Stanislav Grof - beyond the brain. Stanislav Grof. Beyond the brain. Excerpts from a book about new principles of modern scientific worldview
It is currently impossible to explain all the revolutionary discoveries of modern science in a coherent and comprehensive new paradigm. However, they all seem to have something in common, namely, the deep conviction shared by their supporters that the mechanistic image of the Universe created by Newtonian-Cartesian science can no longer be considered an accurate and definitive model of reality. The concept of space as a gigantic supermachine, assembled from countless individual objects and existing independently of the observer, is already outdated and consigned to the historical archives of science. The corrected model shows the Universe as a single and indivisible network of events and relationships; its parts represent different aspects and patterns of one integral process of unimaginable complexity. The universe of modern physics is more like a system of mental processes than a giant clockwork. As scientists delve deeper into the structure of matter and study numerous aspects of the world's processes, the concept of solid substance gradually disappears from this picture, leaving them only with archetypal patterns, abstract mathematical formulas, or universal order.
about new principles of modern scientific worldview.
* Throughout the history of modern science, generations of researchers have enthusiastically embraced the directions proposed by the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, discarding those concepts and observations that questioned the basic philosophical premises shared by the scientific community. Almost all scientists were so thoroughly programmed by their education, so impressed and captivated by practical successes, that they took their models literally - as accurate and comprehensive descriptions of reality.
* In this atmosphere, countless observations from a wide variety of fields were systematically rejected, suppressed, or even ridiculed on the grounds that they were incompatible with the mechanistic and reductionist thinking that for many had become synonymous with the scientific approach. For a long time, the successes of these endeavors were so amazing that they overshadowed the practical and theoretical failures. But in an atmosphere of rapidly developing crisis, which was accompanied by rapid scientific progress, it became increasingly difficult to maintain this position.
* It is clear that old scientific models are unable to provide satisfactory solutions to the humanitarian problems we face on an individual, social, international and global scale. Many eminent scientists have expressed a growing suspicion that the mechanistic worldview of Western science has, in fact, contributed significantly, if not created it, to the current crisis.
* A paradigm is always more than just a useful theoretical model in science; the indirect influence of its philosophy on individuals and society actually shapes the world. And we have to regret that Newtonian-Cartesian science created a very negative image of man - some kind of biological machine driven by instinctive impulses of animal nature. In this image there is no earnest recognition of higher values, such as spiritual awakening, feelings of love, aesthetic needs or the desire for justice. All of them are considered as derivatives of basic instincts or as compromises, essentially alien to human nature. Instead, they emphasize individualism, selfishness, competitiveness and the principle of "survival of the fittest" - all of which are recognized as natural and essentially healthy tendencies. Materialistic science, blinded by its model of the world as a conglomerate of mechanistically interacting individual units, fails to recognize the value and vital importance of cooperation, synergy and ecological dependence. The dizzying technical achievements of this science, which really has all the capabilities to solve most of the material problems that concern humanity, have led to the opposite results.
* Seeing this state of affairs, an increasing number of people begin to doubt the true benefits of that rapid technological progress, which is not curbed and controlled by emotionally mature individuals and species developed enough to constructively handle the powerful tools they have created. As the economic, socio-political and environmental situation worsens, it becomes clear to many that it is time to abandon the strategy of unilateral manipulation and control over the material world, and turn to themselves for answers. There is growing interest in the development of consciousness as an opportunity to avoid global collapse. This is evident in the increasing popularity of meditation, other ancient and eastern spiritual practices, experiential psychotherapy, and clinical and laboratory research on consciousness. These classes bring new light to the fact that traditional paradigms are unable to accommodate and absorb the enormous number of serious observations from various fields and sources that challenge old views.
*
* Taken together, these data are extremely important and point to the urgent need to fundamentally reconsider our fundamental concepts about the nature of man and the nature of reality. Many open-minded scientists and mental health professionals have recognized the deep gulf separating modern psychology and psychiatry from the great ancient or Eastern spiritual traditions - such as various forms of yoga, Kashmir Shaivism, Tibetan Vajrayana, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, Kabbalah or alchemy. The wealth of deep knowledge about the human soul and consciousness accumulated in these systems over centuries or even millennia has not received adequate recognition in Western science, has not been perceived or studied by it.
* Similarly, anthropologists conducting fieldwork in non-Western cultures have for decades reported various phenomena for which traditional conceptual frameworks offered only superficial and inconclusive explanations (if any at all). Although many extraordinary general cultural observations have been repeatedly described in detailed articles, they have most often been ignored or interpreted in terms of primitive beliefs, prejudices, individual or group psychopathology. In this regard, we can mention shamanic practice, a state of trance, fire walking, primitive rituals, spiritual healing practices or the development of various paranormal abilities in individuals and in entire social groups. This situation is more complicated than it might seem at first glance. In informal and confidential conversations with anthropologists, I found that many of them chose not to share some aspects of their field experiences for fear of ridicule or ostracism from their Newtonian-Cartesian colleagues, or risk to their professional reputation.
* Examples of the conceptual inadequacy of the old paradigm are not limited to data from exotic cultures. It causes equally serious criticism from Western clinical and laboratory studies. Experiments with hypnosis, sensory isolation and overload, conscious control of internal states, biofeedback and acupuncture have illuminated much of the ancient and eastern practices, but have also revealed more conceptual problems than satisfactory solutions. Psychedelic research has, in its own way, clarified some previously obscure historical and anthropological data about shamanism, cultic mysteries, rites of passage, healing ceremonies, and paranormal phenomena involving the use of sacred plants.
* Evidence from psychedelic research is by no means limited to the use of psychoactive substances; Essentially the same experiences are observed in modern forms of psychotherapy and bodywork therapy that do not use psychedelics - for example, Jungian analysis, psychosynthesis, various neo-Reichian approaches, Gestalt practice, modified forms of primal therapy, as well as guided imagery using music , Rolfing, various techniques of “second” birth, returning to a past life and modernized Scientology.
*
* Since many types of transpersonal phenomena often involve access to new information through extrasensory channels, the clear boundary between psychology and parapsychology, provided transpersonal experience is recognized, disappears or becomes rather arbitrary. The existence of transpersonal experiences violates the most fundamental tenets and principles of mechanistic science.
* These experiences clearly indicate that in some as yet inexplicable way, each of us has information about the entire Universe, about everything that exists, each has potential empirical access to all its parts and, in a sense, is both the entire cosmic network and an infinitesimal part of it, a separate and insignificant biological entity. The content of the experience discussed so far includes elements of the phenomenal world. Although these experiences in themselves discredit the idea that the universe consists solely of objectively existing material objects separated from one another, their content does not go beyond what the Western world considers "objective reality" perceived in the ordinary state of consciousness. It is generally accepted that we have a complex lineage of human and animal ancestors, that we are part of a specific racial and cultural heritage, that we have undergone a complex biological development from the fusion of two germ cells into a highly differentiated Mesozoic organism. We live in a world in which there are countless other elements besides us: people, animals, plants or inanimate objects. We accept all of this on the basis of direct sensory experience, consensus confirmation, empirical evidence, and scientific research. In transpersonal experiences involving regression into the historical past or overcoming spatial barriers, what is surprising is therefore not the content, but the very possibility of directly experiencing various aspects of the external phenomenal world and conscious identification with them.
*
* The most common and common experiences of this type include identification with cosmic consciousness, the Universal Mind, or the Void. In such a transpersonal experience, it is possible to obtain accurate information about various, previously unknown aspects of the Universe, which in itself requires a fundamental revision of our concepts about the nature of reality, about the relationship between consciousness and matter. An equally powerful challenge comes from the discovery of archetypal and mythological realms and entities that seem to have an existence of their own and cannot be explained as derivatives of the material world. There are, in addition, additional, quite impressive observations that the new paradigm must explain or at least take into account.
* Once an individual has encountered any significant area of transpersonal experience, the Newtonian-Cartesian worldview becomes untenable as a serious philosophical concept and is perceived as a pragmatically useful but simplistic, superficial and arbitrary system for organizing everyday experience. Although the practical thinking of the individual in his everyday life is still defined in terms of solid matter, three-dimensional space, unidirectional time and linear causality, the philosophical understanding of existence becomes much more complex and sophisticated, it approaches the patterns revealed by the great mystical traditions peace.
*
* The only solution appears to be a fundamental and dramatic paradigm shift, a massive and far-reaching shift. In some ways, this development is quite logical and should not be taken as a surprise. Scientific thinking in modern medicine, psychiatry, psychology and anthropology is a direct continuation of the Newtonian-Cartesian model of the Universe created in the 18th century. Since a change in the scientific paradigm took place in physics of the 20th century, it is quite natural to expect, sooner or later, profound changes in all disciplines that are its direct derivatives.
Modern natural science.
Modern consciousness research provides abundant evidence that supports the worldview of the great mystical traditions. And the revolutionary development of other scientific disciplines fundamentally undermines and discredits the mechanistic vision of the world, narrows the gap between science and mysticism, which in the past seemed absolute and insurmountable. It is interesting that many of the great scientists who revolutionized modern physics - Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Robert Oppenheimer and David Bohm - found their scientific thinking to be completely compatible with spirituality, with a mystical worldview. In recent years, the increasing convergence of science and mysticism has been discussed in many books and articles.* To demonstrate the compatibility and complementarity of the worldview emerging from quantum relativistic physics and observations from consciousness research, I will give a brief overview of the conceptual revolution in twentieth-century physics as comprehensively presented in Fridtjof Capra's The Tao of Physics (1975). ( By the way, I recommend reading a much later book by the same author, “The Web of Life,” - Approx. V.P.). First of all, let's pay attention to an interesting parallel - perhaps not just by coincidence, but by deep meaning. The Newtonian-Cartesian model was adequate and even quite successful as long as physicists studied phenomena in the world of everyday experience, or in the “zone of middle dimensions.” As soon as they began to make excursions beyond the limits of ordinary perception into the microworld of subatomic processes and into the macroworld of astrophysics, the Newtonian-Cartesian model became unsuitable, and the need for its transcendence arose. Likewise, profound conceptual and metaphysical changes automatically occur to meditators and other explorers of inner spaces as soon as they experientially reach the transpersonal realms. A science that takes into account evidence for non-ordinary states of consciousness has no choice but to free itself from the narrow confines of the Newtonian-Cartesian model.
* Revolutionary changes in physics, which marked the end of the Newtonian model, began in the 19th century with the famous experiments of Faraday and Maxwell's theoretical work on electromagnetic phenomena. Through the efforts of these two naturalists, a new concept of a force field arose, replacing the Newtonian concept of force. Unlike Newtonian forces, force fields can be studied without connection with material bodies. This was the first major departure from Newtonian physics, and led to the discovery that light is a rapidly changing electromagnetic field that travels in waves through space. Based on this discovery, the general theory of electromagnetic oscillations succeeded in reducing the differences between radio waves, visible light, X-rays and cosmic radiation to differences in frequency; all these phenomena are united under the name “electromagnetic fields”.
*
* However, for many years electrodynamics remained under the spell of Newtonian thinking. Electromagnetic waves were thought to be vibrations of a very light substance called “ether.” The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of the ether, and Albert Einstein was the first to clearly state that electromagnetic fields exist on their own and are capable of propagating in empty space. The first decades of this century brought unexpected discoveries in physics that shook the very foundations of Newton's model of the universe. The cornerstone of this development was two papers published by Einstein in 1905. In the first, he formulated the principles of his special theory of relativity, in the second he proposed a new point of view on the nature of light - later physicists unanimously reworked it into the quantum theory of atomic processes. The theory of relativity and the new theory of the atom refuted all the basic concepts of Newtonian physics: the absoluteness of time and space, the inviolability of the material nature of space, the definition of physical forces, a strictly deterministic system of explanation and an ideal objective description of phenomena that does not take into account the observer. According to the theory of relativity, space is not three-dimensional and time is not linear; neither is a separate entity. They are closely intertwined and form a four-dimensional “space-time” continuum. The flow of time is not uniform and uniform, as in the Newtonian model, it depends on the position of observers and their speed relative to the observed event. Moreover, the general theory of relativity, formulated in 1915 and not yet definitively confirmed experimentally, states that the presence of massive objects affects space-time. Variations in the gravitational field in different parts of the Universe have a bending effect on space, which causes time to flow at a different pace.
* Any measurements in space and time are relative; moreover, the very structure of space-time depends on the distribution of matter - therefore the difference between matter and empty space disappears. Newton's concept of solid material bodies moving in empty space with Euclidean characteristics is now significant only in the “zone of middle dimensions.” In astrophysics and cosmology, the concept of empty space has no meaning, and the development of atomic and subatomic physics has destroyed the concept of solid matter.
* The history of subatomic research begins at the turn of the century with the discovery of X-rays and radioactive elements. Rutherford's experiments with alpha particles demonstrated that atoms are not solid and indivisible units of matter, but consist of huge voids in which small particles - electrons - move around the nuclei. When studying atomic processes, scientists encountered several paradoxes that arose whenever they tried to explain new data within the framework of traditional physics. In the 1920s, an international group of physicists, including Niels Bohr, Louis De Broglie, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli and Paul Dirac, achieved success in the search for a mathematical description of subatomic processes. The concept of quantum theory and its philosophical applications was not easily perceived, despite the fact that its mathematical apparatus adequately reflected the processes under consideration. The "planetary model" viewed the atom as empty space with tiny particles of matter, and quantum physics showed that even these particles are not real. It turned out that subatomic particles have very abstract characteristics and a paradoxical, dual nature. Depending on the organization of the experiment, they sometimes manifest themselves as particles and sometimes as waves. The same duality was observed in studies of the nature of light. In some experiments, light exhibited the properties of an electromagnetic field, while in others it appeared in the form of individual energy quanta, photons, which have no mass and always move at the speed of light. The fact that the same phenomenon appears as both a particle and a wave certainly violated Aristotelian logic. The form of a particle implies an entity contained in a small volume or finite region of space, whereas a wave propagates over vast regions of space. In quantum physics, these two descriptions are mutually exclusive, but equally necessary for a complete understanding of the phenomena in question. This found its expression in a new logical device, to which H. Bohr gave the name the principle of complementarity.
* This new ordering principle does not resolve the paradox, but only introduces it into the system of science. It accepts the logical contradiction of two aspects of reality, mutually exclusive and at the same time equally necessary for a comprehensive description of the phenomenon. According to Bohr, this contradiction is the result of an uncontrolled interaction between the object of observation and the means of observation. In the field of quantum interactions there can be no talk of causality and complete objectivity in the usual sense. The way in which the apparent contradiction between the concepts of particle and wave was resolved in quantum theory shook the very foundations of the mechanistic theory. At the subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty in a particular place, but rather “shows a tendency to exist,” intra-atomic events do not happen with certainty at a certain time in a certain way, but rather “shows a tendency to happen.” These trends can be expressed as mathematical probabilities with characteristic wave properties.
*The wave pattern of light or subatomic particles is not to be taken literally. Waves are not meant to be three-dimensional configurations, but rather mathematical abstractions or "probability waves" that reflect the probability of finding a particle at a given time and place. Quantum physics thus offered a scientific model of the universe in sharp contrast to the model of classical physics. At the subatomic level, the world of solid matter has broken down into a complex pattern of waves of probability. Moreover, careful analysis of the observation process has shown that subatomic particles do not make sense as separate entities; they can only be understood as relationships between experimental preparation and subsequent measurements. Therefore, probability waves are ultimately not probabilities of specific things, but probabilities of relationships.
* The study of the subatomic world did not end with the discovery of atomic nuclei and electrons. First, the atomic model was expanded to three "elementary particles" - the proton, neutron and electron. As experimental techniques improved and new instruments were created, the number of particles continued to grow; currently they number in the hundreds. During the experiments, it became clear that a complete theory of subatomic phenomena must include not only quantum physics, but also the theory of relativity, since the speed of particles is often close to the speed of light. According to Einstein, mass has nothing to do with matter, but is a form of energy; their relationship is expressed in his famous equation: E = ms2. A stunning consequence of the theory of relativity was the experimental confirmation that material particles can be created from pure energy and again turn into pure energy in the reverse process. The theory of relativity radically influenced not only the concept of particles, but also the picture of force interactions between them. The mutual attraction and repulsion of particles in a relativistic description is considered as an exchange of other particles. Consequently, the source of force and matter is now considered to be dynamic patterns called particles. Currently known particles cannot undergo further fission. In high-energy physics, where collision processes are used, matter can be divided many times, but not into smaller pieces; fragments are particles created from the energy of the collision process. Subatomic particles are thus destructible and indestructible at the same time. Field theory mastered the classical distinction between material particles and void. According to Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum field theory, particles are inseparable from the space that surrounds them. They are nothing more than a condensation of a continuous field present throughout space. Field theory suggests that particles can spontaneously appear from the void and disappear back into it.
