Q: What does Jim Sinclair expect for the gold market over the near term?
A: Sinclair is a long term bull and has been so for the past 50 years. He rejects the short term trading method.
Jim Sinclair interview by Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com
Q: Please connect this back to the five dimension analysis.
A: You want to be able to go into the fifth dimension and bring back useful information and apply it physically. All successful geniuses have done this. Nikola Tesla comes to mend. He explicitly referenced this in his autobiography. If you wish to join a study group exploring this then you can apply by filling out the registration form at the link below and submitting it.
You’ll be notified within three days if your registration application is accepted. There are no fees or dues for your participation.
The Five Dimensions of Man is a book that explains the big picture. The very biggest: infinity. It is essential in any undertaking to know what the opportunities and limitations are. This also applies to speculating on the price of gold.
The Five Dimensions of Man
An Interview with the Author
Q: What led you to write The Five Dimensions of Man in 1988? What was your inspiration?
A: Actually, I didn’t write it; it was dictated to me. I heard this voice from I don’t know where, and it said these words and I just wrote them down. That had never happened to me before, and it hasn’t since. I didn’t plan it out or try to come up with what worked except for the last stanza. It took me about an hour to figure out the correct conclusion, which I did by analysing the rhythm, the beat, of all the stanzas, seeing it was the same, and repeating it in the last one. Maybe I can claim authorship for the last stanza, but it felt more like something called automatic writing. I understood afterwards that this happens with a lot of authors. It’s not at all unique. Gore Vidal admitted to it point blank. In an interview, Vidal was asked about his creative process, and he admitted that for all his works at that point, the words just came to him. He said he didn’t know how the book he was writing at the time was going to end. He was just taking dictation for it.
So you experienced an objective distance from the poem. What were your thoughts after writing it? What was your reaction?
One of the first things I did was ask around and discuss the matter with people to see if anybody had come up with this sort of analysis of the five dimensions. What I quickly found out was that the idea of there being a place where everything that can be, was, and will be or could be is a very common concept going back thousands of years in the Hindu tradition, and the only original part I had was a different explanation, meaning it was put in the form of a mind experiment: a logical syllogism. Given A and B, then C follows. That is, if you accept that a 4th and 5th dimension exist, and that the same relationship that applies to getting from the 1st to the 2nd and the 2nd to the 3rd applies to getting from the 3rd to the 4th and the 4th to the 5th, it’s absolutely proven by the formulation of this logical syllogism that there are multiple parallel universes in the 5th dimension, meaning everything that was or could be or is for humanity is already in the 5th dimension.
There seems to be a connection between The Five Dimensions of Man and Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott. Can you comment on that?
Abbott wrote Flatland about 130 years ago. The book analyzes Victorian culture in England and takes place in a world called Flatland where there are only two dimensions: length and width. There is no awareness of depth, no awareness of objects having form other than a single flat plane or a single line. And then there’s a third dimension where someone who doesn’t fit into Flatland society is able to step out of the limited perspective of a single plane. He gets above the society as a whole and sees everything looking down. He becomes aware of depth, of solid objects. Abbott calls this a third dimension. You see that things are actually completely different than people’s understanding of them within two-dimensional reality. I read Abbott’s book about ten years before writing the poem. At that time, I followed Abbott’s logic of how a point is drawn into a line, a line into a plane, and a plane into a solid object, through movement in space. And I thought about what would happen if there’s a 4th and a 5th dimension, and you applied the same principles to getting from the 3rd to the 4th and the 4th to the 5th as Abbott did in getting from the 1st to the 2nd and the 2nd to the 3rd. But at that time, I didn’t take it any further. It wasn’t until ten years later, when I was sitting in my home contemplating life’s big questions that The Five Dimensions of Man emerged.
In your poem, the 4th dimension is equated with time: The mass moved in space / And so was time begun. How do you reconcile the fact that the first three dimensions are spatial? What do you think of the notion that time is directional and therefore useful for tracking change from one state to another? Doesn’t time exist in all dimensions? When a point moves and becomes a line, isn’t the passage of time necessarily occurring?
