Thanks to Darwin, we understood that the human being, cousin of the monkey, had a history,

that it is the fruit of an evolution. The concept of history, through the concept of evolution,

could apply to the life in general, whereas it was limited until there to the development and

the decline of human civilizations, the companies or a simple individual, Thanks to the

cosmological models drawn from the relativity of Einstein by Friedman and Lemaître, the

concept of history still extended its field of application to the entire universe.

The universe evolves. Any form to be, of simplest to most complex, seems to evolve. The

concept of history poses the problem of the origin. The majority of the physicists are

convinced that our universe results from the explosion of a singularity. This explosion is

called " Big-bang ", great boom. But the interesting point is this initial singularity. It would

have consisted of a point, i.e. something of null size, but of infinite density and temperature.

Let us leave side the question of knowing, very interesting in addition, how this singularity, of

null size, could give rise to a universe in 4 dimensions of space-time. On the other hand, one

cannot prevent oneself from putting the question to know from which comes this singularity.

Even if physics does not enable us to go up in-on this side time of Planck,

that is to say one can consider the logical possibilities related to the existence of this

singularity. If it always existed, or if it comes from another form to be, or if it comes from the

vacuum. If nothing can come from the absolute vacuum, to be it always existed. If something

can emerge from the absolute vacuum, admit that it is the case of our initial singularity. At

present, let us go down again the course of the universal history which we have just gone up

until the initial singularity. If it is admitted that the initial singularity results from the vacuum,

we must recognize that nothing, in the vacuum, lets predict the appearance of this singularity

which we will compare to a vibration. Of this vibration results the first inanimate matter

shape. Nothing, in this vibration, lets predict the appearance of the inanimate matter. The

history continues with the appearance of the animated matter which represents the vegetable

world. Nothing, in the inanimate matter, lets predict the appearance of the animated matter.

Emerges the animal life. Nothing, in the animated matter, lets predict the appearance of the

life. Finally appears the conscience, related to the development of the brain of hominids.

Nothing, in the alive forms, lets predict the appearance of the thought. Each one of these

stages is a miracle, not with the religious direction of the term, but in what it seems

unexplainable on the basis of preceding stage, though each one is necessary to the complex

development which represents the thought. The miracle term seems to me to be the least bad

to qualify these stages. But why stop in so good a path? Why the complexification to be it

would stop it with the conscience. Why the conscience constitute wouldn’t itself a stage in the

universal history to be it? My question is thus: which could be the form to be complex which

follows the stage of the conscience? In the logic of this reasoning, it should be admitted that

nothing, in the conscience, can predict what will be more complex only it, even if it develops

in it. But can we be satisfied with this answer? In addition, can one reject the assumption

according to which this form to be higher than the conscience already started the process of its







A significant question emerges at the end of this reasoning: does the conscience constitute a

form to be? The answer to this question conditions the interest of the preceding chapter. What

does one intend by " form to be "? A form of existence. Here is a beautiful petition of

principle, a beautiful definition of the word by the word itself. But can it be different? To

define a form to be as what is perceptible by one of the five directions seems too restrictive. If

the conscience is not sensitive, it can exert an influence on the sensitive world through the

acts of the individual or the company. It seems that to define a form to be as " what can be

distinguished " that is to say the good solution. Any individual significant form is

distinguished from all other significant form, even if it can exist a very large resemblance

between them. Moreover, two forms to be can resemble each other only because they are

different. A thought is distinguished from another thought and a form to be sensitive. And in

the case extreme, if it exists alone in the world, the thought differs from nothing. In the final

analysis, a form to be, sensitive or intangible, can be defined as what differs from nothing. Let

us consider the following sentence: " the ghosts exist ". One can doubt the existence of ghosts

reasonably, but one cannot question the existence of thought according to which ghosts exist.

This thought, therefore absurd can it appear, and it is knowingly that I chose this ambiguous

example, was not formulated less by it, in my spirit initially, on this sheet then. Conclusion,

the conscience is a form to be, of quality different from the significant forms, but a form to be.

The question of knowing which could be the form to be more complex than the conscience

thus seems to make sense. narcissistic wounds






One can read again the Fabulous History under another angle, the angle of the narcissistic

wounds inflicted with humanity. Narcissus is this character of the Greek mythology which did

not cease being admired. He was for itself the center of the world. Freud was going to show

that humanity suffered in its history from the same defect. The first of the narcissistic wounds

was inflicted with humanity by Nicolas Copernicus.