* The discovery of the dynamic quality of the “physical vacuum” is one of the most important in modern physics. The vacuum is in a state of emptiness, nothingness, and yet it potentially contains all forms of the particle world. A review of the achievements of modern physics would be incomplete without mentioning a radical school of thought that is of particular relevance to our further discussion - the so-called "lacing" approach of Jeffrey Chu (1968). It was developed specifically for only one type of subatomic particle - hadrons, but with its consequences it represents a comprehensive philosophical understanding of nature.
* According to the "lace philosophy", nature cannot be reduced to any fundamental entities such as elementary particles or fields; it must be understood entirely in its self-sufficiency. Ultimately, the universe is an endless network of interconnected events. No property of any part of this network is elementary or fundamental; they all reflect the properties of its other parts. The Universe cannot be considered - as is the case in the Newtonian model and the concepts derived from it - as an ensemble of entities that are not amenable to further analysis and a priori data. The "laced" philosophy of nature not only denies the existence of the basic components of matter, it does not accept any fundamental laws of nature or mandatory principles at all. All theories of natural phenomena, including the laws of nature, are considered here to be creations of the human mind. They are conceptual schemes representing more or less adequate approximations and should not be confused with precise descriptions of reality or with reality itself.
* The history of twentieth-century physics is a complex process; it includes not only brilliant achievements, but also conceptual confusion, dramatic human conflicts. It took physicists a long time to abandon the basic assumptions of classical science and the agreed view of reality. The new physics entailed not only a change in the concepts of matter, space, time and linear causality, but also the recognition that paradoxes constitute an essential aspect of the new model of the Universe. Even after the mathematical apparatus of the theory of relativity and quantum theory was completed, accepted and assimilated by the main direction of science, physicists are still far from unanimity in matters of philosophical interpretation and metaphysical applications of this system of thought. Only with regard to quantum theory, there are several interpretations of its mathematical apparatus.
* Even very educated and advanced theoretical physicists, due to their upbringing, endow everyday reality with the properties that are attributed to it in classical physics. Many specialists refuse to deal with the unresolved philosophical questions of quantum theory and are inclined to a strictly pragmatic approach. They are content with the fact that the mathematics of quantum theory accurately predicts the results of experiments, and insist that this and only this matters.
* Another important approach to the problems of quantum theory is based on the stochastic interpretation. Physicists take a statistical approach to events in the phenomenal world unless they know all the mechanical details of the system to be studied. They call these unknown factors "hidden variables." Those who favor the stochastic interpretation of quantum theory attempt to demonstrate that it is essentially a classical theory of probabilistic processes and that a radical departure from the conceptual structure of classical physics is unjustified and erroneous. Many, following Einstein, believe that quantum theory is a special kind of statistical mechanics that gives only average values of measured quantities. At a deeper level, each individual system is governed by deterministic laws that remain to be discovered in the future through more precise research. In classical physics, hidden variables are local mechanisms. John Bell presented the proof that in quantum physics such hidden variables (if they exist) must be non-local connections to a common space, acting instantaneously. The Copenhagen interpretation, associated with the names of H. Bohr and W. Heisenberg, was the leading point of view on quantum theory until 1950. It highlights the principle of local causality and questions the objectivity of the existence of the microworld. According to this view, there is no reality unless there is a perception of that reality. Depending on the experimental conditions, various complementary aspects will become apparent. It is the fact of observation that violates the inextricable integrity of the universe and gives rise to paradoxes. The instantaneous experience of reality is not a paradox at all. The paradox arises when the observer tries to construct a history of his perception. And this happens because there is no clear dividing line between us and reality that exists outside of us. Reality is constructed by mental acts and depends on what and how we choose to observe.
* Among theoretical physicists there were those who tried to resolve the paradoxes of quantum physics by changing the foundations of scientific theory. Several developments in mathematics and philosophy have led to the idea that the reason for the inconsistencies may lie in the logical background of the theory. Searches in this direction led to attempts to replace the language of ordinary Boolean logic with quantum logic, in which the logical meaning of the words “and” and “or” was changed. And finally, the most fantastic interpretation of quantum theory was the hypothesis of the plurality of worlds, associated with the names of Hugh Everett, John A. Wheeler and Neil Graham. In this approach, the inconsistencies between generally accepted interpretations and the “collapse of the wave function” caused by the very act of observation are removed. This becomes possible, however, only at the cost of a radical revision of our most fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. The hypothesis postulates that the Universe splits into an infinite number of universes at every moment. Thanks to this multiple branching, all the possibilities provided for by the mathematical apparatus of quantum theory are actually realized, albeit in different universes.
* Reality then is the infinity of these universes existing in an all-encompassing “superspace”. Since the separate universes do not communicate with each other, there can be no contradictions. The most radical from the point of view of psychology, psychiatry and parapsychology are the interpretations that suggest the key role of the psyche in quantum reality. Authors thinking in this direction suggest that the mind or consciousness actually influences or even creates matter. The works of Eugene Wigner, Edward Walker, Jack Sarfatti and Charles Muses should be mentioned here.
* The interested reader will find more complete information in books by specialists in this field. Yet one more significant point should be mentioned. Einstein, whose work pioneered the development of quantum physics, stubbornly refused to acknowledge the fundamental role of probability in nature until the end of his life. He expressed his position in the famous saying, “God doesn’t play dice.” Even after several discussions with the best representatives of quantum physics, he remained convinced that someday in the future a deterministic interpretation in terms of "hidden local variables" would be found. In order to show the fallacy of Bohr's interpretation of quantum theory, Einstein came up with a thought experiment that later became known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment (EPR). Ironically, this experiment a few decades later served as the basis for Bell's theorem, which proved that the Cartesian concept of reality was incompatible with quantum theory.
* In a simplified version of the EPR experiment, two electrons spin in opposite directions, so their total spin is zero. They are moved away from each other until the distance between them becomes macroscopic; their estimated spins are then measured by two independent observers.
* Quantum theory predicts that in a system of two particles with a common zero spin, the spins relative to any axis will always be correlated, i.e. opposite. Although before actual measurement one can talk about the tendency of the spin, once the measurement is made, the potentiality becomes a real fact. An observer can choose any measurement axis, and this will instantly determine the spin of another particle, which may be thousands of miles away. According to the theory of relativity, no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, therefore, this situation is impossible in principle. Instantaneous, nonlocal communication between such particles cannot be achieved by a signal in the Einsteinian sense; Communication of this kind goes beyond the accepted concept of information transfer. Bell's theorem presented physicists with an unpleasant dilemma: one of two things is assumed - either the world is not objectively real, or superluminal connections operate in it. According to Henry Stapp, Bell's theorem showed "the profound truth that the Universe is either devoid of any fundamental law or is fundamentally inseparable."
* Although quantum relativistic physics has provided the most compelling and radical critique of the mechanistic worldview, important decisions have been made through research in other fields. Scientific thinking owes dramatic changes of this kind to the development of cybernetics, information theory, systems theory and the theory of logical types. One of the main representatives of this decisive turn in modern science was Gregory Bateson. He argues that thinking in terms of substance and discrete scraps is a serious error in logical typology. In everyday life we deal not with objects, but with their sensory transformations or messages of differences; in the sense of Korzybski's (1933) theory, we have access to maps, not to territory. The information, discrimination, form and pattern that make up our knowledge of the world are dimensionless entities that cannot be localized in space or time. Information flows in chains that go beyond the generally accepted boundaries of individuality and include everything around us. This mode of scientific thinking makes it absurd to attempt to understand the world in terms of individual objects and entities, to regard the individual, family or species as Darwinian communities in the struggle for survival, to distinguish between mind and body, or to identify with the ego-corporeal unit (“Ego clothed in skin" by Alan Watts). As in quantum relativistic physics, the emphasis shifts from substance and object to form, pattern and process.
* Systems theory made it possible to formulate a new definition of the mind and mental activity. She showed that any device consisting of parts and components that form sufficiently complex closed causal circuits with corresponding energetic connections will have mental characteristics, respond to differences, process information and self-regulate. In this sense, one can talk about the mental characteristics of cells, tissues and organs of the body, cultural groups and nations, ecological systems, or even the entire planet, as Lovelock did in his theory of Gaia. And when we talk about a greater mind that unites the hierarchy of all the smaller ones, even such a skeptic as G. Bateson must admit that such a concept is close to the concept of an immanent God.
*
* Profound criticism of the basic concepts of mechanistic science is also contained in the works of Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine (1980, 1984) and his colleagues in Brussels and Austin (Texas). Traditional science portrays life as a specific, rare and ultimately useless process - as an insignificant and random anomaly, a Quixotic battle against the absolute dictates of the second law of thermodynamics. This grim picture of a Universe dominated by an all-powerful tendency towards increasing randomness and entropy, where everything moves towards inevitable thermal death, now belongs to the past of science. Its refutation was served by Prigogine’s research on the so-called dissipative structures in certain chemical reactions and the new principle he discovered that underlies them - “order through fluctuations.” Further research showed that not only chemical processes are subject to this principle: it represents the basic mechanism for the unfolding of evolutionary processes in all areas - from atoms to galaxies, from individual cells to human beings and even to societies and cultures.
* Based on these observations, it became possible to formulate a unified point of view on evolution, the unifying principle of which is not a stable state, but the dynamic states of unbalanced systems. Open systems at all levels and in all domains are carriers of universal evolution, which ensures that life will continue to move into ever new dynamic modes of complexity. From this point of view, life itself appears to go far beyond the narrow framework of the concept of organic life.
* Whenever any systems in any area are suffocated by entropic waste, they mutate towards new regimes. The same energy and the same principles drive evolution on all levels, be it matter, vital forces, information or mental processes. Microcosm and macrocosm are two aspects of one - single and unifying - evolution. Life no longer seems to be a phenomenon unfolding in an inanimate Universe: the Universe itself becomes more and more alive.
* Although the simplest level of self-organization studied is the level of dissipative structures formed in self-renewing chemical reactions, the application of these principles to biological, psychological and sociological phenomena cannot be called reductionist thinking. In contrast to reductionism in mechanistic science, such interpretations are based on fundamental homology, on the similarity of the self-organizing dynamics of many levels. From this point of view, man is not superior to other living organisms; It's just that people live simultaneously on more levels than the life forms that appeared at the beginning of evolution. Here science has rediscovered the truth of the “eternal philosophy” that human evolution is a significant component of universal evolution. People are important mediators of this evolution, and not its helpless objects; they themselves are evolution. Like quantum relativistic physics, this science of becoming, replacing the old science of being, shifted attention from substance to process.
*
* The structure here is a random product of interacting processes, which, according to Erich Jantsch, is no more durable than the pattern of a standing wave at the confluence of two rivers or the smile of a Cheshire cat. The last major challenge to mechanistic thinking was the theory of the British biologist and biochemist Rupert Sheldrake, outlined in his revolutionary book The New Science of Life (1981). Sheldrake brilliantly criticizes the limitations of the explanatory power of mechanistic science and its inability to cope with key problems in the field of morphogenesis of individual development and the evolution of species, genetics, instinctive and more complex forms of behavior. Mechanistic science deals only with the quantitative aspect of a phenomenon, with what Sheldrake calls "energetic causality."
* She has nothing to say about the qualitative aspect - about the development of forms or “formative causality”. According to Sheldrake's theory, living organisms are not just complex biological machines; life cannot be reduced to chemical reactions. The form, development and behavior of organisms are determined by "morphogenetic fields" that cannot currently be detected, measured or understood by physics. These fields are created by the form and behavior of past organisms of the same species through direct communication through space and time and have cumulative properties. If enough members of a species have developed some organismic properties or special forms of behavior, this is automatically transmitted to other individuals, even if there are no ordinary forms of contact between them." The phenomenon of "morphic resonance", as Sheldrake called it, does not only apply to living organisms , it can be seen in such elementary phenomena as crystal growth.
* No matter how implausible and absurd this theory may seem to a mechanically oriented mind, it is testable, in contrast to the basic metaphysical provisions of the materialistic worldview. Even now, at its early stage, it is confirmed by experiments on rats and observations of monkeys. Sheldrake is fully aware that his theory has far-reaching applications in psychology, and he himself has spoken of its connection with Jung's concept of the collective unconscious. A review of new directions in science would be incomplete without mentioning the work of Arthur Young. His theory of processes seriously claims to be a future scientific metaparadigm. It organizes and comprehensively explains data from a range of disciplines: geometry, quantum and relativity, chemistry, biology, botany, zoology, psychology and history, integrating them into a comprehensive cosmological vision. Young's model of the Universe has four levels, defined by degrees of freedom and limitation, and seven successive stages: light, nuclear particles, atoms, molecules, plants, animals and people. Young was able to discover a fundamental pattern of the universal process, repeating itself again and again at various levels of evolution in nature. In addition to broad possibilities for explaining phenomena, this concept has the ability to predict them.
* Like the periodic system of Mendeleev, it is capable of predicting natural phenomena in their specific aspects. By attributing the decisive role in the Universe to light and the purposeful influence of quanta of action, Young bridged the gap separating science, mythology and "perennial philosophy." His meta-paradigm is therefore consistent not only with the best in science, but can also be applied to non-objective and indefinable aspects of reality far beyond its established boundaries. Young's theory is not worth discussing without a solid knowledge of several scientific fields, so the interested reader should refer to the original work.
*
* It is currently impossible to explain all the revolutionary discoveries of modern science in a coherent and comprehensive new paradigm. However, they all seem to have something in common, namely, the deep conviction shared by their supporters that the mechanistic image of the Universe created by Newtonian-Cartesian science can no longer be considered an accurate and definitive model of reality. The concept of space as a gigantic supermachine, assembled from countless individual objects and existing independently of the observer, is already outdated and consigned to the historical archives of science. The corrected model shows the Universe as a single and indivisible network of events and relationships; its parts represent different aspects and patterns of one integral process of unimaginable complexity. As James Jeans predicted more than fifty years ago, the universe of modern physics is more like a system of mental processes than a giant clockwork. As scientists delve deeper into the structure of matter and study numerous aspects of the world's processes, the concept of solid substance gradually disappears from this picture, leaving them only with archetypal patterns, abstract mathematical formulas, or universal order. Therefore, it will not be strange to assume that the connecting principle in the cosmic network is consciousness as the primary and irreducible attribute of existence.
Modern studies of consciousness.
After reviewing some of the exciting discoveries of modern science, let's return to modern research on consciousness. For the most part, they are clearly incompatible with the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm of mechanistic science, so it will be interesting to consider their relationship to various aspects of the new scientific worldview. The revolutionary potential of data obtained from modern consciousness research appears to change with the level of observation. Thus, experiences of a biographical nature do not exert serious pressure on established ways of thinking and may require only minor amendments to existing theories. The perinatal experience requires more serious changes in theory, but it can probably be assimilated without a radical paradigm shift. But the existence of transpersonal experiences deals a mortal blow to mechanistic thinking and requires changes in the very basis of the scientific worldview. The inevitable drastic revision will especially affect those disciplines that have remained under the spell of the Newton-Cartesian paradigm and still accept the principles of this model, created in the 17th century, as the principles of science. Fridtjof Capra and others have shown that the worldview of modern physics is approaching a mystical worldview. This is even more true of modern consciousness studies, since they directly deal with states of consciousness, like the mystical schools. Something needs to be clarified and clarified here. The convergence of physics and mysticism does not mean their identity or even the possibility of their future merger. The tendency towards such an interpretation has been justly criticized more than once. Ken Wilber was especially astute in her criticism. In the article "Physics, Mysticism and the New Holographic Paradigm" he pointed out that the "perennial philosophy" describes being and consciousness as a hierarchy of levels, from the lowest and most fragmentary regions to the highest, subtlest and most unitary. In almost all worldviews the following main levels can be traced:1) physical level of inanimate matter/energy;
2) the biological level of living, sentient matter/energy;
3) psychological level of mind, ego, logic;
4) subtle level of parapsychological and archetypal phenomena;
5) the causal level, characterized by formless radiance and perfect transcendence;
6) absolute consciousness and suchness of all levels of the spectrum.
* From a mystical point of view, each level of the spectrum transcends and includes all previous ones, but not vice versa. Since the lower, according to the "perennial philosophy", was created by the higher (in a process called "involution"), the higher cannot be explained from the lower. Each of the lower levels has a more limited and controlled circle of consciousness than the higher ones. The elements of the lower worlds are not able to perceive the higher worlds and do not know about their existence, although they permeate them.