I think a more proper description of time is that it’s the illusion, the limitation, of 3-dimensional consciousness looking at 4-dimensional reality, because in all dimensions, in order to get to the next higher dimension, you always have an infinite repetition. In other words, you have an infinite number of lines in a plane and an infinite number of planes in a solid, a 3-dimensional object. So how would you analyze having an infinite number, repetition, of 3-dimensional objects, looking at it with three-dimensional consciousness, seeing only the objects as they move through space? The best analysis I can make is that you see movement in space one frame at a time just like you see 24 still objects a second on a movie screen, and it gives you the appearance of motion. I don’t see time as a separate reality. I see time, to the extent we can describe it, as a function of how a human being’s senses read it and are able to register anything about it. And the only way we can register anything about it is with our own objective senses. What we get is one frame of the 3-dimensional object’s movement through space. Infinitely repeat it and you have an infinite number of positions just like the infinite number of points on a line. It’s just a description we can get our minds around. In any case, we’re limited by the objective senses. If, however, you’re not limited by the objective senses . . . if you look with 4th dimensional consciousness, you see it as the movement of a 3-dimensional object through space, and you see the beginning and the end. Time as we understand it has no existence in that 4th dimension because you can look at the entire time line and see it from beginning to end as one.
In the same way, a point moving back and forth, looking at a line with the consciousness of a point just sees a moving point. But if it has the consciousness of a line and looks at the other line, it sees the whole line. Carrying that analysis as I have into 4th dimensional consciousness with a person seeing a three-dimensional object’s movement through space in its infinite repetition, the best analogy I can offer is the 24 still frames a second of a movie screen giving the illusion of movement. And I think if you’re looking at the movement of the 3-dimensional object through space, which is what by definition the 4th dimension would be, you’re in the same position with the same difficulty as the point looking at the line. If you look with point consciousness, you see the point moving back and forth. If you look with line consciousness, you see the whole line.
That consciousness above the objective senses is the same for the line looking at the point seeing an infinite number of points or the plane looking at a line. So if you have 3rd dimensional consciousness you look and you see movement through space. You see an object. You have one reality, and if you look at it through another consciousness, you have another reality.
In terms of time beginning, a starting point is necessary and I think this is when the three-dimensional object moves through space. The movement is what we understand to be life. If an object doesn’t move through space, you just have a theoretical construct and nothing that can be described in the reality we live in, which includes time. But the question I’ve raised in the book and the poem is how to describe this movement. And I’ve chosen to describe it as I have because I think this is the most useful description.
In a very broad sense, how does the poem relate to Western and Eastern religions or philosophies? Would you say your poem is basically about the existence of God? Is the existence of multiple parallel universes another way to define God, infinite intelligence?
I have difficulty answering the second half of your question because I’m not the real author of the poem. I just heard it as a voice in my mind. The only part I claim as my own is the last stanza, which says all is consciousness. And I’ve gone back and forth on that over the years. I’ve analysed it again recently, and I’m satisfied that the last stanza is an appropriate conclusion to everything that comes before it. Our consciousness is one thing we can direct. From the Chinese perspective, directing our consciousness engages the yang, the active force, in our own creation, appreciation, and experience of the universe. It all happens through our focus of attention, which is consciousness. What we are conscious of creates the universe and life we experience. You could ask: Is this a metaphor or are you saying we actually create our consciousness? The answer is there’s no way to know because you’re inside the bubble; you’re inside the process; you’re not looking at it from the outside. The movie, The Matrix, addresses this in an interesting way. What’s real and what isn’t real? There’s an ancient question posed in the Buddhist tradition: When you’re dreaming are you yourself dreamt by some other force? In a philosophical sense, you could say: Sure, there’s a programmer who programs it all. How much I know, how much anybody can comprehend, would include that statement. I’m absolutely certain I didn’t program or design how my organs digest food. I’m not aware of having any contact with that at all. So for me it’s obvious, it’s logical, that a higher mental intelligence exists. You can call that whatever you want to call it. Many people call that God.
