On August 8, 2023, I enjoyed the opportunity and honor of interviewing Edward Close, PhD, PE. Dr. Close has been recognized as a polymath: mathematician, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, hydrogeologist, and environmental engineer. A teacher of mathematics, science, language, and meditation techniques; a practicing mystic for many years, he has received awards and accolades from government agencies, universities, and high IQ societies. The evening before our interview, Dr. Close emailed me some information from his resume and excerpts from his first four chapters in his upcoming book ~ Autobiography of a Transcendental Scientist.
"By Edward R. Close, BA, MST, PhD, PE, DSPE
Honorary President, Ars Moriendi International, Distinguished Member ECAO (Exceptional Creative Achievement Organization), Scientific Mathematical Consultant to PNI (The Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute), Lifetime member ISI High-IQ Society, Kappa Mu Epsilon Honorary Mathematics Society, Young Genius Society, MENSA Exceptionally & Profoundly Gifted SIG (Special Interest Group), Senior Research Fellow and Duly Elected Diplomate of ISPE (International Society for Philosophical Enquiry), Honorary Charter Member, Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences, Retired Professional Engineer, Mathematician, Systems Analyst, Hydrologist, and Environmental Scientist, TDVP Biopsychophysicist, Author of many books, hundreds of articles and technical papers, and like everyone else, somewhere on my way to becoming a Fully Enlightened Being."
With all of this amazing accreditation (and as you will see in our videoed interview, below), right of the bat, Dr. Close is so very humble and kind. I have periodically reached out to him for his advice and input after meeting him in person along with renowned author, Dr. David Stewart, in the Spring of 2016 in St. Louis, MO, at a Young Living event,
One such time of seeking Dr. Close's expertise was in early 2018. During this time, I was briefly involved in a Facebook Group entitled, "The Art and Science of Sound." Several of the leaders in this group happened to be all men who were very bright, accomplished musicians, and some of them were also formally educated as physicists. As for me becoming a member of this group~ I had completed the requisites to become a Certified Raindrop Harmonics Specialist after studying and training under Dr. Christi Bonds-Garrett, founder of AromaSounds. I felt I would be able to learn from others with similar interests while also adding value to the group. I soon realized I was also perhaps challenging the core beliefs of the group's founder, who wrote a paper on why the Art and Science of Sound are best kept separate. I countered his view, saying that I thought both Art & Science are inherently ONE, together, and cannot be separated, nor are they best experienced as such, with the same applying to Science and Spirituality. In asserting my postulation, I quoted direct information based on a [then] recent blog post from Dr. Close's blog, recapping the three main takeaway points: "1.) Reality is holistically One. That means that everything, plants, animals, humans, solar systems, Galaxies, and the universe, are intimately connected at the most basic level. 2.) Separation is illusory. The triadic nature of creation, perceived through the limited physical senses, is caused by the conscious drawing of distinctions. 3.) Consciousness is Primary, the triads perceived as the physical universe, are contingent upon the functioning of consciousness." I summarized my share to this facebook group by saying, "There are limitations in modern physics. Are you open to a paradigm change?" Well y'all, my share/comments in this group were not exactly taken with an open mind, ear, or heart (including some of the seemingly know-it-all men taking "pot shots" at the educational information I shared from Dr. David Stewart's published work). Maybe they viewed my politely worded thoughts & sentiments as challenging their "superior" knowledge? Honestly, it started to feel like a pack of hyenas attacking me, the sole female challenging the status quo as it were. Not long after these exchanges, I was eventually kicked out of the group (their loss, lol), though not before I shared the response from Dr. Close. As I feel this "online conversation" is pertinent to this blog post and, in general, I am copying and pasting it, below, for you~ dear reader, to draw your own conclusions ... is it possible these academically trained scientists might still be stuck in the dark ages, unwilling to advance forward due to their mainstream bias? And then I encourage you to come back to listen to Dr. Close elaborating on what he perceives to be his life's purpose and mission ~ Bringing Science Out of the Dark Ages of Materialism, in this video:
Online conversation discourse between me and the FB group founder ended with me saying~
“There are limitations in modern physics. Are you open to a paradigm change?” ~ Jena Dailey
The Science and Art of Sound FB group founder~ "Firstly, to say that there are 'limitations in modern physics,' or in any field of human knowledge for that matter, is an understatement. No doubt. 'Am I open to a paradigm change?' Indeed. In fact, I have created this group to assist with exactly that. I believe it will be helpful to understand my perspective so as to put what I do and say in context: In no way do I believe that 'science has all the answers' or that 'science is the best or most important approach to important questions.' However, Science has much to offer. Particularly, the scientific approach includes as fundamental a certain kind of honesty and a certain resistance to here-say, opinion, dogma and 'authority.' In science, opinion has little sway. Rather, consistent observation and reasoning always rule in science. And regarding certain features of Mother Nature, Science is a beautiful approach that works better than any other. For example, the behaviors of sound and vibrations in physical systems is generally very well described scientifically. The wave equations, given some boundary conditions, describe Vibrational behaviors so well, that we can predict in many cases precisely what will happen, no matter who does the experiment and when or where. Opinions have no sway. When we are looking at such things, Science is often, if not always, the most reliable tool. When we are looking at consciousness, feelings, subjective experiences, creativity, LOVE, Joy, belief, Spirit... any such “internal” experiences that cannot be measured or described quantitatively... then science falls short... and other approaches are more suitable. My personal devotion in these matters is not to Science, but to Honesty. Including honestly clarifying when science is appropriate and when it is not. When we are discussing Vibrational frequencies interacting in physical systems, science provides the most Honest methods available. If I have a pendulum of a certain length, it will swing at a frequency that is easily predicted by simple equations. My opinion does not matter. Neither does the opinion of any great 'authority.' In such systems, Mother Nature is so very consistent that She offers us the