* Mysticism distinguishes two forms of interpretation - horizontal, within each level, and vertical, between levels. Within each level there is a holoarchy - all elements are approximately equal in status and are mutually permeable. Inequality and hierarchy exist between levels. The discoveries of physics confirmed only a small fragment of the mystical point of view. Physicists have destroyed the dogma of the primacy of indestructible solid matter, which served as the basis of the mechanistic worldview: in subatomic experiments, matter is disintegrated into abstract patterns and forms of consciousness. Physicists also showed horizontal unity and interpenetration at the first, physical, level of the hierarchy of the “eternal philosophy.”
* Information theory and systems theory have identified a similar situation at the second and third levels. Discoveries in physics, chemistry or biology cannot say anything about the higher levels of the mystical hierarchy. In this regard, scientific achievements have only indirect significance. By destroying the mechanistic worldview that makes fun of mysticism and spirituality, they thereby create a favorable atmosphere for the study of consciousness. And only discoveries in scientific disciplines that directly study consciousness can provide access to the remaining levels of the spectrum covered by the “perennial philosophy.” With this in mind, we can now consider the relationship between the results of modern consciousness research and recent developments in other scientific fields.
*Transpersonal experiences fall into two main categories. The first includes phenomena whose content directly relates to elements of the material world - other people, animals, plants and inanimate objects or processes. The second includes areas of experience that are clearly beyond what is considered objective reality in the West. These include, for example, various archetypal visions, mythological stories, experiences of divine and demonic influence, encounters with disembodied or superhuman beings, empirical identification with the Universal Mind or the Supercosmic Void.
*The first category can be further divided into two sub-groups; the principle of division here is the nature of conventional barriers subject to transcendence. For the experiences of the first subgroup, this is, first of all, spatial separation and a state of separation; for the second, it is the limitations of linear time. An experience of this kind represents an insurmountable obstacle to Cartesian-Newtonian science, which sees matter as solid, boundaries and separation as absolute properties of the Universe, and time as linear and irreversible. This is not at all true from the point of view of modern science, which portrays the Universe as an infinite and unified network of interconnections and considers all boundaries to be conditional and easily changeable. There has been a transcendence of the sharp distinction between an object and empty space, which means that the possibility of direct subatomic connections has arisen that bypass the channels accepted (or acceptable) in mechanistic science. The possibility of the existence of consciousness outside the brain of humans and higher vertebrates is also seriously considered in the context of modern physics. Some physicists believe that consciousness should be included in future theories of matter and in thinking about the physical universe as the most important factor and connecting principle of the cosmic web. If the Universe is an integral and unified network, and some of its components are apparently conscious, this must, in some sense, be true of the entire system. Of course, it is entirely possible that different parts are conscious to different degrees and have different forms of awareness.
* From this point of view, any divisions of the cosmic network, indivisible in the ultimate sense, will be incomplete, conditional and changeable. So there is no reason why this cannot be true for the empirical boundaries between units of consciousness. It is possible that under certain circumstances an individual can restore his identity with the cosmic network and consciously experience any aspect of its existence. Likewise, some extrasensory perception (ESP) phenomena based on the transcendence of conventional spatial boundaries can be consistent with this model. For telepathy, psychodiagnostics, distance vision or astral projection, the question is no longer whether such phenomena are possible, but how to describe the barrier that prevents them from occurring at any time. In other words, the new problem is: what creates the appearance of density, separateness and individuality in an essentially empty and immaterial Universe, the true nature of which is indivisible unity?
* Transpersonal experiences that transcend spatial barriers are quite consistent with information theory and systems theory. This approach also gives a picture of a world in which boundaries are arbitrary, dense matter does not exist, and pattern plays the most important role. Although the problem of consciousness is not discussed explicitly here, it is permissible to talk about mental processes in cells, organs, lower organisms, plants, ecological systems, social groups, or the entire planet. With regard to experiences involving the transcendence of time barriers, the only interpretation of mechanistic science is the recording of past events on the material substrate of the central nervous system, i.e. genetic coding. Probably, such a point of view can be admitted with great stretch in relation to some experiences of the past - embryonic experience, ancestral memory, racial and phylogenetic experiences. But it would be completely absurd in this context to consider experiences that reproduce historical episodes with which the individual is not connected by any biological line, for example, elements of the Jungian collective unconscious from other racial cultures. The same is true for periods of time before the emergence of the central nervous system, life, planet or solar system. Any experiences of future events are also inexplicable because the future has not yet occurred. Modern physics offers some surprising explanatory possibilities based on a broader understanding of the nature of time. Einstein's theory of relativity, which replaced three-dimensional space and linear time with the concept of a four-dimensional space-time continuum, provides an interesting opportunity for understanding some transpersonal experiences relating to other historical periods. The special theory of relativity allows time to reverse under certain circumstances. In modern physics, it is becoming increasingly common to view time as a bidirectional - forward and backward - entity. For example, in high-energy physics, when interpreting space-time diagrams (Feynman diagrams), the forward movement of particles in time is equivalent to the movement of the corresponding antiparticles in the opposite direction. In the reflections presented in Geometrodynamics, John Wheeler establishes parallels in the physical world to what happens empirically in certain non-ordinary states of consciousness. Wheeler's concept of hyperspace theoretically allows for instantaneous connections between elements of space without Einstein's limitation on the speed of light. The extraordinary changes in space-time, matter and causality postulated by the theory of relativity in connection with the collapse of stars and black holes also have their parallels with experiences in unusual states of consciousness.
* Although it is currently impossible to connect the concepts of modern physics with consciousness research in a direct and understandable way, the parallels are striking. When one considers the extraordinary concepts physicists need to explain observations at the simplest of all levels of reality, the futility of mechanistic psychology's attempts to deny phenomena that conflict with boring common sense or cannot be traced back to such notable past events as circumcision or habituation becomes apparent. to the toilet.
* In contrast to the phenomena described above, the category of transpersonal experiences, the content of which has no parallel in material reality, is clearly beyond the capabilities of physics. Nevertheless, there is still a fundamental difference between their status in the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm and in the modern worldview. According to the mechanistic model, the Universe consists of a huge number of material particles and objects. The existence of immaterial entities, not observable, not captured by ordinary means and in the ordinary state of consciousness, is fundamentally denied. Experiences associated with these entities will inevitably be attributed to the world of altered states of consciousness and hallucinations, and will be interpreted philosophically as distortions of reality arising somehow in the sensory perception of “objectively existing elements”.
* In the modern worldview, even the material components of the world can be traced to abstract patterns and to a “dynamic vacuum”. In the unified network of the Universe, any structures, forms and distinctions are extremely arbitrary, and form and emptiness are relative concepts. A universe with these kinds of properties does not, in principle, exclude the possibility of entities of any size and with any characteristics, including mythological and archetypal forms. In the world of vibrations, selective tuning to coherent and comprehensive information systems has been successfully developed for radio and television.
* We have already noted that transpersonal experiences often have a deep semantic connection with patterns of events in the external world that cannot be explained in terms of linear causality. Carl Gustav Jung (1960) observed many such stunning coincidences in his clinical work; to explain them, he postulated the existence of an acausal connecting principle, which he called synchronicity.
* By his definition, synchronicity occurs when “a certain mental state occurs simultaneously with one or more external events that occur as significant parallels to the current subjective state.” Synchronically related events are clearly related thematically, although there is no linear causal connection between them. Many of those considered psychotic experience striking moments of synchronicity, but in biased interviews conducted by orthodox psychiatrists, all mentions of meaningful coincidences are stereotyped as illusory. In fact, there is no doubt that in addition to the pathological interpretation of apparently unrelated events, there is also genuine synchronicity. Situations of this nature are too striking and too common to be ignored. And so it is very encouraging to see that modern physicists have agreed to acknowledge the existence of such phenomena in the carefully controlled context of their laboratory experiments. Bell's theorem and experiments related to it are especially interesting in this regard.
* The parallels between the worldview of modern physics and the world of mystical experiences are indeed promising, and there is every reason to believe that the similarities will increase. The main difference between arguments based on scientific analysis of the external world and those arising in deep self-study is that for a modern physicist the world of the paradoxical and transrational can only be expressed in abstract mathematical equations, while in unusual states of consciousness it becomes direct and immediate experience.
*
* The complexity of the field has forced psychology and psychiatry in the past to seek a strong foothold in physics, chemistry, biology and medicine to gain the reputation of exact sciences. These efforts, necessary historically and politically, did not at all take into account the fact that the intricate phenomena studied by psychiatry and psychology cannot be described and explained in their entirety by the conceptual structures of the sciences that study the simpler and more fundamental aspects of reality.
* The achievements of psychological research, of course, cannot contradict the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. However, a science that studies unique and specific phenomena of consciousness must have its own contribution to the understanding of the world and its own approaches and systems of description that are most suitable for its tasks. Since all scientific disciplines are ultimately based on sensory perception and are products of the human mind, it seems clear that consciousness research can greatly contribute to the study of any area of the physical world.
*
* It is interesting from this point of view to look at the gradual convergence in the views of modern physics, mysticism and consciousness research. Although the parallels here are very deep and striking, they are mostly formal in nature and explain only those transpersonal experiences in which the individual consciously identifies with various aspects of the material Universe in the past, present and future. And mystical literature describes a whole range of other areas of reality that elude the traditional approaches of materialistic science. The new model of reality, described by quantum relativistic physics, parted with the concept of dense, indestructible matter and individual objects, showing the Universe as a complex network of events and connections. In the ultimate analysis, traces of material substance of any kind disappear into the pristine emptiness of the dynamic vacuum. However, physicists have little to say about the variety of forms of "cosmic dance" at other levels of reality. Empirical insights that have occurred in non-ordinary states of consciousness suggest the existence of an intangible and incomprehensible creative intelligence that is aware of itself and permeates all areas of reality. This approach notes that the highest principle of existence and ultimate reality are represented by pure consciousness without any specific content. Everything in the cosmos flows from it; it creates countless phenomenal worlds for exploration, adventure, drama, art and humor. This aspect of reality - although it lies beyond the reach of the methods of exact science - may prove indispensable for a true understanding of the Universe and its comprehensive description.
* It is difficult to imagine that physicists, now or at any time in the future, will be able within their discipline to gain access to this ultimate secret. Therefore, it would only be a repetition of the old mistake to borrow a new paradigm from physics and make it a mandatory basis for consciousness research. It is essential that the paradigm emerges from the needs of our own discipline and attempts to lead to other disciplines rather than imitate them. The significance of the advances in physics for the study of consciousness lies in the destruction of the conceptual straitjacket of Newtonian-Cartesian science, not in the proposal of a new paradigm. Here it is appropriate to evaluate what the data obtained in quantum relativistic physics, in modern consciousness research and in other areas of twentieth-century science, implies for understanding the psyche and human nature. In the past, mechanistic science has collected a lot of evidence that a person can be understood and studied with a significant degree of success as a separate material object - essentially, as a biological machine assembled in parts, that is, from bodily organs, tissues, cells. In this approach, consciousness is viewed as a product of physiological processes in the brain.
* In the light of the results of consciousness research presented here, the image of man as an exclusively biological machine is no longer acceptable. In serious logical conflict with the traditional model, the new data unequivocally support the view defended by all mystical traditions in all ages: under some circumstances, a person can function as a vast field of consciousness, transcending the limitations of the physical body, Newtonian space and time, and linear causality. This situation is very similar to the one faced by modern physics in the study of subatomic processes. The principle of complementarity applies exclusively to the phenomena of the subatomic world; it cannot be automatically transferred to other areas of research. However, it sets an important precedent for other disciplines by codifying the paradox rather than attempting to resolve it. Apparently, the sciences that study humans - medicine, psychiatry, psychology, parapsychology, anthropology, thanatology and others - have already collected enough contradictory data to confirm this principle of complementarity.
* Although this seems absurd and impossible from the point of view of classical logic, human nature exhibits an interesting duality. Sometimes she reduces herself to mechanistic interpretations, equating a person with his body and bodily functions. In other cases it reveals a completely different image, suggesting that man can function as a limitless field of consciousness, transcending matter, space, time and linear causality. In order to describe a person in a comprehensive and exhaustive way, we must accept the paradoxical fact that he is simultaneously both a material object, that is, a biological machine, and a vast field of consciousness.
*
* Several advances in mathematics, physics, and brain research have revealed the existence of new mechanisms that open up promising prospects. In the future, these seemingly disparate images of human nature will likely be synthesized and integrated in an elegant and comprehensive way.
* Evidence supporting this synthesis comes from the field of holography, David Bohm's theory of propulsion, and Karl Pribram's brain research.
Holonomic approach.
Over the past three decades, significant advances in mathematics, laser technology, holography, quantum relativistic physics, and brain research have led to the discovery of new principles that open up far-reaching prospects for modern consciousness research and for science in general. These principles have been called holonomic, holographic, or hologrammatic because they provide a fascinating alternative to the conventional understanding of the relationship between the whole and its parts. Their unique nature can best be demonstrated through the process of recording, reproducing and combining information using the technical means of optical holography.* It is important to note that it is still premature to talk about a “holonomic theory of the Universe and the brain,” as was done in the recent past. We are currently faced with a mosaic of surprising and important data and theories from various fields that have not yet been integrated into a comprehensive conceptual framework. Still, the holonomic approach—emphasizing the interference of wave patterns rather than mechanical interactions, and information rather than substance—represents a promising tool for the needs of modern scientific understanding of the wave nature of the universe. New intuitive insights touch upon such fundamental problems as the ordering and organizing principles of reality and the central nervous system, the distribution of information in space and in the brain, the nature of memory, the mechanisms of perception, the relationship of parts and the whole. The modern holonomic approach to the Universe has historical predecessors in ancient Indian and Chinese spiritual philosophy, in the monadology of the great German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz. The transcendence of the conventional difference between parts and the whole, which is the main achievement of the holonomic model, is an essential characteristic of a variety of systems of eternal philosophy. The poetic image of the necklace of the Vedic god Indra is a wonderful illustration of this principle. In the Avatamsaka Sutra it is written: “In Indra’s heaven there is, they say, a string of pearls, chosen in such a way that if you look at one pearl, you will see all the others reflected in it. And in the same way, every thing in the world is not just itself , but contains all other things and in fact is everything else." Sir Charles Blyth (1969), quoting this passage, adds: "In every particle of dust there are countless Buddhas." A similar image of the ancient Chinese tradition can be found in the Huayan school of Buddhism; it is a holistic view of the universe that embodies one of the most profound insights ever achieved by the human mind. Empress Wu, who found herself unable to overcome the complexities of Huayan literature, asked Fa Cang, one of the founders of the school, to give her a practical and simple demonstration of cosmic interdependence. Fa Tsang first hung a burning lamp from the ceiling of a room lined with mirrors to show the relationship of the One to the many. He then placed a small crystal in the center of the room and, showing that everything around him was reflected in it, illustrated how in the Ultimate Reality the infinitely small contains the infinitely large, and the infinitely large contains the infinitely small. Having done all this, Fa Tsang noticed that, unfortunately, this static model is unable to reflect the eternal, multidimensional movement in the Universe and the unhindered mutual penetration of Time and Eternity, as well as the past, present and future.
* In the Jain tradition, the holonomic approach to the world is presented in the most sophisticated and elaborated way. According to this cosmology, the phenomenal world is a complex system of errant particles of consciousness (jivas) trapped in matter at various stages of the cosmic cycle. This system endows consciousness and jivas not only in human and animal forms, but also in plants, inorganic objects and processes. Monads in Leibniz's philosophy have many characteristics similar to jivas; all knowledge about the entire Universe can be deduced from information relating to a single monad. Interestingly, it was Leibniz who invented the mathematical apparatus that is now used in holography. (Holography technique. The laser beam is split by a silvered translucent mirror. One part of it (the working beam), passing through, is directed to the object being photographed and, reflected from it, hits the photographic plate. The other part (the auxiliary beam) is reflected directly onto the plate. When two The beams are reconnected, the interference pattern is imprinted on the emulsion film. Now, when illuminated, this pattern will recreate a three-dimensional image of the object.) The holographic technique can be used as a powerful metaphor for the new approach and a vivid illustration of its principles. Therefore, it would be appropriate to start with a description of its basic technological aspects. Holography is three-dimensional, lensless photography capable of reproducing unusually realistic images of material objects.