In its De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, it proved with the 16th century that the Earth

and the other planets then known turn around the sun and that it is not the sun which turns

around the Earth. It had to be admitted with him that the Earth is not the center of the

universe. Retrospectively, one wonders for which reason it would have had this privileged

place. But the astronomers, like everyone, trusted what they saw; and what they saw, was a

brilliant star to make it around the Earth in twenty-four hours. The second narcissistic wound

was inflicted with humanity by Darwin with the 19th century. It is with him that the concept

of evolution of the species, including mankind, took all its direction. Biblical teachings made

man a separate build of a part by God; the man starting from clay, the woman starting from a

rib of the man. If few cultivated people took this teaching to the letter, everyone agreed to

recognize the exceptional character of the human race, distinct from the animal world. Darwin

forced us to admit that we were the cousins of the monkeys and that we descend all, men,

animals and insects, of a form of microscopic primitive life, and especially that the evolution

towards increasingly complex forms of life swallowed hundreds of million years. Us here, far

from the seven days of biblical creation. Humanity loses its privileged place on Earth. It is the

fruit of an evolution among much of others. The third narcissistic wound was inflicted with

humanity by the creator of the expression which is used as discussion thread with this chapter,

Freud, with the 19th century still. Freud revealed with the man the existence of the

unconscious one. Extremely of his intelligence, the man dominated the world without

realizing that it itself was dominated by impulses of all kinds. Not only the man had lost his

privileged place in the universe, then on Earth, but it still lost the privilege to be the Master of

itself. But it is not all. Perhaps it is necessary to inflict a fourth wound with humanity. This

time, it is a question of putting at evil another obviousness, that which consists in believing

that the conscience represents the form to be most complex which is possible. We note all

which the conscience is the form to be most complex that we can observe, just like we must

still do everything an effort to say to us that it is not the sun which turns around the Earth, that

man is not a species with share, or which we are not able to have a perfect command of us.

Certain men of science defend even the idea that all the evolution of the universe tends

towards the realization of man and his conscience. It is what they call the principle "

“anthropic” ". In its hardest version, the principle “anthropic”, known as " extremely ", shift

the traditional scientific step. " It is not any more the conjunction of a whole of given

properties which allowed the emergence of the life, it is the existence of observers which

imposed on the universe its characteristics ". (Jacques Demaret) This principle represents a

beautiful illustration of the narcissism which characterizes humanity, even if it is based on the

observation on the remarkable side of the value of the parameters which intervene in the

operation of the laws of the universe. But after all, these parameters are determined by man

himself and in the light of the wounds inflicted by our large predecessors in their company of

demystification of our convictions, it is necessary for us to recognize the simplistic side of

such a vision of things and it is even necessary to realize that if his logic is admitted, the

principle “anthropic” itself pushes us to pose the following question: why the evolution of

complexity in the universe would stop with the conscience? Lastly, one cannot conclude this

chapter without referring to the ideas of the Father Teilhard de Chardin, and more particularly

with his assumption of the " Point Omega ".






The question which arises then is the following one: which could be this form to be more

complex than the conscience? Copernicus, Darwin and Freud have advanced evidence of their

convictions. Even if the majority among us never checks that the Earth turns well around the

sun, or will be able to obstinately refuse to admit that he is the cousin of the monkey and that

he is influenced by his unconscious, he remains that concrete facts can convince us. But is

that possible on the assumption that we formulate? Can one find a fact objective which

convinces us of the existence of a form to be more complex than the conscience? Let us

review some suggestions made by interlocutors attentive with this assumption. Some suggest

that this form to be could be unconscious itself. However the unconscious one is only the

complement of the conscience; it does not present a degree of complexity higher than the

conscience: the conscience discovered the existence of the unconscious one, but the

unconscious one does know the conscience? But especially, the existence of unconscious does

not present a character more exceptional than the conscience, which is a condition of the

existence of the form of being more complex than the conscience. On the impetus of this

argument, their holding affirm that the conscience of the need for a qualitative jump of the

conscience to an entity indeterminable, distorts the reasoning and mortgages its validity,

because it removes part of its mystery to the assumption. With that I will answer that one of

the characteristics of the conscience is its capacity to put forth assumptions. He to reproach

this character would be to denature it. In addition, this character does not help us to conceive

the form of the entity which would be higher to him. Perhaps is even induced it in error while

being focused on the concept of entity. Perhaps any word is useless and distorts the problem.

