, the more rapid this "disintegration," the more potent we see this energy as being.
So is this all there is to it? Is energy simply the meaning we give to concentrated patterns which potentially disintegrate rapidly?
Yes. This it is. And to see this idea as true, simply consider what we used to think of raw petroleum before we knew it would burn. Or what we thought of sunlight before we understood solar power? Or what we though of water before we knew it could turn wheels. Or what we thought of wind before the same thing.
What defines all these things as being "energy" then, is the meaning we assign to them. Moreover, this meaning is inextricably related to both the current intensity of the informational pattern within the substance, and to the point in the energy cycle in which informational pattern currently exists. Which is just another way to say, where something is in the cycle of disintegration referenced to the current time.
As a side note, can you see how everything we just spoke about comes down, yet again, to the three primary variables of human consciousness; "meaning," "information," "time?" The "information" refers to the recognizable structure within a thing and how concentrated this pattern is. The "time" refers to where in the cycle of disintegration / integration this thing is when referenced to the current time. And the "meaning" refers to the value judgments we make based on the previous two conditions.
All this aside, can you also see how I've simply picked an arbitrary starting point at which to begin discussing this cycle? In truth, I've picked this starting point only because we see this point as the start of a good thing; the point at which we acquire this valuable energy source. In other words, the point at which we begin to see this thing as valuable.
Is this point really the starting point? Not really. But it's as good a point as any to begin our look at the Cycle of Non Personal Energy.
This said, we'll now move on from the first phase of the Cycle of Non Personal Energy; the "Waste to Raw Material" phase, to the second phase of the Cycle of Non Personal Energy; the "Raw Material to Energy" part of the cycle.
Raw Material to Energy: the Second Stage of the Cycle
We use raw materials we collected in the first cycle to generate energy in the second cycle. At least, this is how we interpret what happens here. In truth, energy never gets created nor destroyed, just as The First Law of Thermodynamics states. It simply changes form. From one form to another and back again actually.
In a way, though, transforming raw materials into a more accessible form of energy creates what we see as an energy source, a more readily accessible source of power. Thus, using coal (raw material) to turn electrical generators transforms coal into electrical energy (power). And using burning wood (raw material) to heat a room turns wood into "burning wood energy" (power).
"Burning wood energy?" Why not a technical name? Because we have long ceased to call wood an energy source. Why? Because we grade our energies based on how tightly packed the pattern is. Wood is loose. Coal is tighter. Uranium is tighter yet. Uranium is "power." Wood is for fire places (entertainment).
Regardless of which energy source we are talking about though, the beginning of our seeing this material as an energy source is that we "refine" it; meaning, we separate and concentrate it. Which is to say, we do our best to "refine" the material's pattern.
Refining a material's pattern is what makes us see the material as an energy source. And in truth, refined patterns do have more concentrated energy. In a sense, they do, anyway.
In another sense, we also could say that the closer we refine this material into an "element," the more powerful it becomes. And this is true.
Energy to Heat / Light: the Third Stage of the Cycle
Here, in the third stage of the cycle, one form of energy, the form we literally call, "energy," gets transformed into another, the thing we call, "work." In this case, electrical energy gets transformed into light and heat. Hard work for a light bulb, to be sure.
So what do we normally say about this light and heat? Let's start with the "light" part.
Most people see electrical energy turned to "light energy" as a energy being put to "good use." "Necessary" even. What we do not say "good" things about, of course, is the heat created by these light bulbs. Why not? Because we see this heat mostly as a "waste of good energy." Admittedly, many times, this heat is unnecessary. Functionally, anyway.
Is it a "waste" though? In reality, no. It is simply light energy which has been altered in form. Admittedly, a very rapidly expanding form. And unintentionally, a very rapidly dissipating form. Which is why we call this heat, a "byproduct." Translation. What started out as "electrical energy" was intentionally changed into "light energy" and as a byproduct, then changed into "heat energy." All part of what Einstein was showing us in his Laws of Relativity. As well as his predecessors in this idea; Carnot, Clapeyron, Joule, and Helmholtz. The founders of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Know that professional physicists would probably be inflamed by what I've been saying. Let me say at this point then that, if this has happened; if I've heated anyone's opinions, that this heat has been entirely unintentional, a byproduct of my trying to en-lighten."
Sound like mere puns? They are actually not at all. Moreover, it is no coincidence that we speak this way about how we affect others. More on this in the next chapter. For now, what I'm saying is, those who teach physics may, at this point, be readying their arguments or may even have dismissed what I've been saying completely. Why? Because the Laws of Thermodynamics are said to apply only to "closed systems." Most physicists would say I have not been talking about a "closed system." For these folks, please bear with me as I try to explain.
Start with the idea that we call these three ideas, the Laws of "Thermo-Dynamics," because they refer to the physical laws which describe how heat energy changes things. And at first, they mainly referred to things heat intentionally changed. Like water and iron.
Thus, Carnot's work (1824) functionally described how steam engines work (burning wood or coal changing water to steam). And Clapeyron's work (1834) mathematically described how temperature and volume changes vaporizing liquids (again, burning wood or coal changing water to steam).
The things to notice here are that "thermo" refers to heat, and "closed system" refers to things like a steam boiler tank. A "closed" system to be sure. So why am I digressing so far into physics? Because as I've said from the beginning, if we understand the laws of physics, we then understand the laws of people. And visa versa. Which is why I've gone to so much trouble writing a whole three chapters on the differences and similarities between non personal energy and personal energy. And the ideas of matter and energy.
Speaking of which, most people who teach physics consider some of the laws I've been discussing to apply only to closed systems. And they do. The thing is, we live in a closed system. They just don't understand this. At all.
And do I, Mr. Smarty Pants, understand? You bet. What follows, though, is but a brief introduction to one of the most important ideas I could ever get you to consider.
The Idea of "Closed Systems"
So a moment ago, I said that changing light energy into heat energy is hard work. How can we know this? Because of what happens as a result of this hard work. What happens? The light bulb eventually burns out. Which is just another way to say, it gets transformed into the fourth and final stage of the cycle.
Heat / Light to Waste: the Fourth Stage of the Cycle
Finally, here, in the last stage of the cycle, "work" gets transformed into waste. Which is just another way to say that concentrated energy gets dispersed back into the Universe as raw materials. Of course, we rarely realize that everything we call "waste" is simply energy in another form. This is why calling things a "waste" is a pejorative term. This is simply a negative value judgment about some forms of energy.
In truth, no energy is good or bad. They are all simply different forms of the same thing. We simply call some things "energized" and some things a "waste." So what do all these things have in common, both "energized" and "waste?" What, in fact, is the "constant information" about these things? That they are all the same thing. They are all energy. However, some of this "energy" is in a more useable form.
What I'm saying is, all things (all non persons) function pretty much like wind up pocket watches. Wound, they have great use, at least to most of us. Unwound, they have very little use. Again, to most of us.
So should we call unwound pocket watches, "waste?" And are wounded pocket watches, "energy?"
No surprise we speak this way about ourselves too. More on that in the next chapter.
As for electricity and what we've been looking at in our diagram, electrical energy turned to light is seen as "useful," "good," "necessary" even. Is this why we say, "Don't waste energy keeping the lights on needlessly?"
And the heat created by these light bulbs? Well, of course, we see this heat mostly as a "waste." A waste of good energy. And functionally, perhaps it is unnecessary. In our discussion though, this heat is simply light energy in another form. A very rapidly expanding form. And a very rapidly dispersing form. Translation,