* The mathematical principles of this revolutionary technique were developed by the English scientist Denis Gabor in the late 40s; in 1971 Gabor received the Nobel Prize for his discovery. Holograms and holography cannot be understood in terms of geometric optics, in which light is composed of discrete particles, photons. The holographic method is based on the principle of superposition and on interference patterns, which assumes a wave understanding of light. The principles of geometric optics provide adequate approximations for many optical instruments, including telescopes, microscopes, photographic and movie cameras. They use only the light reflected from the object and its intensity, but not its phase. Mechanical optics cannot record the interference of light patterns. And this is precisely the essence of holography, which is based on the interference of pure monochromatic and coherent light (light with the same wavelength and phase). In holography technique, a beam of laser light is split and interacts with the object being photographed; the resulting interference pattern is recorded on the photographic plate. Subsequent illumination of this plate with a laser beam makes it possible to reproduce a three-dimensional image of the original object.
*Holographic images have many characteristics that make them excellent models of experiences in non-ordinary states of consciousness.
*
* When holographic images are taken from different angles, all individual images can be reconstructed sequentially and separately from the others from the same emulsion surface by repeating the original exposure conditions. This illustrates another aspect of visionary experiences, namely that countless images will unfold in rapid succession from the same area of experience, appearing and disappearing as if by magic. Individual holographic images are perceived as real, but at the same time they are components of a much larger, undifferentiated matrix of light interference patterns that generate them. This fact can be used as an elegant model for some other aspects of transpersonal experience. A holographic image can be shot so that the same image occupies different spaces, as in the simultaneous exposure of two people or an entire group. In this case, the hologram gives an image of two individuals or even a group of individuals. And at the same time, it is obvious to those who are familiar with the principles of holography that these images can be seen as completely undifferentiated fields of light, which, thanks to a special interference pattern, create the illusion of separate objects. The relativity of separateness and unity is extremely significant in mystical experiences. It would be difficult to find a more suitable aid and teaching tool for illustrating these aspects of non-ordinary states of consciousness (otherwise incomprehensible and paradoxical) than holography.
* The most interesting properties of holograms are probably associated with the ability to “memorize” and reproduce information. An optical hologram has a distributed memory; any small part of it, the volume of which allows it to contain the full diffraction pattern, contains information about the entire image as a whole. Reducing the size of the part of the hologram used to reproduce the image will be associated with some loss of resolution or with an increase in information noise, but the main characteristics of the whole will be preserved.
* Holographic technology also allows you to synthesize new images of non-existent objects by combining various input images. This mechanism can be compared with the numerous combinations and symbolic variations of unconscious material which are observed in dreams. In these variations one can see the fact that each individual psychological gestalt - be it a vision, fantasy, psychosomatic symptom or thought form - contains a huge amount of information about the personality. For example, free association and analytical work on each seemingly insignificant detail of an experience can provide an amazing amount of data about an individual. The phenomenon of distributive memory has the greatest potential significance for understanding the fact that in certain special states of consciousness there is access to information about almost any aspect of the Universe. The holographic approach allows us to imagine how information mediated by the brain becomes available to each of its cells, how genetic information about the whole organism is contained in each individual cell of the body.
* In those models of the Universe where the main attention is given to substance and quantity (as in the one created by mechanistic science), the part differs from the whole in an obvious and absolute way. In a model that represents the Universe as a system of vibrations and is based on information, and not on substance, this difference no longer applies.
* This radical change, where the emphasis shifts from substance to information, can be illustrated by the example of the human body. Although each somatic cell is the simplest part of the whole body, it has access to any information about it through the genetic code. It is quite possible that in the same way all information about the Universe can be reproduced in any part of it. Demonstrating how elegantly the seemingly insurmountable difference between part and whole can be transcended is perhaps the most significant contribution of the holographic model to the theory of modern consciousness research.
*
* No matter how exciting the possibilities of holography and holophony may be, perhaps we should not get carried away by their indiscriminate and too literal application to the study of consciousness. At best, holograms and holophonic recordings can only copy the most important aspects of events in the material world, while the spectrum of transpersonal experiences includes many phenomena that are undoubtedly generated by the psyche, and not simply copies of existing objects and events or their derivatives and combinations. In addition, experiences in non-ordinary states of consciousness have certain characteristics that cannot currently be directly modeled in holonomic technology, although some of them may occur in the form of holophonic sound-induced synesthesia. These include experiences associated with temperature changes, physical pain, tactile sensations, sexual feelings, smell, taste and various emotional qualities.
* In optical holography, the images themselves, the light field that creates them, and the film that serves as the generating matrix exist on the same plane of reality; they can be simultaneously perceived and touched in the normal state of consciousness. In the same way, all elements of the holophonic system are accessible to our sensations and instruments in everyday consciousness. The eminent theoretical physicist David Bohm, who previously worked with Einstein and authored fundamental texts on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, formulated a revolutionary model of the Universe that extends holonomic principles to those areas that are not currently the subject of direct observation and scientific research. In an attempt to resolve the troubling paradoxes of modern physics, Bohm resurrected the theory of hidden variables, which had long been considered untenable even by such famous physicists as Heisenberg and von Neumann. The resulting picture of reality dramatically changed the most fundamental philosophical assumptions of Western science. Bohm describes the nature of reality in general and consciousness in particular as an inseparable and coherent whole, involved in an endless process of change - cold movement. The world is a constant flux, and stable structures of any kind are nothing more than an abstraction; any describable object, any entity or event is considered to be derived from an indefinable and unknown universality.
* The phenomena that we perceive directly with our senses and with the help of scientific instruments - that is, the whole world studied by mechanistic science - represent only a fragment of reality, a detailed or explicit (explicit) order. This is a special form, the source and generating matrix of which is the more fundamental universality of existence - the collapsed or implicit (implicit) order, in which this form is contained and from which it arises. Implicitly, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relations of dependence or independence of various elements. The various aspects of existence are meaningfully related to the whole, they serve specific functions towards an end goal, rather than being independent building blocks. The image of the Universe, therefore, resembles a living organism, the organs, tissues and cells of which have meaning only in relation to the whole.
* Bohm's theory, originally conceived only to solve urgent problems of modern physics, has revolutionary significance for understanding not only physical reality, but also the phenomena of life, consciousness, the functions of science and cognition in general. According to this theory, life cannot be understood in terms of inanimate matter or as derived from it. In fact, it is impossible to draw a clear and absolute boundary between them. Both life and inanimate matter have a common basis in cold motion, which is their Primary and universal source. Inanimate matter should be considered as a relatively autonomous sub-community in which life is “implied” but not significantly manifested. Unlike idealists and materialists, Bohm suggests that matter and consciousness cannot be explained through each other or reduced to each other.
* Both are abstractions of an implicit order, their common basis, and therefore represent an indivisible unity. In a very similar way, knowledge about reality in general and science in particular are abstractions of one universal flow. They are not reflections of reality and not its direct descriptions, but an integral part of the cold movement. Thinking has two important aspects: while functioning on its own, it is mechanical and derives its order (usually unusable and irrelevant) from memory. It, however, can come directly from rationality - a free, independent and unconditioned element born in cold movement. Perception and knowledge, including scientific theories, are creative activities comparable to the artistic process, and not an objective reflection of an independently existing reality. True reality is immeasurable, and true intuition sees the essence of existence in immeasurability.
* The conceptual fragmentation of the world characteristic of mechanistic science gives rise to serious disharmony and is fraught with dangerous consequences. It has a tendency not only to separate what is indivisible, but also to unite what is incompatible, thereby creating artificial structures - national, economic, political and religious. To be mistaken about what is different and what is not is to be mistaken about everything. The inevitable result is emotional, economic, political and environmental crisis.
* According to Bohm, the situation in Western science can be described using the example of optical lenses. With the invention of lenses, it became possible to extend scientific research beyond the classical order, into the realm of objects that are too small, too large, too distant, or moving too fast to be perceived by the naked eye. The use of lenses has increased awareness of the different parts of objects and their relationships. This further strengthened the tendency to think in the language of analysis and synthesis.
* One of the most important advantages of holography is its ability to facilitate direct perceptual intuition regarding indivisible wholeness - which is the very essence of the modern worldview, which arose in quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. Modern laws of nature must be based primarily on this indivisible wholeness, in which everything includes everything else, as in the case of a hologram, and not the analysis of individual parts, as in the case of lenses. D. Bohm probably went further than other physicists, explicitly including consciousness in his theoretical reasoning. Fridtjof Capra considered Bohm's theory of cold motion and Chu's philosophy of nature to be the most profound and creative approaches to reality. He points out their deep similarities and considers the possibility that in the future they will merge into a comprehensive theory of physical phenomena. Both see the universe as a dynamic network of relationships, both emphasize the role of order, both use matrices to represent change and transformation, and both use topology to describe categories of order. It is difficult to imagine how Bohm's ideas about consciousness, thinking, and perception could fit with traditional mechanistic approaches to neuropsychology and psychology. However, some recent revolutionary advances in brain research have significantly changed the situation. Neurosurgeon Karl Pribram (1971, 1976, 1977, 1981) developed an original model of the brain that postulates that some important aspects of its function are based on holographic principles. Although Bohm's model of the universe and Pribram's model of the brain have not been integrated into a comprehensive paradigm, it is encouraging that they both share a holographic approach.
* Pribram, who has built a reputation as a leading brain researcher through decades of experimental work in neurosurgery and electrophysiology, traces the origins of his holographic model to the research of his teacher Karl Lashley. In countless experiments on rats on the problem of localizing psychological and physiological functions in different parts of the brain, Lashley discovered that memories are stored in all parts of the cortex, and their intensity depends on the total number of its active cells. In his book Brain Mechanisms and the Mind (1929), Lashley expressed the idea that the firing of millions of neurons in the brain forms stable interference patterns scattered throughout the cortex and represent the basis for all information in the perceptual and memory systems. Pribram, trying to resolve the conceptual problems raised by experiments of this kind, became interested in some of the surprising effects of optical holograms. He realized that a model based on holographic principles could explain many of the seemingly mysterious properties of the brain - the enormous capacity of memory, the distribution of memory, the ability of sensory systems to imagine, the projection of images from the memory region, some important aspects of associative memory, etc.
* Working in this direction, Pribram came to the conclusion that the holographic process could serve as an explanatory tool, extremely powerful in neuropsychology and psychology. In the book “Languages of the Brain” (1971) and in a series of articles, he formulated the basic principles of what later became known as the holographic model of the brain. According to his research, the most important and promising in this sense are holograms, which are expressed in the form of so-called Fourier transforms. According to Fourier's theorem, any most complex pattern can be decomposed into a series of regular waves. Applying the inverse transform converts the wave pattern back into an image. The holographic hypothesis does not contradict the localization of functions in various brain systems. Localization of functions largely depends on connections between the brain and peripheral structures; they are the ones who determine what is encoded. The holographic hypothesis addresses the problem of internal coherence in each of the systems, and this coherence determines how events become code. Another interesting approach to the localization problem is based on the assumption of D. Gabor that the Fourier domain can be divided into information units called logons using a window operation, which limits the width of the range. The "window" can be used in such a way that the processing sometimes occurs in the holographic domain, and in other cases in the space-time domain. This provides new insight into why brain functions appear to be both localized and distributed.
* Pribram's hypothesis represents a powerful alternative to two models of brain function hitherto considered the only possible ones: field theory and characteristic correspondence theory. Both of these theories are isomorphic - they postulate that the form of representation in the central nervous system reflects the basic characteristics of stimuli. According to field theory, sensory stimuli generate forward flow fields that have the same outline as the stimuli themselves. The theory of characteristic correspondences believes that an individual cell or cell ensemble responds to only one characteristic of sensory stimuli. In the holographic hypothesis there is no linear correspondence or identity between the representation in the brain and the phenomenal experience, just as there is no linear correspondence between the structure of the hologram and the image obtained by properly projecting the film.
* The holographic hypothesis does not aim to describe all the physiology of the brain or all the problems of psychology. However, it is clear that even without this, it offers incredible new opportunities for future research. Convincing experimental data and an accurate mathematical description have so far been obtained only for the visual, auditory and somatosensory systems.
* Pribram was able to connect his topographic hypothesis with important aspects of the anatomy and physiology of the brain. In addition to the standard transformation of neural impulses between the central nervous system and peripheral receptors (effectors), he drew attention to slow-wave potentials operating between synapses even in the absence of nerve impulses. This occurs either in cells with dense dendritic branches and short axons, or in cells with no axons at all. And if neural impulses act as binary “yes-no,” then slow potentials change gradually, forming continuous waves along the connections between neurons. Pribram believes that this "parallel processing" plays a critical role in the holographic functioning of the brain. The interaction of two systems leads to wave phenomena that are subject to holographic principles. Slow wave potentials are very weak and sensitive to various influences. This provides an interesting basis for thinking about the interaction between consciousness and brain mechanisms and for theorizing about the psychological effects of various drug-free techniques for altering consciousness. From this point of view, the technique of holonomic integration, which combines hyperventilation, music and directed work with the body, is especially interesting. Low frequency wave approaches - meditation and biofeedback - are also very interesting in this context. As already noted, the theories of Bohm and Pribram are still far from being unified and integrated into a comprehensive paradigm. Even if such a synthesis were to occur in the future, the resulting conceptual framework would not provide a satisfactory explanation for all of the phenomena observed in contemporary consciousness research. Although both Pribram and Bohm address issues related to psychology, philosophy, and religion, they draw their scientific data primarily from physics and biology, while many mystical states deal directly with the immaterial realms of reality.
* And yet, there is no doubt that the holonomic perspective will allow serious scientific interest to be focused on many truly transpersonal phenomena for which crude and clumsy mechanistic paradigms can offer nothing but presumptuous mockery. The new concept offers remarkable opportunities for those who try to connect new data from consciousness research with discoveries in other scientific disciplines, rather than ignoring the main scientific direction altogether, as some strong adherents of the "perennial philosophy" do.
*
* Since there is still no complete integration even when describing phenomena of the same level of reality in different areas of physics, it makes no sense to expect a perfect conceptual synthesis of systems describing different hierarchical levels. However, it is quite possible that some universal principles will be discovered that apply in different fields, even if they take different specific forms in each field. Prigogine's "order through fluctuations" and René Thom's theory of catastrophe are important examples of this.
* With this in mind, we can now begin to discuss how the observations of consciousness researchers relate to the holonomic approach to the universe and the brain. Bohm's concept of the implicit and explicit orders and the idea that some important aspects of reality are inaccessible to experience and study under ordinary circumstances have direct relevance for understanding non-ordinary states of consciousness. Individuals who have experienced various non-ordinary states of consciousness, including highly educated and sophisticated scientists of various disciplines, often report that they have entered hidden realms of reality that appear to be authentic, in some sense implicit in and superior to everyday reality. And the content of this “implicit reality” includes, among other things, elements of the collective unconscious, historical events, archetypal and mythological phenomena, and the dynamics of past incarnations.
* In the past, many traditionally minded psychiatrists and psychologists interpreted the manifestations of Jungian archetypes as figments of the imagination of the human mind, abstracted or constructed by it from the data of real sensory perception of other people, animals, objects and events of the material world. The conflict between Jungian psychology and mainstream mechanistic science over archetypes is a modern throwback to the Platonic debates that have raged for centuries between nominalists and realists. Nominalists argued that Plato's ideas are nothing more than “names” abstracted from the phenomena of the material world, and realists argued that ideas have their own independent existence on another level of reality. In an extended version of holonomic theory, archetypes can be understood as sui generis phenomena, as cosmic principles woven into the fabric of an implicit order.
* The fact that certain types of archetypal visions can be so successfully simulated by holography suggests a deep connection between archetypal dynamics and the operation of holonomic principles. This is especially true for archetypal forms representing generalizations of biological, psychological and social roles - the Great and Terrible Mother and Father, Child, Martyr, Cosmic Man, Trickster, Tyrant, Animus, Anima or Shadow figures. The world of experiences of such culturally charged archetypes as various specific deities and demons, demigods, heroes and mythological themes can be interpreted as phenomena of the implicit order, more specifically related to certain aspects of the explicit order. In any case, archetypal phenomena should be understood as ordering principles that stand above and precede material reality, and not as its derivatives.
* The holonomic theory is most simply associated with those transpersonal phenomena in which there are elements of “objective reality” - i.e. identification with other people, animals, plants and inorganic reality in the past, present and future. Here, some essential characteristics of the holonomic understanding of the world - the relativity of boundaries, the transcendence of the Aristotelian dichotomy between part and whole, the convolution and distribution of information throughout the entire system - provide an explanatory model of extraordinary possibilities. The fact that space and time are folded into the holographic realm must be further juxtaposed with the observation that transpersonal experiences of this kind are free of the usual limitations of space and time.