What I’ve always liked about this poem is that it’s so logical. It isn’t based on faith. You could say it’s totally non-religious, if you consider religion to be faith-based, requiring belief in something, which may be the general understanding of religion, in the Western world at least. Interestingly, there is no word in ancient Hebrew for religion. It didn’t exist. Judaism was simply what was, what is. In the poem, we make observations entirely in the mind; they’re entirely conceptual. And everybody can agree on these observations – that you conceptually create the first dimension with a point moving through space to draw a line, resulting in length. Then you go on to take the line through space and draw a plane; then you take the plane through space and draw a cube. And then you follow the logical sequence, accepting the two assumptions that a 4th and 5th dimension exist and that you get there in the same way you got from each lower dimension to the next, which on the face of it seems the most logical explanation. And I have to accept the assumption that a 4th and 5th dimension exist because there is a higher intelligence. I know this from my own experience, from simply knowing that I didn’t program my stomach to digest food. What I get with the poem is as close as I’m able to come to understanding and proving the existence of multiple parallel universes, where I’m using basically the scientific method. But that’s also a limitation. That’s as far as man’s thinking can go within his capabilities as a man. If man was something other than man and could comprehend infinity looking forward rather than backward, then maybe man’s consciousness would include a dimension beyond the 5th, but for the consciousness of man, the 5th dimension is as far as we can go because it already includes infinity. How can you go beyond infinity for man? It seems that you can’t. And that’s what distinguishes this approach from Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism – it uses the scientific method of observation and logical thinking.
I think the Western religious tradition, in talking about higher realms of mind or consciousness or existence or what is the meaning of existence or God, is faith-based – you’re supposed to accept it because you somehow get a feeling or you have this experience. And what distinguishes the poem is that it’s not faith-based. It’s entirely observation about the first three dimensions and how they come together and what the consequence would be if you accept the two assumptions. It’s entirely based on observation and logic, a rationalization process, and I don’t see that in any of the mystical schools including Kabbalah or the Egyptian Mysteries or The Tibetan Book of the Dead or in any of the writings of Buddhism or the Hindu religion. I think that is what’s new.
So you’re addressing the very existence of this higher creative force. Is it also something more?
You’ll have to talk to the creator of the poem. I can only make some observations. You don’t have to read the poem to have any evidence for God existing. Once you define God as a higher intelligence and contemplate your own digestive system and ask yourself whether you created any of the programming to make that happen, the evidence is so overwhelming, you don’t need to go further. However, many people, especially scientists, use the scientific process and say: OK, I’m not going to accept anything I can’t verify. They argue, for instance, with the person who’s a psychic.
Take remote viewing, for example. Remote viewing was, probably still is, a major program that’s been declassified. The CIA funded it. Some people who naturally have this ability went into the program and showed other people how it’s done. They came up with a system to teach people how to remote view. When the scientist who hasn’t gone through that process,– hasn’t experienced the ability to remote view – talks to a psychic or someone with this ability, he’s unable to accept that it’s possible. For that scientist it’s like he’s colorblind and you’re trying to explain the color of green grass. There’s no way you can use words to meaningfully explain what the color of green grass is all about unless he experiences it himself. So this whole area is simply dismissed by a large segment of the so-called scientific community; it’s taboo and it’s ignored, and the result is a tendency towards a limited vision, a limited ability to understand something more about reality.
And the poem says: OK, what is the scientific method? It’s basically two things: observation and applying logic to put these observed facts together and reach some kind of conclusion you wouldn’t otherwise reach. The scientific method also uses experiments to prove or disprove the validity of proposed conclusions. But that’s just another form of using the rational mind: more rationalization, more logic. The poem simply uses that logic and observation to show that it’s absolutely inevitable, absolutely undeniable. The only way you can deny that multiple parallel universes exist and that everything you could do you’ve already done in the 5th dimension is if you deny that there is a 4th and 5th dimension and you deny that you would get there in the same way that you get from the 1st to the 2nd and the 2nd to the 3rd. You’d have to deny those two assumptions. What would make anybody deny that a 4th and 5th dimension exist? I guess you could, but that seems contrary to just contemplating your own digestive tract. Obviously there’s a higher intelligence. There’s a very consistent relationship between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimensions and how they’re created. Why should it all of a sudden change for the 4th and 5th dimensions? That doesn’t sound logical or reasonable. So it just seems highly probable, using the scientific method, that that is the case. Can you make an argument to the contrary? If you can, I’m here to listen to you.
Napoleon Hill makes the observation that time and space are manifestations of motion at such high speeds that human beings are incapable of measuring it. That presented me with a question because I start off with a motion: In the beginning / There was no beginning / There always was. [But] in the life of man / There was a beginning / A position / . . . a point in space [that started to move]. So movement is the beginning of creation for any dimension, and movement through space also occurs. Napoleon Hill expresses the opinion that space and time are also manifestations of motion, speed that we can’t comprehend. This ties in with the one-electron universe theory, the theory that the entire universe could be just one electron moving around so quickly relative to our comprehension of its movement that, for instance, a table appears to be a solid when of course it is not. We know the matter in each one of its atoms, the electrons going around the protons and neutrons, is infinitesimal, but because they’re going so fast, the table appears to be a solid. Our comprehension, our consciousness, and our ability to touch the table make it appear solid when it isn’t. That has to do with the speed of travel. For us, the speed of the electrons going around the nuclei is so fast, we experience the table as a solid. So, perhaps time and space are also just a manifestation of movement at a speed so fast we’re unable to comprehend it.