Perhaps the reason and the language which translates it are only illusions, and with them the

observation of an evolution of the universe towards a greater complexity. If one pushes the

doubt in his ends, plus any question nor observation do not make sense. Others suggest that

this form to be higher than the conscience would gather the universe of the paranormals

phenomena. In addition to this suggestion is very vague, because what a paranormal

phenomenon , it fishes by simplicity and lack of spectacular. That can appear paradoxical, but

the paranormals phenomena, like telekinesis (the actuation of objects by the thought),

telepathy, the phantoms, the poltergeists, etc, present a character well less singular than the

existence of most negligible of the particles. It is remarkable besides to note that the majority

of men are fascinated by such phenomena and considers with a disillusioned mind the fact

that they exist and that they are a aware, which is infinitely more spectacular than the voices

of in addition to-fall or the gifts from premonition. Conversely, these same people will be able

to wonder then with common sense why the minority of the skeptics tests so many sorrows to

accept the reality of the paranormals phenomena. It is an excellent question to which it is very

difficult to answer. Pascal had drawn argument from it to justify his belief in the resurrection

of Christ, wondering what it is most difficult to believe, " which something which never was

either, or that something which already was, or again ". And yet, such ideas shock our reason.

Perhaps because we are aware that the life and the conscience are the fruit of a long process of

complexification of the matter, and that a phenomenon as complex as the life cannot emerge

in an instantaneous way. However the majority of the paranormals phenomena like telekinesis

or telepathy, utilize " instantaneous " actions. It is besides what enables us to distinguish our

assumption from a form to be more complex than the conscience, existence of paranormals

phenomena. This form to be must be the fruit of an evolution, of a " process " of

complexification, even if it must occur at a time given a kind of timeless qualitative jump

(instantaneous). For this reason the assumption of its existence can appear more plausible to

us than that of the phantoms, for example. At all events, it seems that the paranormals

phenomena are too simple to represent a form to be more complex than the conscience. Other

people suggest that this form to be is held in beyond. Very interesting proposal, but what

means the expression " beyond "? Force is to us to admit that it does not have much direction.

From a space point of view, the beyond indicates what is located other side of the horizon or a

border. But nothing prevents from conceiving the possibility of exceeding this border. It is

only one question of times and average techniques. An alternative of the concept of beyond

space is the assumption of the " parallel universes ". It is used as spectacular illustration in

quantum physics, where it makes it possible to justify the coexistence of solutions in what one

calls the process of reduction of the package of waves. In other words, it supports the idea

according to which the equation of Schrödinger (see chapter " 1 = 0 ") admits several solution

simultaneous. Unfortunately, this assumption does not satisfy the expensive principle of

economy to science. The beyond more often indicates in the spirit of people a higher

dimension. We evolve/move in a space-time of three space dimensions and a temporal

dimension. This beyond for example would make up of a space-time space with 4

spatial.dimensions and with a temporal dimension. What would mean such a space-time? We

do not know anything of it. Not only we are unaware if it is possible, but we do not have any

idea of what would represent a life in this beyond, if the life is possible there. But if this

space-time exists, it seems that he is not the fruit of an evolution. Our own space-time is

simultaneous with the form to be simplest, i.e. it appears at the same time as the matter

because it is the matter which constitutes it. It is not the fruit of an evolution, it " is " the

evolution. To say the things such as they are, we are already in beyond. This miracle that

constitute it to be and the thought is the beyond which we have tendency to project naively in

a higher dimension. We must even go further. Since the conscience represents the shape to be

most complex of the universe in our eyes, since this conscience is part of the universe, since it

constitutes it also the universe as well as stars and the life, it should be recognized that " we

are beyond "! But of what are we beyond? Absolute vacuum. Which can-to be the least

unsatisfactory image of the form to be more complex than the conscience? The infinite one.

Why the infinite one? Because the concept of infinite is most disconcerting that we can

imagine. It appears the absence of very limiting, space or temporal, it gives the giddiness by

its depth which resembles the vacuum, to nothing. Thus, the scientific formalism must

unceasingly endeavor to control the infinite solutions which undermine the solutions of the

equations. A progress is accomplished when is controlled one of these solutions, but it is for

at once seeing emerging the infinite one in a new form. But in the light of the conclusion of

our fabulous history, it should not be possible for us to conceive what could be the form to be

more complex than the conscience. However, even if we do not manage to really control it,

otherwise than by denying it, we can conceive the infinite one. It is a concept which must thus

be still too simple or too obvious to answer our waiting. It remains to approach a possible

significance of the term " beyond ": it is that of beyond in time. Beyond in time, it is the

future, the past being it in-on this side. Time did not await the conscience to appear, it was

satisfied with the appearance of the form to be most elementary. The conscience allows only

time to become aware of itself. What it is a question of finding, it is precisely the form to be

complex which will give to this beyond temporal dimension higher than the conscience. We

give each other the illusion of possible discovered of this form to be for the only pleasure of

search. Because it should be recognized that if the form to be more complex than the

conscience exists or will exist, it can or will be able raise the question to know which could be

the form to be which is more complex than it, and so on... ad infinitum. Giddiness!