* In this context, it appears that everyday experience of the material world, fully consistent with the Newtonian-Cartesian model of the Universe, reflects a selective and stable focus on the manifest, unfolding aspect of reality. Conversely, transcendental states of a highly undifferentiated, universal and all-encompassing nature could be interpreted as the direct experience of an implicit order, or cold movement in all its universality. The concept of implicit order should be much broader than that of Bohm - it is the creative matrix of all levels described by the “eternal philosophy”, and not just those that are necessary directly for descriptions of phenomena at the physical or biological levels.
* In other types of transpersonal experiences - such as sacralizations of everyday life, the manifestation of an archetype in everyday reality, seeing a partner as a manifestation of the Animus, Anima or deity - one can see transitional forms combining elements of the explicit and implicit orders. All of the above examples have a common denominator that is indispensable to this way of thinking, namely: it must be recognized that consciousness (at least in principle, if not always in fact) has access to all forms of the explicit and implicit orders.
* The holonomic approach offers exciting new possibilities regarding some of the extreme paranormal phenomena that are constantly highlighted in spiritual literature and considered absurd in mechanistic science. Psychokinesis, materialization and dematerialization, levitation and other supernormal abilities that demonstrate the power of mind over matter deserve scientific reappraisal in this regard. If the basic tenets of holonomic theory about explicit and implicit orders reflect reality with a sufficient degree of accuracy, then it is quite conceivable that some unusual states of consciousness can mediate direct experience of the implicit order and even interference with it. Thus, it is possible to modify the phenomena of the phenomenal world by influencing the matrix that generates them. This kind of intervention would be completely incomprehensible to mechanistic science, since it bypasses the ordinary chain of linear causality and does not involve the transformation of energy within the framework of explicit order as we know it. Clearly we are approaching the time of a major paradigm shift. There is already a rich mosaic of new theoretical concepts with some common characteristics, as well as the fact of a radical departure from mechanistic models. Synthesizing and integrating exciting new advances in science will be a challenging, complex task, and it remains questionable whether it is even possible. In any case, a comprehensive paradigm of the future, capable of perceiving and synthesizing the diversity of data from quantum relativistic physics, systems theory, consciousness research, neurophysiology, as well as ancient and eastern spiritual philosophy, shamanism, primitive rituals and healing practice, must include complementary dichotomies on three different levels: space, individual and human brain.
************
Dedicated
Christina, Paul and my mother Maria
BEYOND THE BRAIN
BIRTH, DEATH AND TRANSCENDENCE IN PSYCHOTHERARY
State University of New York Press
Translation from English by Alexander Kiselev
Scientific edition of Ph.D. n. Vladimir Maykov
© Stanislav and Christina Grof, 1985
Preface to the Russian edition
I am very pleased to present to readers the Russian translation of my book “Beyond the Brain.” Having visited the USSR three times, I have retained many warm memories of these travels and meetings with friends and colleagues. My first visit in 1961 was a tourist one; I admired the beauty of the historical places of Kyiv, Leningrad and Moscow. The second visit took place within the framework of a professional exchange program between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. Then I got the opportunity to spend several weeks at the Psychoneurological Institute. V. M. Bekhterev in Leningrad, visit some psychiatric clinics and research centers in Moscow, and also take part in a program for the experimental study of neuroses in monkeys in Sukhumi. In Leningrad, I gave a presentation on the therapeutic potential of non-ordinary states of consciousness to several hundred Soviet psychologists and psychiatrists and was very touched by the warm reception.
The third visit took place in April 1989. My wife Kristina and I traveled to Moscow at the invitation of the Soviet Ministry of Health to give lectures and conduct a practical workshop on holotropic breathwork, a powerful method of self-discovery and therapy that we have developed and refined in California over the past 15 years. And again we were received very warmly and cordially. Although our visit was not advertised, people came to meet us even from such distant places as the Baltic states, Leningrad, Kyiv, Armenia, Georgia. Another exciting sign of the extraordinary interest in consciousness research was the numerous requests to sign Russian translations of my books, which were distributed throughout the country in samizdat photocopies.
I'm very excited that the situation has changed to the point that Beyond the Brain - and hopefully my other books soon - will be officially published. I also hope that the material discussed in these books will be useful to Russian readers and will stimulate their interest in the study of consciousness and transpersonal psychology.
Best wishes, Stanislav Grof, MD, San Francisco, October 1990
From the author
This book is the fruit of intensive and systematic research spanning nearly three decades. At all stages of this long journey, professional and personal interests were intertwined so closely that they became an inseparable whole. The process of scientifically exploring the uncharted territories of the human psyche has been for me as much a journey of personal transformation and self-discovery.
Over the years, I have received invaluable help, inspiration and encouragement from many significant people in my life, including my teachers, my friends or colleagues, and some a combination of all these roles. It is impossible to name everyone here. But in several cases the assistance was so great that it requires special mention.
Anthropologist Angeles Herrien, a researcher of the mystical traditions of the Basques, became a true friend and a living example of how the feminine and masculine aspects of the soul can be integrated and how to “walk the mystical path with your own feet.”
Anne and Jim Armstrong taught me much about the nature of true mediumship and the evolutionary potential of transpersonal crises. Their fearless enthusiasm for exploring the human psyche is a unique example of a joint journey into unknown areas of consciousness.
Gregory Bateson, with whom I had the good fortune to spend many hours of intense personal and intellectual interaction during the two and a half years that we both worked at the Esalen Institute in California, became my kind teacher and beloved friend. His insightful critique of mechanistic thinking in science and his creative synthesis of cybernetics, computer science and systems theory, psychiatry and anthropology had a profound influence on my development.
Joseph Campbell, a brilliant thinker, masterful mentor, and dear friend, taught me invaluable lessons about the central importance of mythology to psychiatry and our everyday lives. Its influence on my personal life was equally profound.
The work of Fridtjof Capra played a key role in my own intellectual development and scientific pursuits. It was his book, The Tao of Physics, that convinced me that the extraordinary data of modern consciousness research would certainly one day be integrated into a new, comprehensive scientific worldview. Our long-term friendship and rich exchange of information during the time he wrote The Turning Point helped me greatly in writing this book.
Swami Muktknanda Paramahamsa, the recently deceased spiritual master and head of the Siddha Yoga lineage, with whom I met many times over the years, provided me with a unique opportunity to observe and experience the powerful influence of the life-giving mystical tradition.
Ralph Metzner, who combines solid education, an inquisitive mind and an adventurous spirit in an unsurpassed way, became my close friend and colleague.
Rupert Sheldrake has been able to highlight with extraordinary clarity and poignancy the limitations of mechanistic thinking in the natural sciences that I myself have been thinking about for many years. His work greatly helped free me from the straitjacket of beliefs imposed on me during my professional training.
Anthony Sutich and Abraham Maslow, the initiators of two new directions in psychology - humanistic and transpersonal - became a real source of inspiration for me. They gave concrete form to some of my dreams and hopes for the future of psychology, and, of course, I will never forget that I was with them at the origins of the transpersonal movement.
Arthur Young's process theory is one of the most exciting concepts I have ever encountered. The deeper I delve into its meaning, the more inclined I am to see it as a scientific metaparadigm of the future.
The discovery of holonomic principles opened up a whole new world of possibilities for theoretical reasoning and practical applications for me. Special thanks to David Bohm, Karl Pribram and Hugo Zucarelli for this.
Clinical work with psychedelics played a crucial role in sparking my still ongoing interest in consciousness research; This is where the most important data discussed in the book is collected. This would have been impossible without the epoch-making discoveries of Albert Hofmann. I would like to express my deep respect for his work, which has had such a profound impact on my professional and personal life.
The stimulating atmosphere of the Esalen Institute and the natural beauty of the Big Sur coast provided a unique setting for writing the book. I want to thank my Esalen friends, Dick and Chris Price, Michael and Dulcie Murphy, and Rick and Hader Tarnas for their support over the years. Rick also taught me a lot about the relationship between astronomical processes and the dynamics of archetypes. Kathleen O'Shaughnessy deserves special thanks for her dedicated and sensitive assistance in preparing the manuscript.
I express my deepest gratitude to all members of my family - my mother Maria, brother Paul and wife Christina. They were the first to suffer on the roller coaster (intellectual, philosophical and spiritual) of my many years of unconventional research.
Christina, my closest friend and research companion, shared her personal and professional life with me. Together we developed and practiced the holotropic therapy technique described in this book. From her dramatic personal journey, I learned many lessons that can only be taught by life itself. She was also the main inspiration behind Spiritual Emergency Services, a project she and I started in Big Sur, California.
Introduction
In these pages I have attempted to condense into one volume the results of almost thirty years of study of extraordinary states of consciousness caused by the use of psychedelic drugs or the use of various non-pharmacological methods. This book documents my efforts to organize and organize research data that has challenged my scientific beliefs and common sense on a daily basis for many years. Trying to cope with the avalanche of confusing data, I repeatedly corrected and rechecked my conceptual schemes, patching them with hypotheses that were acceptable at the time - and each time only to see the urgent need to rework them again.
It took me years to accept the contents of this book myself, so I do not expect readers to easily digest most of the information presented here. To do this, you need to gain relevant experience - personally or in working with other people. I hope that then they will find this evidence useful - as an independent argument for many controversial issues that they will certainly encounter. I have been motivated and inspired over the years by reports from other researchers, indicating that I am no longer alone in my quest, as I was in the beginning.
As for readers who have not had relevant experiences, among them it is especially important for me to interest those who have no prejudices, who are able to use the facts presented as an incentive to independently work to confirm or refute them. I do not at all expect that the material in this book will be taken at face value - the techniques used to achieve the experiences and observations discussed here are described in sufficient detail and can be reproduced. The use of psychedelics - the most powerful tool of all these techniques - is currently associated with political, legal and administrative difficulties. However, approaches without the use of psychedelics are possible; they are described in the book and are available to anyone who is seriously interested in continuing research in this area.
These data will also be useful to those researchers who study similar or related phenomena in the context of other disciplines and use other methods. They will probably be of interest to anthropologists who study indigenous cultures and shamanic practices, initiation rites and healing ceremonies; thanatologists who study death and near-death experiences; practicing therapists using various powerful experiential psychotherapy techniques, bodywork or non-authoritarian forms of hypnosis; scientists engaged in laboratory research into altered states of consciousness and using sensory isolation and overload, biofeedback, holophonic sound and other sound techniques for this; psychiatrist clinicians who work with patients experiencing acute states of non-ordinary consciousness; parapsychologists studying extrasensory perception, and physicists interested in the nature of space and time, the use of quantum relativistic physics to understand the relationship between matter and consciousness.
Based on my own difficulties in accepting new observations in the absence of obvious and repeated results, I can reasonably judge that it is not worth analyzing consciousness research data from the ivory tower of old belief systems. From the history of science, we know about the shortsightedness of those who rejected new observations and evidence simply because they did not fit with the existing worldview or the accepted scientific paradigm. The reluctance of Galileo's contemporaries to look through a telescope (and they already knew that there could be no craters on the Moon!) serves as the best example of this.
I am confident that many of the issues discussed in these pages are extremely important and of general interest, so that the book will be useful to many intelligent people not directly engaged in research in any of the above fields. The following topics are especially relevant and important for the average reader: a new understanding of reality and human nature; a scientific worldview that includes the mystical dimensions of existence; an alternative understanding of emotional and psychosomatic problems, including some psychotic conditions; a new strategy in therapy and self-knowledge; intuitive vision of the modern global crisis. This book, still in manuscript, was useful to many people who experienced episodes of extraordinary states of consciousness; it gave them a new conceptual structure and strategy.
During the first ten years of my research on psychedelics in Czechoslovakia, very few of my friends and colleagues were open-minded enough to accept the full range of new discoveries, capable of seriously assessing their scientific and philosophical significance. And although in 1967, when I left Czechoslovakia, more than 40 projects using psychedelics had already been prepared, many of those involved in them limited their clinical work and conceptual taxonomy to the level of biographical phenomena; they avoided new observations or tried to explain them traditionally.
When I gave lectures about my European studies in the United States, my circle of like-minded colleagues quickly expanded. My new comrades were not only psychedelic specialists, but also anthropologists, parapsychologists, neurophysiologists and thanatologists - together we began a decisive conceptual struggle for the integration of the results of unconventional (personal or professional) searches and research with the philosophy of modern science. Many of them also accumulated unpublished and unpublishable facts and observations, articles and even monographs, which they did not dare to offer to colleagues who adhere to the Newtonian-Cartesian concept, or to the general public. After many years of professional isolation, connecting with these people was an exciting and encouraging experience.
In the late 1960s, I met a small group of specialists, including Abraham Maslow, Anthony Sutich and James Fadiman, who shared my conviction that it was time for a new psychological movement that would focus on the study of consciousness and recognize the importance of the spiritual dimensions of the psyche . After several meetings aimed at clarifying new concepts, we decided to call this field “transpersonal psychology.” Soon the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology was founded and the Association for Transpersonal Psychology was created.
The newfound sense of professional community in a rapidly growing group of like-minded colleagues with a common understanding of psychology and psychotherapy was very inspiring to me, but still did not completely solve my old problem of self-identification as a scientist. Although transpersonal psychology had a certain internal coherence and became somewhat self-sufficient, it remained almost completely isolated from the mainstream of science. Like my own worldview, transpersonal psychology was vulnerable to accusations of being irrational and unscientific, and therefore incompatible with common sense and modern scientific thinking.
The situation changed dramatically during the first ten years of the existence of the Association for Transpersonal Psychology. It has become clear that a transpersonal orientation and a transpersonal perspective are pushing far beyond the previously narrow boundaries of psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy. During this time, important connections were established with revolutionary discoveries in other scientific disciplines - in quantum relativistic physics, systems and information theories, the study of dissipative structures, brain research, parapsychology, holography and holonomic thinking. More recently, these have been supplemented by new concepts in biology, embryology, genetics, behavioral science, and the development of holophonic technology.
Many of the pioneers of new ways of thinking in science participated for several years as visiting faculty in the four-week experimental training programs that my wife Christina and I conducted at the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California. In this context, I have had the opportunity to collaborate formally and informally, but it is always a pleasure to collaborate with such specialists as Frank Barr, Gregory Bateson, Joseph Campbell, Fridtjof Capra, Duane Elgin, David Finkelstein, Elmer and Alice Green, Michael Harner, Stanley Krippner, Rupert Sheldrake , Soul-Paul Sirak, Russell Targ, Charles Tart, Arthur Young and many others. I was also able to closely interact and exchange information with the pioneers of transpersonal psychology, including Angels Herrien, Arthur Hastings, Jack Kornfield, Ralph Metzner, John Perry, June Singer, Richard Tarnas, Francis Vaughan, Roger Walsh, and Ken Wilber.
The rich contacts with unique and creative individuals in our four-week workshops became a major source of inspiration for the International Transpersonal Association (ITA), which I founded in 1978 with Michael Murphy and Richard Price, founders of the Esalen Institute. The ITA differs from the Association for Transpersonal Psychology in its strong international and interdisciplinary focus. During my early years as Acting President of the ITA, I had the opportunity to organize large international transpersonology conferences in Boston, Melbourne and Bombay. The ITA annual meetings have attracted many excellent speakers and large audiences, helped to crystallize theoretical underpinnings, and thereby strengthened the transpersonal movement.
Currently, new thinking in science is rapidly gaining momentum. Although amazing individual developments have not yet been brought together, there is no coherent and comprehensive scientific paradigm capable of replacing the mechanistic model of the Universe, but more and more new pieces are being added to this impressive mosaic at an unusually rapid pace. I am convinced that it is extremely important for the future of science (and perhaps for our entire planet) that these new aspirations gain recognition from the scientific community. This is why I do not present the material in a simplified and popular version (which many of the publishers with whom I have negotiated might have preferred). I feel a strong need to present my research on consciousness in the context of revolutionary discoveries—so important to my personal and professional development—in other disciplines. Therefore, the presentation of my own data is preceded by a chapter on the emerging paradigm, which summarizes the results of many researchers and thinkers and thereby sets the entire context for the book.
One of the most profound influences on my thinking has been the honomic principles developed in the works of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Jean-Baptiste Fourier, Dennis Gabor, David Bohm, Karl Pribram, and Hugo Zucarelli. And recognizing the greatness of the revolutionary alternatives offered by honomic thinking against the mechanistic concept of the “mind in the brain,” I decided to call this book “Beyond
While preserving in our publication the incorrect, but already established in science, transliteration of terms derived from Greek. (“whole, entire”), only for “holography” and “hologram”; we give all other terms in accordance with the spelling established in Russian philosophical literature. Wed. “holism, holistic” – Note. ed.