Space would be a manifestation of movement at the infinitesimal level.
In theory it could be that one electron.
What we see appears solid but it’s actually movement – space in this sense is the objects we see in space?
In theory that’s certainly possible if you accept infinity. Infinity is without beginning and without end in all directions. That falls within this concept. Really it’s a function of our ability to observe, which is again our consciousness; so the beginning and end of everything we know is a function of our consciousness, what we’re capable of focusing our attention on. That’s what exists for us; that’s the only thing we can discuss really. If it’s not part of our consciousness, it doesn’t exist for us.
Have I answered the Buddhist riddle of who’s dreaming who? Whether we’re being dreamed by somebody else? I’ve made some comments on it, maybe; I don’t know that I’ve solved it. I wouldn’t want to go that far.
In your poem, life for man begins with a dimension-less point: . . . a position without any movement.
Without any movement there is no life. And time for us begins with the movement of the three-dimensional solid in space.
When you say “In the life of man,” this is the beginning of the story, not the beginning of life.
Napoleon Hill asserted that there are only two ways people exist in this world, with definiteness of purpose and independent thinking or without definiteness of purpose and independent thinking; thinking independently and having clear intentions and plans connects us to our higher selves and the source of all. Stated in terms of The Five Dimensions of Man, could this mean that this is the only way to connect to parallel universes?
No, I think one can connect through faith. I think one can connect through the physical motion of dance: the whirling dervishes come to mind. And there’s no question that some faith healers are effective. So no, I think there are many paths. In The Bhagavad Gita there are something like twelve forms of yoga, and one of them is a mental yoga – transcending using entirely mental logical arguments and methodologies. So no, I don’t think it’s exclusive at all. But I think you could make a case for the negative exclusionary rule, that is: if people do certain things that are incorrect, there’s no way they’re going to connect. I think that’s what Napoleon Hill is getting at. He says it’s not that this is the only way to get there; it’s that if you are the opposite of definite, that is indefinite and a drifter, you’re not going to get there. And I agree with him. It’s what gives me a greater appreciation for the Jewish tradition, including what some people call a vengeful or unloving God. That’s just the yin, which includes the law of gravity. You’re not supposed to love the law of gravity; you’re supposed to take cognizance of it and adjust your conduct in a way that’s productive to you rather than destructive to you. You’re a fool if you pray to higher forces to eliminate the law of gravity so you can jump out of a 20th floor window without a parachute or glider, and then expect to survive once your body hits the pavement. The law of gravity is totally and completely unforgiving — no touchy feely, nice, loving feelings about it at all. But that’s reality; the law of gravity will not be denied; none of the laws of nature will, or the laws of economics. The laws of economics are just as unbending in their consequences of violating them or being favourably disposed to them. You can conduct yourself in a way that’s consistent with them, in a way that’s useful to you just like the law of gravity. Very few people in the world understand that about the laws of economics.
How does Hill’s discussion of drifting relate to your poem?
I’m particularly impressed with the work of Napoleon Hill because he isn’t considered a philosopher by academics or any mainstream organisation, nor is he considered a great scientist, economist, or writer, but he sold millions of books and inspired a personal development industry in which at least a 100 people are making more than a million a year today, none of whom have added anything new to what Napoleon Hill said, which I find extraordinary. And I ask myself: Why is that? Well, partly it’s that Napoleon Hill didn’t add anything new either. He just rearranged the explanations in a unique way; his presentation and methodology were new. That’s also what’s new about the poem. The poem’s conclusion is 1000s of years old, but it doesn’t get there with faith or tradition or authority, with some representative of authority like the pope for instance. The basic philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, is the same as Napoleon Hill’s – being definite about a purpose, intellectually making a decision, being responsible and therefore creative and using your mental capacities to solve problems. And as far as connecting to infinite possibilities, I would include the quantum physicists. Their way of explaining things is a little bit different but essentially it’s all the same. What the quantum physicists call the quantum field, where all things are possible, Napoleon Hill calls infinite intelligence.