Impossible to conclude this article without evoking another possibility: God. God would be

this form to be higher than the conscience. The disadvantage of the proposal, it is that God

must be from time immemorial. It thus precedes the conscience in time. God is thus the

manifestation of infinite, temporal like space. But is this really a disadvantage? Is not there

this a character qualitatively higher than that of the conscience and all that precedes it. God

represents the going beyond of causal logic, a form of irrationnality which makes the junction

with the first times of the evolution, which would result from the vacuum or the infinite one.

It is at the bottom the assumption of Teilhard de Chardin according to which the universe

must converge at the end of the evolution towards the point " omega ", God. But the true

disadvantage doesn’t it come owing to the fact that we can put forth this assumption? Isn’t this

assumption yet too rational? Isn’t it naive to reduce what is completely irrational with the

logic of an evolution? Let us go further: of which right can we qualify an entity of "

completely " irrational? At the bottom, that this entity that we call God is completely

irrational or not, it is not q’ another way of saying " form to be higher than the conscience ". It

advances us of nothing in our search.

On the contrary, it seems that it makes only confirm that this search is useless. The answer of

which we must be satisfied is the following one: why the evolution of complexity in the

universe stop would with the conscience? As for the eternity of this evolution, here another

question: if the evolution had a beginning, why wouldn’t it have an end? But then, why the

conscience represent wouldn’t the form to be most complex possible in the universe? The

argument which enables us to escape from the difficulty is the following: we observe the

evolution, it is a concrete fact, on the other hand we can only put forth the assumption of a

beginning of this evolution. But to distinguish empiricism and logic radically is perhaps too

easy. We are not satisfied to observe the evolution, we draw some from the logical arguments.

The evolution is " a logic ". At the bottom, perhaps the conscience represents it the result of

the evolution of the matter; perhaps is form to be the most complex possible. But this

assumption does not remove anything with the force following question: why thus the

conscience represent would the form to be most complex possible? quasi-certainty by the

absurdity It is possible to determine by defect some characteristics of the possible form to be

more complex than the conscience. In the evolution of the absolute vacuum until the

conscience, the size and the volume of the forms to be increased. Admittedly the brain of the

man is not the largest thing in the universe, but it is bulkier than the least of its components:

atoms, molecules, cells. If it must rest on a material form, one can imagine that the form to be

more complex than the conscience will have as a support a thing bulkier than the brain. It is a

conclusion to which brings us also the systemic analysis. The systemic analysis studies the

operating mode of the forms to be complex like the cell, the organization, the company.

However precisely, it seems that the interconnection of the consciences can be used as a basis

for the appearance and the expression of the form to be higher than the conscience, just like a

complex molecule rests on the combination of simple molecules, the organization on the

combination of complex molecules... With less than each individual brain is not the center of

production of more complex molecules yet than the neurons and than the continuation of the

evolution towards more complexity does not require an agglomeration of the consciences.

Another quasi-obviousness is the immateriality of the form to be more complex than the

conscience. If the conscience rests on the neuronal matter, it is intangible. It seems logical that

it is the same for the fruit of the next stage in the process of complexification of the universe.

In all logic, it seems that the conscience, though intangible, must be used as support with the

miraculous jump which will see emerging the form to be more complex than itself. The

apparently absurd character of such an assumption does not make that to consolidate it since it

indicates the pit between to us what we think and what could occur. It seems that one cannot

advance more in the conjectures. Our only hope to see confirming our assumption, it is to

receive a sign or a message of the form to be more complex than the conscience. But are we

able to include/understand it, or to even receive it?





The brain is the most complex form to be currently known. It would undoubtedly be

interesting to study the quantum world in the brain, to compare the behavior of its atoms with

that of the inanimate matter and to raise of possible differences. With each stage of the

fabulous history, an instability, an innovation occurs and is stabilized: a selection is operated

in the multiplicity of possibilities. The memory makes it possible to keep what is worth the

sorrow of it. Any form to be (persistent) is a memory.





Manifesto of the Manifest

(rough copy of loose ideas)

Beyond Consciousness


 Temporal Collision Conjecture

Time Travel, Logic and Speculation


Time Travel, Logic and Speculation II 



Les consciences absolues



Bishop exchange







gG Model * MI-g synthesis