ability to make very reliable predictions. Alternatively, if I Sing a song, Science is currently not well suited to predict how it will make you feel. This is Art. Opinions matter in such cases and everyone is free to disagree. Regarding paradigm change... Science yields such great Power due to its inherent objectivity... leaving out consciousness. This is how science grew out of magic and superstition into something far more effective and reliable. But now we have come to a point in the evolution of Human knowledge where Consciousness-Mind-Spirit... whatever That is, must be acknowledged and that which is Subjective is pressing against that which is Objective. Thus, a paradigm shift is inevitable. But as we step into this unknown, it is counterproductive to do so by putting opinion and subjectivity into regions where science works well. Also, it is counterproductive to put science into regions of inner experience where it does not fit. Our disagreements with your points come down to this. It is common and a huge impediment to our progress that people not trained in science are attempting to “use science” as “proof” of their opinions and beliefs. But not really understanding science, this is being done quite sloppily in ways that lose some of the deep Honesty of the scientific method. You, and many others, are using “science-looking” charts and information but not scientific reasoning. If you want to use science, you must use its honesty as well. Science pays no homage to authority or opinion... only reliable observations and reasoning. When doing science, these are required. But some things, in fact many or most of our experiences, are not amenable to Science. In these cases, leave science out of it. It is counterproductive to attempt to use science to “prove” or justify our spiritual or subjective experiences. The scientific method does not apply here. The “paradigm shift” will not come by using science without following its principles. Nor will it come by applying science to our spiritual experiences. Rather, the “paradigm shift” will come by acknowledging that Art and Science can work together harmoniously by letting each have its full power and applying each to its proper domains. Hopefully this clarifies a bit where I am coming from. I also think that this view is, at least in large part, close to that of all these experienced practitioners who are disagreeing with you. We have good reason to disagree with you and hope that even if you maintain your current belief system, you will at least understand the reason we disagree so clearly and unanimously." Instead of defending myself, or once more replying with personal knowledge and experience, I opted to go straight to the source I was basing my understanding via Transcendental Physics / Dr. Close. I appreciated his response, though I don't think the other men did, as I got the boot from the group shortly after... which turns out to be a very effective way to win an intellectual debate. Dr. Close's reply: "Hi Jena, I actually agree with much of what he says. My academic training as a physicist, and even my experiences of teaching in institutions of higher learning were probably very similar to his, and so I think I know where he is coming from. It is certainly true that there are a lot of people out there trying to apply science, i.e., the science taught in our colleges and universities today, especially quantum physics, where it doesn't apply; and often they obviously know very little about the science they talk about. However, when he says: "But some things, in fact many or most of our experiences, are not amenable to Science", he reveals a mainstream bias which includes an arbitrary restriction of the scientific method of investigation to only one specific part of the phenomena that make up the reality we experience. In the early days of natural science, when the boundaries of what would be accepted as science were drawn, they were drawn where they were, as he suggests, for very good reasons. Science would not get very far if its practitioners were excommunicated and burned at the stake. This advantage of narrowness and simplicity gave physics, by definition the study of matter and energy interacting in time and space, a special place in science, because it only had to deal with the simplest aspects of reality, the tip of the iceberg: the physical part of reality. Drawing from the body of pure mathematics only the tools needed to investigate matter and energy interacting in time and space (Spacetime, post Einstein), physicists made rapid progress, but because of simplicity and consequent success of their truncated methods of investigation, physicists, and later biologists, and even psychologists, began to confuse the model with reality. That is why modern mainstream science is largely based on the metaphysical belief system of materialism. This is reflected in the fact that many university professors and students today think that being a scientist automatically means being an atheist. The fact is, a good scientist should always be a skeptic, and, if without personal spiritual experience, agnostic. However, a real scientist should also never exclude real phenomena of any kind consistently experienced and documented by human beings from the prevue of scientific investigation and should not ignore data that do not fit the current scientific paradigm. I would refer your young physicist friend to the work of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab and papers by Dean Radin, Chief research scientist at IONS (the Institute of Noetic Sciences). These research groups and the members of the Academy for the Advancement of Post-Materialist Sciences (AAPS), of which I am a member, have produced far more evidence of the reality of many things that mainstream science excludes from things amenable to scientific investigation, than there is for the existence of particles like the Higgs Boson, or even the electron. If he wants to read the details of the derivation of TRUE quantum units and the discovery of gimmel, the non-physical form of subatomic reality, it’s available on my blog and in a number of technical papers published in several journals, and in a couple of books, then he can. He should be interested in how the discovery of gimmel, based on valid mathematical theorems and solid LHC data, not just theories, leads to explanations of several things the current paradigm cannot explain. Will he be open to pursuing this? Maybe, maybe not. "There have always been two kinds of scientists: those who toil to make reality fit the standard model, and those who are willing to look outside that box to explain the paradoxes within it. There have always been thousands of the first kind, and a precious few of the second." ~ Edward Close, Transcendental Scientist
On the note of that powerful quote from Dr. Close, I will leave you with the following pictures excerpted from Dr. Close's upcoming autobiography to consider. We both appreciate your interest and time spent on this subject and hope you will stay tuned for the second part of the series by signing up for my newsletter. I plan to continue to keep an ongoing series of interviews covering a variety of topics.
With love and light xox,
Jena Love