Stanislav Grof “Beyond the Brain” is a book that changed my entire understanding. Grof puts forward several interesting theories about the influence of birth trauma on the life of every person. His ideas about the transpersonal, about what exists above all of us, beyond the brain, are interesting.
BEYOND THE BRAIN, written by Stanislav Grof, sums up the author's thirty years of research in the field of transpersonal psychology and therapy. In the course of studying unusual states of consciousness, Stanislav Grof comes to the conclusion that there is a significant gap in modern scientific theories of consciousness and psyche, which do not take into account the importance of prebiographical (prenatal and perinatal) and transpersonal (transpersonal) levels. He offers a new, expanded cartography of the psyche that includes modern psychological and ancient mystical descriptions.
Quotes from the book “Beyond the Brain”
From the point of view of observations obtained in experiential depth therapy, a determined desire to achieve external goals and a persistent desire to succeed in life are of little importance in overcoming feelings of inferiority and lack of self-esteem, whatever the practical outcome of these aspirations. You cannot get rid of feelings of inferiority by mobilizing all your strength to overcompensate for it; this is possible only by meeting him in the experience face to face and completely surrendering to him. Then it is absorbed by the process of death-rebirth of the Ego, and from the awareness of one’s own cosmic identity a new image of oneself is born. True courage does not consist in heroic efforts to achieve external goals, but in the determination to go through the terrible experience of confronting oneself. Until the individual finds his true essence within himself, any attempt to sell meaning to life through manipulation in the external world and the achievement of external goals will remain fruitless and ultimately self-defeating quixoticism.
Very interesting description of this book on esoteric4u.com
Although in his research Grof himself already rests on the understanding that everything studied and researched will be conditioned by the state of the person himself, his deep-seated faith and accumulated experience.
What ultimately limits us in learning new things, in building new models.
In fact, intuitively he comes up against the issue of “Treaties” (calling them “Paradigms”) - but there is no awareness of the fact that in each paradigm (Treaty) a different world is being explored.
There is a certain expansion of the already existing Worldview, allowing a Person to lead a more fulfilling and meaningful life, but still within the framework of the same Society.
The conclusions that Grof comes to in the process of his research largely correlate with the Esoteric worldview regarding the illusory nature of reality, what a person is (a biorobot).
About consciousness - which is primary, and it is this that determines the very concept of Man.
About the fact that a person can be in different States of Consciousness.
The excerpts posted below are an extremely interesting criterion that the Scientists themselves included in the Scientific Agreements, who have the opportunity to be included in the Suprasocial egregorial layer, run into a wall, unable to overcome the power of the social model prescribed by Society.
They walk in a vicious circle, trying to change the existing world, sweeping away everything that does not fit into it.
Instead of creating a fundamentally new Model in which answers to emerging questions can be found.
Although Grof himself is already on the verge of understanding this “contradiction”...
A very interesting moment in the text, where Grof, coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to comprehend the new by expanding old lists, that it is necessary to radically change the Paradigm, says that
In fact, with these conclusions he confirms the main idea of the Esoteric Worldview:
“Philosophy is the basis of all sciences”, in the sense that it is the Worldview Model in which we live that determines everything that we “know, comprehend and explore”...
In essence, Grof speaks about the need for a global change in Worldview for further Development... not only of an individual, but of all Mankind.
But limited by the Social-Scientific Agreement, he does not see the forest for the trees...
that all the “struggle” of the Treaties (paradigms) is not caused by people... but by those Egregors who rule the Society...
Nevertheless, his conclusions and his own shift in the process of independent research are the objectification of the reality of Development within the framework of the Social-Scientific Contract (inclusion in one System Egregor, with a rigid fixation of the TS).
What is formalized is described in the new Manual for Development Groups.
THE NATURE OF REALITY: THE DAWN OF A NEW PARADIGM
In various parts of this book, important observations from various fields of knowledge will be discussed—observations that mechanistic science and the traditional conceptual systems of psychiatry, psychology, anthropology, and medicine are unable to recognize or explain. Some of the new data is so significant that it points to the need for a radical revision of the current understanding of human nature and even the nature of reality.
Philosophy of science and the role of paradigms
Since the Industrial Revolution, Western science has made amazing strides and become a powerful force shaping the lives of millions of people.
Its materialistic and mechanistic orientation has almost completely replaced theology and philosophy as the guiding principles of human existence and has transformed the world in which we live to a degree previously unimaginable.
The technological triumph was so noticeable that only very recently and only a few people doubted the absolute right of science to determine the overall life strategy.
In textbooks in various disciplines, the history of science is described primarily as a linear development with a gradual accumulation of knowledge about the Universe, and the culmination of this development is presented as the current state of affairs.
Therefore, figures important for the development of scientific thinking appear to be collaborators who worked on a common range of problems, guided by the same set of fixed rules, which, by the way, were only recently defined as scientific.
Each period in the history of scientific ideas and methods is seen as a logical step in a gradual approach to an increasingly accurate description of the Universe and to the ultimate truth about existence. A detailed analysis of scientific history and philosophy showed an extremely distorted, romanticized picture of the real course of events.
It can be argued quite convincingly that the history of science is far from straightforward and that, despite technological advances, scientific disciplines do not necessarily bring us closer to a more accurate description of reality.
The most prominent representative of this heretical view is the physicist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn.
His interest in the development of scientific theories and revolutions in science grew out of reflection on some fundamental differences between the social and natural sciences. He was shocked by the number and degree of disagreement among social scientists about the basic nature of the problems involved and the approaches to them.
Things are completely different in the natural sciences. Although those involved in astronomy, physics and chemistry are unlikely to have clearer and more precise solutions than psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists, for some reason they do not engage in serious debate about fundamental problems.
Exploring this apparent discrepancy further, Kuhn began intensively studying the history of science and fifteen years later published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962), which shook the foundations of the old worldview.
In the course of his research, it became increasingly clear to him that, from a historical perspective, the development of even the so-called exact sciences was far from smooth and unambiguous.
The history of science is in no way a gradual accumulation of data and the formation of ever more accurate theories. Instead, its cyclical nature with specific stages and characteristic dynamics is clearly visible. This process is natural, and the changes taking place can be understood and even predicted: the central concept of paradigm in Kuhn’s theory allows us to do this.
In a broad sense, a paradigm can be defined as a set of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of a given scientific community. Some of the paradigms are philosophical in nature, they are general and all-encompassing, while other paradigms guide scientific thinking in rather specific, limited areas of research. A particular paradigm may therefore become mandatory for all natural sciences, another only for astronomy, physics, biology or molecular biology, yet another for such highly specialized and esoteric fields as virology or genetic engineering.
Paradigm is as essential to science as observation and experiment; commitment to specific paradigms is a necessary prerequisite for any serious scientific endeavor.
Reality is extremely complex, and it is generally impossible to address it in its totality. Science is not able to observe and take into account all the diversity of a particular phenomenon, it cannot conduct all kinds of experiments and perform all laboratory and clinical tests.
The scientist has to reduce the problem to a working scope, and his choice is guided by the leading paradigm of the time.
Thus, he necessarily introduces a certain belief system into the field of study.
Scientific observations by themselves do not dictate unique and unambiguous solutions, no single paradigm will ever explain all available facts, and many paradigms can be used to theoretically explain the same data.
Which aspect of a complex phenomenon is chosen and which possible experiment is started or carried out first is determined by many factors.
These are accidents in preliminary research, basic education and special training of personnel, experience accumulated in other areas, individual inclinations, economic and political factors, as well as other parameters.
Observations and experiments can and should significantly reduce the range of acceptable scientific solutions - without this, science would become science fiction.
However, they cannot, by themselves or for themselves, fully validate a particular interpretation or belief system. Thus, it is in principle impossible to engage in science without some set of a priori beliefs, fundamental metaphysical assumptions, and answers to the question of the nature of reality and human knowledge. But we should clearly remember the relative nature of any paradigm - no matter how progressive it may be and no matter how convincingly formulated. It should not be confused with the truth about reality.
According to Kuhn, paradigms play a decisive, complex and ambiguous role in the history of science. From the above considerations it is clear that they are certainly essential and necessary for scientific progress. However, at certain stages of development they act as a conceptual straitjacket - in that they impinge on the possibilities of new discoveries and exploration of new areas of reality. In the history of science, the progressive and reactionary functions of paradigms seem to alternate with a certain predictable rhythm.
When a paradigm is accepted by the majority of the scientific community, it becomes a binding viewpoint.
At this stage there is a danger of mistakenly seeing it as an accurate description of reality, rather than as an auxiliary map, a convenient approximation and model for organizing existing data.
This confusion of map with territory is characteristic of the history of science. The limited knowledge of nature that existed over successive historical periods seemed to scientists of those times to be a comprehensive picture of reality, in which only details were missing.
Once a paradigm is accepted, it becomes a powerful catalyst for scientific progress; Kuhn calls this stage the “period of normal science.”
Most scientists spend all their time doing normal science, which is why this separate aspect of scientific activity became in the past synonymous with science in general. Normal science is based on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the Universe is. The dominant theory defines not only what the world is, but also what it is not; Along with what is possible, it also determines what is in principle impossible.
Kuhn described scientific research as “the intense and all-consuming effort to fit nature into the conceptual boxes prepared by professional education.”
As long as the existence of a paradigm remains a given, only those problems will be considered legitimate for which a solution can be assumed - this guarantees the rapid success of normal science.
Under such circumstances, the scientific community restrains and suppresses (often at great cost) all novelty, because innovation is detrimental to the main cause to which it is dedicated.
Normal science is essentially concerned only with solving problems; its results are largely predetermined by the paradigm itself; it produces little that is new.
Real discovery can only occur if the assumptions about the nature, methods and means of research based on the existing paradigm do not come true.
New theories will not arise without the destruction of old views on nature.
A new, radical theory will never be an addition or increment to existing knowledge.
It changes the ground rules, requires a radical revision or reformulation of the fundamental assumptions of the previous theory, and re-evaluates existing facts and observations.
Dissatisfaction with the existing paradigm is growing and being expressed more and more clearly.
Scientists are ready to turn to philosophers for help and discuss fundamental principles with them - something that was out of the question during the period of normal research.
A scientist engaged in normal science becomes a problem solver. The paradigm for him is something that goes without saying, and he is not at all interested in testing its reliability.
In fact, it significantly strengthens its fundamental assumptions. In particular, there are such understandable explanations as the energy and time spent in the past on learning, or academic recognition, which is closely related to the development of this paradigm.
However, the roots of the difficulty go much deeper, beyond human error and emotional input.
They affect the very nature of paradigms and their role in science. An important part of this resistance is the belief that the current paradigm correctly represents reality and that it will eventually overcome all its problems.
A scientist who accepts a new paradigm does not interpret reality in a new way; rather, he is like a person wearing new glasses. He sees the same objects and finds them completely transformed in essence and in many details, and will be convinced that they really are like that.
We are not exaggerating when we say that with a paradigm shift, the world of scientists is changing too.
They use new tools, search in different places, observe different objects, and perceive even the familiar in a completely different light. According to Kuhn, this radical shift in perception can be compared to suddenly being transported to another planet.
According to Frank, all hypotheses are essentially speculative.
The difference between a purely philosophical hypothesis and a scientific hypothesis is that the latter can be tested. It is no longer important that a scientific theory appeals to common sense (this requirement was rejected by Galileo Galilei).
It can be as fantastic and absurd as you like, as long as it can be verified at the level of everyday experience.
In contrast, a direct statement about the nature of the universe that cannot be verified experimentally is purely metaphysical speculation and not a scientific theory.
Statements such as “Everything that exists is by nature material, and there is no spiritual world” or “Consciousness is a product of matter” belong, of course, to this category, no matter how self-evident they may seem to the common sense or mechanically oriented scientist.
There is no idea or system of thinking, no matter how ancient or obviously absurd, that would not be capable of improving our knowledge. For example, ancient spiritual systems and primitive myths seem strange and meaningless only because their scientific content is either unknown or distorted by anthropologists and philologists who do not have the simplest knowledge of physical, medical or astronomical knowledge.
In science, reason cannot be universal, and the irrational cannot be completely excluded.
There is no single interesting theory that agrees with all the facts in its field.
We find that no single theory is able to reproduce some of the quantitative results, and that all of them are surprisingly weak qualitatively. All methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits.
Our discussion of scientific revolutions, the dynamics of paradigms, and the functioning of scientific theories may perhaps leave the reader with the impression that this work is concerned primarily with the history of science.
It is easy to assume that the last major conceptual revolution occurred in the first decades of this century, and that the next scientific revolution will occur sometime in the distant future.
Not at all, the main message of this book is that Western science is approaching a paradigm shift of unprecedented proportions, which will change our concepts of reality and human nature, which will finally connect a conceptual bridge between ancient wisdom and modern science, which will reconcile Eastern spirituality with Western pragmatism .
Add to favorites
Stanislav Grof
Beyond the Brain
Chapter 1. THE NATURE OF REALITY: THE DAWN OF A NEW PARADIGM
In various parts of this book, important observations from various fields of knowledge will be discussed - those observations that mechanistic science and the traditional conceptual systems of psychiatry, psychology, anthropology and medicine are unable to recognize or explain. Some of the new data is so significant that it points to the need for a radical revision of the current understanding of human nature and even the nature of reality. Therefore, it seems appropriate to begin the book with an excursion into the philosophy of science and reconsider some modern ideas about the relationship between scientific theories and reality
Resistance to the influx of new revolutionary data on the part of traditionally minded scientists is based in large part on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and function of scientific theories. In the last few decades, philosophers and historians of science such as Thomas Kuhn (1962), Karl Popper (1963, 1965), Philip Frank (1974), and Paul Feyerabend (1978) have brought considerable clarity to this area. . The pioneering research of these thinkers deserves at least a brief overview.
Philosophy of science and the role of paradigms
Since the Industrial Revolution, Western science has made amazing strides and become a powerful force shaping the lives of millions of people.
Its materialistic and mechanistic orientation has almost completely replaced theology and philosophy as the guiding principles of human existence and has transformed the world in which we live to a degree previously unimaginable. The technological triumph was so noticeable that only very recently and only a few people doubted the absolute right of science to determine the overall life strategy. In textbooks in various disciplines, the history of science is described primarily as a linear development with a gradual accumulation of knowledge about the Universe, and the culmination of this development is presented as the current state of affairs. Therefore, figures important for the development of scientific thinking appear to be collaborators who worked on a common range of problems, guided by the same set of fixed rules, which, by the way, were only very recently defined as scientific
Each period in the history of scientific ideas and methods is seen as a logical step in a gradual approach to an increasingly accurate description of the Universe and to the ultimate truth about existence. A detailed analysis of scientific history and philosophy showed an extremely distorted, romanticized picture of the real course of events. It can be argued quite convincingly that the history of science is far from straightforward and that, despite technological advances, scientific disciplines do not necessarily bring us closer to a more accurate description of reality. The most prominent representative of this heretical view is the physicist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn
His interest in the development of scientific theories and revolutions in science grew out of reflection on some fundamental differences between the social and natural sciences. He was shocked by the number and degree of disagreement among social scientists about the basic nature of the problems covered and the approaches to them.