OK, but the quantum physicists are talking about that at the atomic level.
That’s right. The theory is that we’re affected by our atomic level. We don’t get away from the atomic level. It affects us.
Hill also defines drifting as procrastination. What he’s saying is that you have to be the yang, the active force, in order to accomplish anything. Yin is the unforgiving reality of all the laws of Mother Nature and science and mathematics that you can’t change. You can change how they affect you, that is, you can get into a different environment where some of these rules don’t apply, but the majority, like the law of gravity, you can’t affect. You can only affect your own behaviour relative to that law. You can only use yang, the active ingredient, to accomplish something consistent with the yin, with how the laws are. You can look at The Five Dimensions of Man, and say: Well, the way you get from one dimension to another is through movement; you move through space. You take action.
And you can have a tremendous advantage at whatever level you’re at if you’re a level higher than all the competition. In other words, if you had fourth dimensional consciousness, you’d be able to see the beginning and end of the time line while everybody else could only see a progression along the time line. That would give you a tremendous advantage. In the poem, the possibility of that happening depends on your consciousness of it. In Hill’s explanation, you need definiteness of purpose consistently applied to communicate with infinite intelligence. In this case, as a practical matter, infinite intelligence is just the next higher dimension for you. Of course, the infinite is the fifth dimension, two dimensions higher than you are, but you’re in all five dimensions at once. How you relate to any one of those dimensions depends on your level of consciousness, and most people are simply not active; they accept the yin, which is everything below the yang.
In other words, if you were below that yin one step lower and looking up, that would be your yang. The yin changes to yang and the yang changes to yin as you go up the dimensions. But Hill doesn’t explain it that far. He just leaves it at being active and in control with definiteness of purpose and a definite plan to reach your purpose – activity on your part that focuses you in a particular direction makes connecting to infinite intelligence possible. You could look at the poem and make the same analysis. You could say it’s just a matter of consciousness, of infinitely repeating and going through space, infinitely repeating what you’ve previously done and taking a look back. It would be interesting to hear somebody who does a lot of remote viewing discuss what happens when they enter remote viewing mode.
What do you think about the ongoing debate in the scientific community over the existence of multiple parallel universes?
Basically my answer is: OK, scientists, this is the scientific method: we observe. We observe that you get from the first to the second and the second to the third dimensions through movement in space and infinite repetition of the previous dimension in the next higher dimension. So that’s the relationship between the first and the second, the second and the third. I make two assumptions: one, that there is a fourth and a fifth dimension and two, that you get to the fourth and the fifth in the same way that you got from the first to the second and the second to the third. Well, if you do that, using this methodology, critical thinking, observation, you come to the conclusion that in the fifth dimension, inescapably, there are multiple parallel universes.
Now, where have I gone wrong in my logic? Are my two assumptions wrong? Are my observations wrong? Did I incorrectly observe that there are an infinite number of points on a line and an infinite number of lines on a plane and an infinite number of planes on a three dimensional object? Did I observe incorrectly that you got from the first to the second and the second to the third by movement in space and that that infinite repetition and relationship applies between the dimensions? And infinity is infinite repetition of the previous dimension in the next higher dimension — infinitely repeated? Where did I go wrong? I don’t think I went wrong. Well, scientists, you can disagree with me and say: Those are just assumptions. Well, are they bad assumptions or good assumptions? I think they’re pretty good assumptions. I mean, do you think that you programmed yourself, your stomach, to digest food? Who did that programming? Who did that design? Who came up with the specifics for the programmer to program your stomach to digest food? If you didn’t do it and you’re not capable of doing it, you have to say that there’s some higher form of intelligence. Well, that’s just Mother Nature. Well, alright, call Mother Nature Mother Nature. Mother Nature is the higher form of intelligence. If there is a higher intelligence beyond us, most people refer to that as what? Infinite intelligence, God, the Tao . . . . Well, call it whatever you want, it amounts to the same thing, doesn’t it? But I’m not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. I’m simply showing that multiple parallel universes exist in the fifth dimension if you assume that there are a fourth and fifth dimension and a consistent relationship between the dimensions. That’s all I’m saying. If you disagree with my assumptions, fine, but give me some reasons why. Give me one, two, three, four, five good reasons why you disagree. If you can’t, maybe you should consider that it’s true.
Q: So what does this have to do with price of gold?
A: Hope you can see that there are infinite possibilities and that in each case you need to start movement.