THE URSTOFF PARADIGM: The Primal Idea that Split the Universe in Half.

By

William Cottringer, Ph.D.

“The mind of man may be compared to a musical instrument with a certain range of notes, beyond which in both directions we have an infinitude of silence. The phenomena of matter and force lie within our intellectual range, and as far as they reach we will at all hazards push our inquiries. But behind, and above, and around all, the real mystery of this universe [Who made it all?] lies unsolved, and, as far as we are concerned, is incapable of solution. ~John Tyndall.

     The paradox of either this or that mutually exclusive paradigms, where one must be true and the other false, but with no possible way to determine truth vs. fiction, stops with this one—The Urstoff Paradigm. This is the mother of all ideas and maybe the pausing point of the evolution of  human consciousness. This concerns our belief about the origin of the universe—either it spontaneously combusted out of nothing in some point in time or was created by a first cause which is associated with various forms of a “God” entity, or is was never created, always being in existence with eternity that precludes time.

     This is the great mystery of life that lead to splitting the universe and everything in it in half—hot and cold, day and night, winter and summer, up and down, time and space, in and out, true and false, and so on, even splitting experience and things into good and bad, imaginary and real, right and wrong, pain and pleasure, and desirable and undesirable. This is the stopping point where the dualism of all things can no longer be explained as real or imaginary. The quality of one’s life and perception of reality and truth is in utterly opposition, depending on which side of the Urstoff Paradigm you have chosen to position yourself.

     Ironically—randomly or by design--either position does not put morality in jeopardy, the usual reason for clinging onto religion as a security blanket. Either way—a God creator to swear allegiance to or the natural Way of Life to follow—both Gestalt viewpoint choices acknowledge something greater than ourselves and that is the very foundation of all moral systems which propose some variation of authority fiats as to what choices are best, somewhere between science and religion.

     So, if this implicit agreement is where we started before language acquisition confused reality for us, and then we went off in infinitely different directions towards all the this or that opposites, leading to an infinite number of interactions and outcomes, then maybe that is where we should get back to. But, that may be easier said than done, since we would have to put all the halves we separated back to the wholes where they belong and that would be virtually impossible. So, what is the solution to this conundrum that determines the quality of life for everyone?

     Experimentation and learning from trial and error always seems to be the way we do everything. So, in that spirit, we should consider the side of this Urstoff Paradigm that is most likely to get the best results for us all. We don’t know for sure if an optimistic point of view is better or more valid that a pessimistic or realistic one. But what we do see from trial and error approaches to side with either, that the optimistic paradigm seems to give us the things that most of us want from life—more money, better health, longer lives, better relationships and more happiness. 

    How do we decide which side of the Urstoff Paradigm is optimistic or pessimistic? I would say that such a determination has most to do with which side—a created universe vs one that has always been in existence—gives the most hope and opportunities over the long haul.  If the universe was created by itself or a creator, then logically it will be destroyed sometime in the future. And that would be the end of it, maybe with the sun as our main source of energy, finally burning out. However, if it has always been in existence, literally forever without any time constraints, then we can safely assume it will continue along in its own merry way, business as usual. That is the side I am taking, because it doesn’t divide the world into okay and not okay, good or bad, right or wrong, Heaven or Hell, life and death. Everything is energy and we now the basic Physics principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it just goes on in various forms.

    Not having any starting or ending point, allows more room to get living a good life right with our trial and error efforts. I don’t think any of us knows the point we came into existence, as all we really know is what we are experienced now. Memory can’t really recreate the past vivid experiences we have in living and having an eternity to find and live the truth is the best gift I can imagine in pausing to question the “Urstoff Paradigm.”   

 Dilbert: It took weeks but I’ve calculated a new theory about the origin of the universe. According to my calculations it didn’t start with a “Big Bang” at all—it was more of “Phhbwt” sound. You may be wondering about the practical applications of the “Little Phhbwt” theory.

Dogbert: I was wondering when you’ll go away.