The notion of a ‘subconscious mind’ is the result of mechanistic science. Authors who promoted that term ignored or deliberately overlooked the age-old native traditions that fostered the idea of a cosmic energy or life force permeating the cosmos.
This subtle energy is known in China as chi, in Japan as ki or hado, with most native populations as mana or wakonda, and with modern alternative researchers as orgone (Reich), odic force (Reichenbach) or universion (Lakhovsky).
In Christian theology, this force is known as the Holy Spirit, and was therefore termed by Emanuel Swedenborg as ‘spirit energy.’
Today, modern science recognizes this subtle energy as a field, the quantum field, unified field, or zero-point field, depending on the manifestation of the field itself. This is why I am saying that prayer addresses the quantum field directly, and that for this to happen, the notion of a ‘subconscious mind’ is not needed any longer, as it is deprived of meaning. There are no two minds in man, only one mind manifestating at different levels of awareness.
The Loving Matrix is the internal manifestation of the quantum field, within nature, as the creator force. It is the protecting and life-giving force, both male and female in origin. It is otherwise called the ‘biofield.’ However, even a modern notion like the biofield does not express the personal identity of the field for every single human; the biofield does not seem to be the ideal addressee of prayers for protection, guidance or riches. It is for that reason of ‘personalizing’ the spiritual experience that I have created the notion of the Loving Matrix—it was also to replace the mistaken idea of a ‘God’ who lives outside of nature and who cannot have created nature, logically so, for nobody can say who then created God, as Osho lucidly observed.
God or The Trinity are of course part of the universal archetypal domain, that Carl Jung termed the ‘collective unconscious.’ As such, these ethereal forms or energy patterns may manifest in spiritual visions, or may come up during the voyage after death, that races toward new realms of existence. But this very fact of an ‘archetypal connection’ does not interfere with the existence of the Loving Matrix. This is so because the latter is not archetypal but real; and it is master of the archetypal domain as well, as it is the universal fountain of life from which spring the multitude of forms that are all expressions of one single substance.
The idea of a universal substance is present in the writings of most New Thought authors especially James Allen, William Walker Atkinson and Wallace D. Wattles. However, these authors use the traditional image of a ‘God’ as the creator and ‘realtor’ of that substance. To repeat it, this is not a question of naming a deity, it is a question about the psychological need for emotional security that is satisfied by an anthropomorphic projection.
The question can be asked more generally even: why do we need deities at all? My experience is that spiritually awakened people do not need them, and that ordinary people do not care about them. So for whom are they really important? I would argue that they are substantial only for a minority of thinkers who are emotionally not mature enough to realize that they are trapped in projections, which makes that their cognition is distorted.
That is also the reason why they hide behind a ‘movement’ and use a special vocabulary in order to mark their difference. Yet different they are not really from those who went out to ‘conquer new land’ and impose their rule over foreign peoples. All of those act in the name of a ‘Son of Man’ called ‘Son of God’ and have little or no tolerance for those who ‘worship on the mountaintop.’
The idea of a Loving Matrix came to me as a result of my studies of systems theory, especially the Santiago Theory of Cognition and generally, the research on autopoietic networks conducted at the University of Chile by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. This theory has identified cognition as a prime qualifier for the existence of a living system; in other words, when there is life, there is cognition, and this is an ongoing process. In addition, this research found that living systems are self-creational or autopoietic: they are creating and maintaining themselves by their own volition without needing an exterior agent. They are thus self-organizing.
So to make a long story short, I have been influenced by science to modify my spiritual worldview, abandoning the idea of an external ‘God’ and embracing the new idea of nature being herself ‘soulful’ in the sense of being at the same time material and immaterial, tangible and transcendent, bearing within herself the ultimate shaker and mover. This was also the result of my studies on shamanism and nature religions. Native peoples around the globe do not cognize nature as soulless and mechanistic as our science did before it turned to be more holistic over the last 50 years or so. From the times of Galilei, Newton, Bacon and Descartes, our science adhered to a split-paradigm that divided life into a spiritual and a material part, defining nature as a clockwork, and the human body as a chemical powerhouse. This went on over the last 400 years or so and was one of the reasons that our medical science, too, is by and large mechanistic, considering the human body as a machine with limbs being replaced at need as it is done with the spareparts needed to repair the motor of a car.
Fortunately, all of this changed in the meantime and through the impact of quantum physics, and holistic science philosophies such as David Bohm’s theory of the unfolding universe or Amit Goswami’s and Dean Radin’s idea of a conscious universe, we got ahead a great deal, and back to the wisdom of native populations that were always defending the idea of nature being soulful and conscious.
The idea of a Loving Matrix is thus consistent with our latest cutting-edge science and with shamanic traditions around the world.
Being a matrix, it connects all and is connected with all, and Love is its major characteristic.