Things are completely different in the natural sciences. Although those involved in astronomy, physics and chemistry are unlikely to have clearer and more accurate solutions than psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists, for some reason they do not engage in serious debate on fundamental problems
Exploring this apparent discrepancy further, Kuhn began intensively studying the history of science and fifteen years later published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962), which shook the foundations of the old World View
In the course of his research, it became increasingly clear to him that, from a historical perspective, the development of even the so-called exact sciences was far from smooth and unambiguous. The history of science is in no way a gradual accumulation of data and the formation of ever more accurate theories. Instead, its cyclical nature with specific stages and characteristic dynamics is clearly visible. This process is natural, and the changes taking place can be understood and even predicted: this can be done by the central concept of paradigm in Kuhn’s theory
In a broad sense, a paradigm can be defined as a set of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of a given scientific community. Some of the paradigms are philosophical in nature, they are general and all-encompassing, while other paradigms guide scientific thinking in rather specific, limited areas of research. A particular paradigm may therefore become mandatory for all natural sciences, another only for astronomy, physics, biology or molecular biology, yet another for such highly specialized and esoteric fields as virology or genetic engineering
Paradigm is as essential to science as observation and experiment; commitment to specific paradigms is a necessary prerequisite for any serious scientific endeavor
Reality is extremely complex, and it is generally impossible to address it in its totality. Science is not able to observe and take into account all the diversity of a particular phenomenon, it cannot conduct all kinds of experiments and perform all laboratory and clinical tests
The scientist has to reduce the problem to a working scope, and his choice is guided by the leading paradigm of the time. Thus, he necessarily introduces a certain belief system into the field of study. Scientific observations by themselves do not dictate unique and unambiguous solutions, no single paradigm will ever explain all available facts, and many paradigms can be used to theoretically explain the same data. Which aspect of a complex phenomenon is chosen and which possible experiment is started or carried out first is determined by many factors. These are accidents in preliminary research, basic education and special training of personnel, experience accumulated in other fields, individual inclinations, economic and political factors, as well as other parameters
Observations and experiments can and should significantly reduce the range of acceptable scientific solutions - without this, science would become science fiction. However, they cannot, by themselves or for themselves, fully validate a particular interpretation or belief system. Thus, it is in principle impossible to engage in science without some set of a priori beliefs, fundamental metaphysical assumptions, and answers to the question of the nature of reality and human knowledge. But we should clearly remember the relative nature of any paradigm - no matter how progressive it may be and no matter how convincingly it may be formulated. It should not be confused with the truth about reality
According to Kuhn, paradigms play a decisive, complex and ambiguous role in the history of science. From the above considerations it is clear that they are certainly essential and necessary for scientific progress
However, at certain stages of development they act as a conceptual straitjacket - in that they impinge on the possibilities of new discoveries and exploration of new areas of reality. In the history of science, the progressive and reactionary functions of paradigms seem to alternate with some predictable rhythm
The early stages of the sciences, which Kuhn describes as “pre-paradigm periods,” are characterized by conceptual chaos and the competition of a large number of divergent views of nature. None of them can be immediately dismissed as incorrect, since they all roughly correspond to the observations and scientific methods of their time. A simple, elegant, and plausible conceptualization of data that can explain most of the existing observations and promises to guide future research begins to emerge as the dominant paradigm in this situation.
When a paradigm is accepted by the majority of the scientific community, it becomes a binding viewpoint. At this stage there is a danger of mistakenly seeing it as an accurate description of reality, rather than as an auxiliary map, a convenient approximation and model for organizing existing data. This confusion of map with territory is characteristic of the history of science. The limited knowledge of nature that existed over successive historical periods seemed to scientists of those times to be a comprehensive picture of reality, in which only details were missing. This observation is so impressive that a historian could easily imagine the development of science as a history of errors and idiosyncrasies, rather than a systematic accumulation of information and a gradual approach to the final truth.
Once a paradigm is accepted, it becomes a powerful catalyst for scientific progress; Kuhn calls this stage the “period of normal science.” Most scientists spend all their time engaged in normal science, which is why this separate aspect of scientific activity became in the past synonymous with science in general
Normal science is based on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the Universe is. The dominant theory defines not only what the world is, but also what it is not; Along with what is possible, it also determines what is in principle impossible. Kuhn described scientific research as "the intense and all-consuming effort to fit nature into the conceptual boxes prepared by professional education." As long as the existence of a paradigm remains a given, only those problems will be considered legitimate for which a solution can be assumed - this guarantees the rapid success of normal science. Under such circumstances, the scientific community restrains and suppresses (often at great cost) all novelty, because innovation is detrimental to the main cause to which it is devoted
Paradigms, therefore, carry not only cognitive, but also normative meaning; in addition to being statements about the nature of reality, they also define a permissible problem field, establish acceptable methods and a set of standard solutions
Under the influence of a paradigm, all scientific foundations in a particular field are subject to radical redefinition. Some problems that previously seemed key may be declared incongruous or unscientific, while others may be relegated to another discipline. Or, conversely, some questions that previously did not exist or were considered trivial may suddenly turn out to be subjects of significant scientific interest. Even in those areas where the old paradigm remains valid, the understanding of the problems does not remain the same and requires new designation and definition. Normal science based on the new paradigm is not only inconsistent, but also incommensurable with the practice governed by the previous paradigm
Normal science is essentially concerned only with solving problems; its results are largely predetermined by the paradigm itself; it produces little that is new. The main focus is on the method of achieving results, and the goal is to further refine the leading paradigm, thereby increasing the scope of its application. Consequently, normal research is cumulative, since scientists select only those problems that can be solved with the help of already existing conceptual and. tools. The cumulative acquisition of fundamentally new knowledge under these circumstances is not just rare, but in principle incredible. Real discovery can only occur if the assumptions about the nature, methods and means of research based on the existing paradigm do not come true. New theories will not arise without the destruction of old views on nature
A new, radical theory will never be an addition or increment to existing knowledge. It changes the ground rules, requires a radical revision or reformulation of the fundamental assumptions of the previous theory, and re-evaluates existing facts and observations. According to Kuhn's theory, only in events of this kind can a real scientific revolution be recognized. It may occur in some limited areas of human knowledge or it may radically affect a whole range of disciplines. The shifts from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics, or from Newtonian to Einsteinian, from the geocentric system of Ptolemy to the astronomy of Copernicus and Galileo, or from the theory of phlogiston to the chemistry of Lavoisier, are remarkable examples of changes of this kind. In each of these cases, it was necessary to abandon a widely accepted and worthy scientific theory in favor of another, in principle incompatible with it. Each of these shifts resulted in a decisive redefinition of the problems accessible and relevant to scientific research. They also redefined what is acceptable as a problem and what is the standard for a legitimate solution. This process led to a radical transformation of the scientific imagination; we will not exaggerate if we say that under its influence the very perception of the world changed
Thomas Kuhn noted that every scientific revolution is preceded and foreshadowed by a period of conceptual chaos, when the normal practice of science gradually turns into what he calls "extraordinary science." Sooner or later, the daily practice of normal science is bound to lead to the discovery of anomalies. In many cases, some instruments will no longer work as the paradigm predicts, some observations will reveal something that cannot be accommodated in the existing belief system, or the problem to be solved will not respond to the persistent efforts of outstanding specialists
As long as the scientific community remains under the spell of the paradigm, anomalies alone will not be enough to question the validity of basic assumptions. At first, unexpected results will be called "bad research" because the range of possible results is clearly defined by the paradigm. When results are confirmed by repeated experiments, it can lead to a crisis in the field
However, even then, scientists will not abandon the paradigm that led them to the crisis. A scientific theory, once given the status of a paradigm, will remain in circulation until a viable alternative is found.
The incompatibility of the postulates of the paradigm and observations is not enough. The discrepancy will be seen as a problem for some time, which will eventually be resolved through modifications and clarifications
And yet, after a period of tedious and futile effort, the anomaly suddenly emerges as just another mystery, and the discipline enters a period of extraordinary science. The best minds in the field focus their attention on the problem. Research criteria begin to loosen, and experimenters become less biased and willing to consider bold alternatives. The number of competing justifications is growing, and they are increasingly diverging in meaning
Dissatisfaction with the existing paradigm is growing and being expressed more and more clearly. Scientists are ready to turn to philosophers for help and discuss fundamental principles with them - something that was out of the question during the period of normal research. Before and during scientific revolutions, there are also heated debates about the legitimacy of methods, problems and standards. In these circumstances, as the crisis progresses, professional uncertainty increases. The failure of old rules leads to an intensive search for new ones
During the transition period, problems can be solved using both the old and the new paradigm. This is not surprising - philosophers of science have repeatedly proven that a specific set of data can always be interpreted within the framework of several theoretical constructs
Scientific revolutions are those non-cumulative episodes in science when an old paradigm is completely or partially replaced by a new one that is incompatible with it
The choice between two competing paradigms cannot be made on the basis of the evaluative procedures of normal science. The latter is the direct heir of the old paradigm, and its fate depends decisively on the outcome of this competition. Therefore, the paradigm becomes a rigid prescription by necessity - it is able to persuade something, but is not able to convince either with logical or even probabilistic arguments. The two competing schools face a serious communication problem. They operate with different basic postulates about the nature of reality and define elementary concepts differently
As a result, they cannot even agree on what problems are considered important, what their nature is and what their possible solution is. Scientific criteria vary, arguments depend on the paradigm, and meaningful confrontation is impossible without mutual interpretation of concepts. Within the new paradigm, old terms acquire completely different definitions and new meanings; as a result, they will most likely correlate completely differently. Communication through the conceptual partition will obviously be incomplete and lead to confusion. As a typical example, we can cite the complete difference in the meaning of such concepts as matter, space and time in the Newtonian and Einsteinian models. Sooner or later, value judgments will also come into play, as different paradigms disagree on which problems to solve and which to leave unanswered.
The criteria for examination of this situation are entirely outside the scope of normal science.
A scientist engaged in normal science becomes a problem solver
A paradigm for him is something that goes without saying, and he is not at all interested in testing its reliability. In fact, it significantly strengthens its fundamental assumptions. In particular, there are such understandable explanations as the energy and time spent in the past on learning, or academic recognition, which is closely related to the development of this paradigm. However, the roots of the problem go much deeper, beyond human error and emotional input.
They affect the very nature of paradigms and their role in science
An important part of this resistance is the belief that the current paradigm correctly represents reality and that it will eventually overcome all its problems. Thus, resistance to a new paradigm is, ultimately, the very disposition that makes normal science possible. A scientist engaged in normal science is like a chess player, whose activity and problem-solving ability are strictly dependent on a set of rules. The point of the game is to find optimal solutions in the context of these a priori rules, and in such circumstances it would be absurd to doubt them, much less change them. In both examples, the rules of the game are self-evident; they represent the necessary set of prerequisites for problem-solving activities. Novelty for the sake of novelty in science is not desirable, unlike other areas of creativity
Thus, it comes to testing a paradigm only when, due to constant failures to solve an important problem, a crisis arises, giving rise to competition between two paradigms. The new paradigm will have to be tested against certain quality criteria. It must offer solutions to some key problems in areas where the old paradigm has failed. In addition, after a paradigm shift, the same ability to solve problems as the outgoing paradigm had must be preserved. Also important to a new approach is a willingness to tackle additional problems in new areas. And yet, in scientific revolutions, along with gains, there are always losses. They are usually hidden, accepted behind the scenes - until progress is guaranteed
Thus, Newtonian mechanics, unlike Aristotelian and Cartesian dynamics, did not explain the nature of the forces of attraction between particles of matter, but simply admitted gravity. This question was later addressed to the general theory of relativity and only received resolution there. Newton's opponents considered his adherence to innate forces to be a throwback to the Middle Ages. In the same way, Lavoisier's theory could not answer the question of why the most different metals are so similar - a question that the phlogiston theory successfully dealt with. And only in the twentieth century was science able to take up this topic again. Lavoisier's opponents also objected to the abandonment of "chemical principles" in favor of laboratory elements, considering this a regression from justification to simple name. In another similar case, Einstein and other physicists resisted the dominant probabilistic interpretation of quantum physics
The new paradigm is not adopted gradually, under the inexorable influence of evidence and logic. The change occurs instantly, it is similar to a psychological transformation or a shift in the perception of the figure and the background, and it obeys the law of “all or nothing.” Scientists who choose a new paradigm for themselves talk about what “has dawned on them,” about an unexpected decision, or about a flash of clarifying intuition. Why this happens is not yet entirely clear. In addition to the paradigm's ability to correct the crisis situation that the old paradigm led to, Kuhn mentions irrational motives, biographically determined idiosyncrasies, the original reputation or nationality of the founder, and other reasons as causes. In addition, the aesthetic qualities of the paradigm - such as elegance, simplicity and beauty - can also play an important role.
There has been a tendency in science to view the consequences of a paradigm shift in terms of a new interpretation of the available data
According to this view, observations are uniquely determined by the nature of the objective world and the apparatus of perception. However, such a position itself depends on the paradigm - this is one of the main assumptions of the Cartesian approach to the world. Raw observational data is far from representing pure perception; and stimuli should not be confused with their perception or sensation. Perception is conditioned by experience, education, language and culture. Under certain circumstances, the same stimuli can lead to different sensations, and different stimuli can lead to the same ones. For the first of these provisions, an example is ambiguous pictures that cause a radical switch in the gestalt of perception. The most famous of these are those that can be perceived in two different ways - i.e. like a duck or a rabbit, like an antique vase or two human profiles. A good example of the second position is a person with a visual impairment who learns to correct the image of the world using complex lenses. There is no neutral language of observation, which would be based only on imprints on the retina. Understanding the nature of stimuli, sensory organs and their interactions reflects existing theory of perception and the human mind
A scientist who accepts a new paradigm does not interpret reality in a new way; rather, he is like a person wearing new glasses. He sees the same objects and finds them completely transformed in essence and in many details, while he will be convinced that they really are like that
We are not exaggerating when we say that with a paradigm shift, the world of scientists is changing too. They use new tools, search in different places, observe different objects, and perceive even the familiar in a completely different light. According to Kuhn, this radical shift in perception can be compared to suddenly being transported to another planet. A scientific fact cannot be separated from a paradigm with absolute clarity. The world of scientists is changing qualitatively and quantitatively due to new developments - either fact or theory
Proponents of a revolutionary paradigm do not usually interpret a conceptual shift as a new, but ultimately relative, perception of reality. And if this does happen, there is a tendency to reject the old as wrong and welcome the new as an accurate system of description. However, in a strict sense, none of the old theories were truly bad as long as they were applied only to those phenomena that they could adequately explain. It was wrong to generalize the results to other areas of science. Thus, in accordance with Kuhn's theory, old theories can be preserved and left as true in the case when the range of their application is limited only to such phenomena and such accuracy of observation when we can already talk about experimental evidence. This means that a scientist cannot speak “scientifically” and with authority about any phenomenon that has not yet been observed. Strictly speaking, it is not permissible to rely on a paradigm when the research is just opening up a new field or seeking a degree of precision for which there is no theoretical precedent. From this point of view, even for the theory of phlogiston there would be no refutation if it were not generalized beyond the scope of the phenomena that it explains
After a paradigm shift, the old theory can be understood in some sense as a special case of the new one, but for this it needs to be formulated differently and transformed. Revision should be undertaken if only so that the scientist can take advantage of hindsight; revision also implies a change in the meaning of fundamental concepts
Thus, Newtonian mechanics can be interpreted as a special case of Einstein's theory of relativity, and a reasonable explanation can be offered for it within the range of its applicability. However, fundamental concepts such as space, time and mass have fundamentally changed and are now incommensurable. Newtonian mechanics retains its effectiveness as long as it does not pretend to be used in the field of high speeds or to the unlimited accuracy of its descriptions and predictions. All historically significant theories have, in one way or another, demonstrated their correspondence with observed facts. True, at no level of the development of science is there a decisive answer to the question: is any particular theory consistent with the facts, and to what extent is it consistent? However, it is useful to compare the two paradigms and ask which one better captures the observed phenomena. In any case, paradigms should always be considered only as models and not as definitive descriptions of reality
A new parahydma is rarely accepted easily, since it depends on various factors of an emotional, political and administrative nature, and is not simply a matter of logical proof. Depending on the nature and horizon of the paradigm, as well as on other circumstances, it may take the efforts of more than one generation before a new view of the world is established in the scientific community
The statements of two great scientists are indicative in this regard. The first is the final passage from Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859): "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views presented in this volume... I do not in any way hope to convince experienced naturalists, in whose minds there are many facts stored up." , which for a long time were understood from a point of view completely opposite to mine... But I look to the future with the hope of young naturalists who will be able to look at both sides of the issue impartially." Even more convincing is Max Planck’s comment from his “Scientific Autobiography” (Plank, 1968): “... a new scientific truth does not convince its opponents, does not make them see the light, it wins because its opponents eventually die and the new, familiar grows generation with her"
Once a new paradigm is accepted and assimilated, its main provisions are included in textbooks. Because they become sources of authority and pillars of pedagogy, they have to be rewritten after every scientific revolution. By their very nature, these provisions will distort not only the specifics, but also the very essence of the revolution that gave birth to them. Science is described as a series of individual discoveries and inventions that collectively represent the modern body of knowledge. And it turns out that from the very beginning scientists were trying to achieve the goals prescribed by the most recent paradigm. In historical reviews, authors tend to reveal only those aspects of the work of individual scientists that can be seen as contributing to the modern worldview. Thus, when discussing Newtonian mechanics, they did not mention either the role that Newton assigned to God or the deep interest in astrology and alchemy that integrated his entire philosophy. Likewise, nowhere is it mentioned that Cartesian mind-body dualism implies the existence of God. It is not customary to mention in textbooks that many of the founders of modern physics - Einstein, Bohm, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr and Oppenheimer - not only considered their work to be completely compatible with a mystical worldview, but in some sense opened up mystical areas with their scientific pursuits. Once the textbooks are rewritten, science is again seen as a linear and cumulative enterprise, and the history of science is presented as a gradual increment of knowledge. The share of human errors and idiosyncrasies has always been diminished, and the cyclical dynamics of paradigms with its periodic shifts have been obscured
The field was being prepared for the quiet practice of normal science until the next accumulation of observations brought into being a new paradigm.
Another philosopher whose work is directly related to the topic is Philip Frank. In his seminal book, The Philosophy of Science (Frank, 1974), he provides an insightful, detailed analysis of the relationship between observed facts and scientific theories. He managed to dispel the myth that scientific theories can be logically deduced from existing facts and that they clearly depend on observations of the phenomenal world
Using the geometric theories of Euclid, Riemann and Lobachevsky, Newtonian mechanics, Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics as historical examples, he came to remarkable insights about the nature and dynamics of scientific theories
According to Frank's theory, every scientific system is based on a small number of basic statements about reality, or axioms, that are taken to be self-evident. The truth of the axioms is determined not by reasoning, but by direct intuition; they are produced by the imaginative faculties of the mind, and not by logic. Using strict logical procedures, one can extract from the axioms a system of other statements or theorems. A theoretical system that is purely logical in nature will emerge - it confirms itself, and its truth essentially does not depend on physical accidents occurring in the world. To assess the degree of practical applicability and consistency of such a system, one should examine its relationship to empirical observations.
To do this, the elements of the theory must be described using “operational definitions” in the Bridgmanian sense. Only then can the limits of applicability of a theoretical system to material reality be determined
The internal logical truth of Euclidean geometry or Newtonian mechanics was not at all destroyed when it became clear that their application in physical reality has specific limitations. According to Frank, all hypotheses are essentially speculative. The difference between a purely philosophical hypothesis and a scientific hypothesis is that the latter can be tested. It is no longer important that a scientific theory appeals to common sense (this requirement was rejected by Galileo Galilei). It can be as fantastic and absurd as you like, as long as it can be verified at the level of everyday experience
In contrast, a direct statement about the nature of the universe that cannot be verified experimentally is purely metaphysical speculation and not a scientific theory. Statements such as “Everything that exists is by nature material, and there is no spiritual world” or “Consciousness is a product of matter” belong, of course, to this category, no matter how self-evident they may seem to the common sense or mechanically oriented scientist
The most radical scientific methodology in its modern forms is criticized by Paul Feyerabend. In his stunning book, Against Methodological Coercion: An Outline of Anarchist Theory of Knowledge (Feyerabend, 1978), he states emphatically that science is not and cannot be governed by a system of rigid, immutable, and absolute principles. There are many clear examples in history that science is an essentially anarchic enterprise. The violation of basic epistemological rules was not an accidental event - it was necessary for scientific progress. The most successful scientific research has never followed a rational method. In the history of science in general and during great revolutions in particular, a more decisive application of the canons of the current scientific method would not hasten development, but would have led to stagnation. The Copernican Revolution and other fundamental developments in modern science survived only because the rules of prudence were often violated in the past
The so-called correspondence condition, which requires new hypotheses to be consistent with previously accepted ones, is unreasonable and unproductive. It rejects a hypothesis not because of disagreement with the facts, but because of a conflict with the prevailing theory. As a result, this condition protects and preserves the theory that is older rather than the one that is better. Hypotheses that contradict well-founded theories provide us with facts that cannot be obtained in any other way. Facts and theories are more closely related than traditional science admits, and some facts cannot be reached except through alternatives to established theories.
When discussing hypotheses, it is extremely important to use the entire set of adequate, but mutually incompatible theories. The enumeration of alternatives to the central view is an essential part of the empirical method. And it is not enough to compare theories with observations and facts. Data obtained in the context of a particular conceptual system cannot be independent of the underlying theoretical and philosophical assumptions of that system. In a truly scientific comparison of two theories, the "facts" and "observations" must be interpreted in the context of the theory being tested
Since facts, observations, and even evaluative criteria are “paradigm-bound,” the most important formal properties of a theory are revealed by contrast rather than analytically. If a scientist wants to maximize the empirical content of the views he holds, a pluralistic methodology is mandatory - introducing competing theories and comparing ideas with ideas, not with experimental data
There is no idea or system of thinking, no matter how ancient or obviously absurd, that would not be capable of improving our knowledge. For example, ancient spiritual systems and primitive myths seem strange and meaningless only because their scientific content is either unknown or distorted by anthropologists and philologists who do not possess the simplest physical, medical or astronomical knowledge
In science, reason cannot be universal, and the irrational cannot be completely excluded. There is no single interesting theory that agrees with all the facts in its field. We find that no single theory is able to reproduce some of the quantitative results, and that all of them are surprisingly incompetent qualitatively
All methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits.
New theories are initially limited to a relatively narrow range of facts and slowly spread to other areas. The form of this expansion is rarely determined by the elements that constituted the content of the old theories. The emerging conceptual apparatus of the new theory soon begins to identify its own problems and problem areas
Many of the questions, facts and observations that make sense only in the context that has already been left, suddenly turn out to be stupid and irrelevant: they are forgotten or discarded. Conversely, completely new topics emerge as problems of extreme importance
Our discussion of scientific revolutions, the dynamics of paradigms, and the functioning of scientific theories may perhaps leave the reader with the impression that this work is concerned primarily with the history of science. It is easy to assume that the last major conceptual revolution occurred in the first decades of this century, and that the next scientific revolution will occur sometime in the distant future. Not at all, the main message of this book is that Western science is approaching a paradigm shift of unprecedented proportions, which will change our concepts of reality and human nature, which will finally connect a conceptual bridge between ancient wisdom and modern science, which will reconcile Eastern spirituality with Western pragmatism
Newtonian-Cartesian spell of mechanistic science
Over the past three centuries, Western science has been dominated by the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, a system of thinking based on the works of the British naturalist Isaac Newton and the French philosopher René Descartes. Using this model, physics has made amazing progress and earned itself a solid reputation among all other disciplines. Its strong reliance on mathematics, efficiency in problem solving and successful practical applications in various areas of everyday life then became the standard for all science.
The ability to relate basic concepts and discoveries to the mechanistic model of the universe developed in Newtonian physics has become an important criterion for scientific legitimacy in more complex and less developed fields such as biology, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology and sociology. At first, adherence to the mechanistic view gave a very positive impetus to the scientific progress of these sciences. However, in the course of further development, conceptual schemes derived from the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm lost their revolutionary power and became a serious obstacle to research and progress in science
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, having undergone profound and radical changes, physics has overcome the mechanistic point of view of the world and all the basic assumptions of the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm. In this extraordinary transformation, it became increasingly complex, esoteric and incomprehensible to most scientists working in other fields. Disciplines such as medicine, psychology and psychiatry have failed to adapt to these rapid changes and to integrate them into their way of thinking. A worldview that has long been outdated for modern physics is still considered scientific in many other areas - to the detriment of future progress. Observations and facts that contradict the mechanistic model of the Universe are most often discarded or suppressed, and research projects that do not belong to the dominant paradigm are deprived of funding. The most striking examples of this are psychology, alternative approaches to medicine, research on psychedelics, thanatology and some areas of anthropological field research.
Over the past two decades, the anti-evolutionary and anti-productive nature of the old paradigm has become increasingly apparent, especially in the scientific disciplines that study humans. In psychology, psychiatry and anthropology, conceptual “puritanism” has reached such a degree that these disciplines are facing a deep crisis comparable in scope to the crisis in physics during the Michelson-Morley experiment
There is an urgent need for a fundamental paradigm shift that would accommodate and absorb the ever-increasing influx of revolutionary facts from a variety of fields that do not fit the old models. Many researchers believe that with a new paradigm it will be possible to fill the gap separating our traditional psychology and psychiatry from the deep wisdom of ancient and eastern systems of thought. Before a detailed discussion of the reasons for the coming scientific revolution and its possible directions, it seems appropriate to describe the characteristic features of the old paradigm, the adequacy of which is currently very doubtful
Newton's mechanical Universe is a Universe of solid matter, composed of atoms, small and indivisible particles, fundamental building blocks. They are passive and unchanging, their mass and shape are always constant. Newton's most important contribution to the Greek atomist model (which was otherwise similar to his) was the precise determination of the force acting between particles. He called it the gravitational force and established that it is directly proportional to the interacting masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. In the Newtonian system, gravity is a rather mysterious entity. It seems to be an integral attribute of the very bodies on which it acts: this action is carried out instantly, regardless of distance
Another essential characteristic of the Newtonian world is the three-dimensional space of classical Euclidean geometry, which is absolute, constant and always at rest. The distinction between matter and empty space is clear and unambiguous. Likewise, time is absolute, autonomous and independent of the material world; it appears as a homogeneous and unchanging flow from the past through the present to the future. In accordance with Newton's theory, all physical processes can be reduced to the movement of material points under the influence of gravity acting between them and causing their mutual attraction. Newton was able to describe the dynamics of these forces using a new, specially developed mathematical approach - differential calculus
The final image of such a Universe is a gigantic and completely deterministic clockwork mechanism. Particles move in accordance with eternal and unchanging laws, and events and processes in the material world are a chain of interdependent causes and effects. Because of this, it is possible, at least in principle, to accurately reconstruct any past situation in the Universe or predict the future with absolute certainty. In practice, this never happens because we are unable to obtain detailed information about all the complex variables involved in a given situation. No one has seriously studied the theoretical likelihood of such an undertaking. Like the basic metaphysical assumption, it represents an essential element of the mechanistic view of the world. Ilya Prigogine (1980) called this belief in limitless predictability “the founding myth of classical science.”
One of the greatest French philosophers, René Descartes, has had an equal influence on the philosophy and history of science of the last two centuries.
His most significant contribution to the leading paradigm was his extreme concept of the absolute duality of mind (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa), which resulted in the belief that the material world can be described objectively, without reference to a human observer. This concept has served as a tool for the rapid development of natural sciences and technology, but one of the most undesirable results of its victory has been the serious neglect of a holistic approach to understanding people, society and life on the planet. In a sense, the Cartesian heritage turned out to be an even less pliable element of Western science than Newtonian mechanism
Even Albert Einstein - the genius who undermined the foundations of Newtonian physics, formulated the theory of relativity and laid the foundations of quantum theory - could not completely free himself from the spell of Cartesian dualism (Carga, 1982)
Whenever we use the term "Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm", we must remember that Western mechanistic science has distorted and perverted the legacy of both great thinkers. For both Newton and Descartes, the concept of God was an essential element of philosophy and worldview. Newton was a deeply spiritual person, seriously interested in astrology, the occult and alchemy. According to his biographer John Maynard Keynes (Keynes, 1951), he was the last of the great magicians, not the first great scientist. Newton believed that the Universe was material in nature, but did not think that its origin could be explained by material causes. For him, God is the one who originally created material particles, the forces between them and the laws governing their movement. Once created, the Universe will henceforth function as a machine, which means it can be described and understood in these terms. Descartes also believed that the world exists objectively and independently of the human observer. However, for him this objectivity is based on the fact that the world is constantly perceived by God
Western science did with Newton and Descartes what Marx and Engels did with Hegel. Formulating the principles of dialectical and historical materialism, they dissected the Hegelian phenomenology of the world spirit - they left his dialectics, but replaced spirit with matter
Likewise, conceptual thinking in many disciplines offers a direct logical extension of the Newtonian-Cartesian model, but the image of divine reason that was at the core of the reasoning of these two great men has disappeared from the new picture. Following all this, systematic and radical philosophical materialism became the new ideological basis of the modern scientific worldview
In all its countless branches and applications, the Newtonian-Cartesian model has proven extremely successful in a wide variety of fields. It offered a comprehensive explanation of the fundamental mechanics of the solar system and was successfully used to understand continuous fluid motion, vibration of elastic bodies, and thermodynamics. It became the basis and driving force behind the remarkable progress of the natural sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Disciplines modeled on Newton and Descartes developed a detailed picture of the Universe as a complex of mechanical systems, a vast aggregate of passive and inert matter, evolving without the participation of consciousness or creative intelligence. From the "big bang" through the primordial expansion of galaxies to the birth of the solar system and the early geophysical processes that created our planet, cosmic evolution was supposedly driven entirely by blind mechanical forces
Download a book:
Stanislav Grof
Beyond the Brain
Preface to the Russian edition
I am very pleased to present to readers the Russian translation of my book “Beyond the Brain.” Having visited the USSR three times, I have retained many warm memories of these travels and meetings with friends and colleagues. My first visit in 1961 was a tourist one; I admired the beauty of the historical places of Kyiv, Leningrad and Moscow. The second visit took place within the framework of a professional exchange program between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. Then I got the opportunity to spend several weeks at the Psychoneurological Institute. V. M. Bekhterev in Leningrad, visit some psychiatric clinics and research centers in Moscow, and also take part in a program for the experimental study of neuroses in monkeys in Sukhumi. In Leningrad, I gave a presentation on the therapeutic potential of non-ordinary states of consciousness to several hundred Soviet psychologists and psychiatrists and was very touched by the warm reception.
The third visit took place in April 1989. My wife Christina and I traveled to Moscow at the invitation of the Soviet Ministry of Health to give lectures and conduct a practical workshop on holotropic breathwork, a powerful method of self-discovery and therapy that we have developed and refined in California over the past 15 years. And again we were received very warmly and cordially. Although our visit was not advertised, people came to meet us even from such distant places as the Baltic states, Leningrad, Kyiv, Armenia, Georgia. Another exciting sign of the extraordinary interest in consciousness research was the numerous requests to sign Russian translations of my books, which were distributed throughout the country in samizdat photocopies.
I'm very excited that things have changed to the point where Beyond the Brain is - and hopefully my other books will be officially published soon. I also hope that the material discussed in these books will be useful to Russian readers and will stimulate their interest in the study of consciousness and transpersonal psychology.
Best wishes, Stanislav Grof, MD, San Francisco, October 1990
Dedicated to Christina, Paul and my mother Maria
This book is the fruit of intensive and systematic research spanning nearly three decades. At all stages of this long journey, professional and personal interests were intertwined so closely that they became an inseparable whole. The process of scientifically exploring the uncharted territories of the human psyche has been for me as much a journey of personal transformation and self-discovery.
Over the years, I have received invaluable help, inspiration and encouragement from many significant people in my life, including my teachers, my friends or colleagues, and some a combination of all these roles. It is impossible to name everyone here. But in several cases the assistance was so great that it requires special mention.
Anthropologist Angeles Herrien, a researcher of the mystical traditions of the Basques, became a true friend and a living example of how the feminine and masculine aspects of the soul can be integrated and how to “walk the mystical path with your own feet.”
Anne and Jim Armstrong taught me much about the nature of true mediumship and the evolutionary potential of transpersonal crises. Their fearless enthusiasm for exploring the human psyche is a unique example of a joint journey into unknown areas of consciousness.
Gregory Bateson, with whom I had the good fortune to spend many hours of intense personal and intellectual interaction during the two and a half years when we both worked at the Esalen Institute in California, became my kind teacher and beloved friend. His insightful critique of mechanistic thinking in science and his creative synthesis of cybernetics, computer science and systems theory, psychiatry and anthropology had a profound influence on my development.
Joseph Campbell, a brilliant thinker, masterful mentor, and dear friend, taught me invaluable lessons about the central importance of mythology to psychiatry and our everyday lives. Its influence on my personal life was equally profound.
The work of Fridtjof Capra played a key role in my own intellectual development and scientific pursuits. It was his book, The Tao of Physics, that convinced me that the extraordinary data of modern consciousness research would certainly one day be integrated into a new, comprehensive scientific worldview. Our long-term friendship and rich exchange of information during the time he wrote The Turning Point helped me greatly in working on this book.
Swami Muktknanda Paramahamsa, the recently deceased spiritual master and head of the Siddha Yoga lineage, with whom I met many times over the years, provided me with a unique opportunity to observe and experience the powerful influence of the life-giving mystical tradition.
Ralph Metzner, who combines solid education, an inquisitive mind and an adventurous spirit in an unsurpassed way, became my close friend and colleague.
Rupert Sheldrake has been able to highlight with extraordinary clarity and poignancy the limitations of mechanistic thinking in the natural sciences that I myself have been thinking about for many years. His work greatly helped free me from the straitjacket of beliefs imposed on me during my professional training.
Anthony Sutich and Abraham Maslow, the initiators of two new directions in psychology - humanistic and transpersonal - became a real source of inspiration for me. They gave concrete form to some of my dreams and hopes for the future of psychology, and, of course, I will never forget that I was with them at the origins of the transpersonal movement.
Arthur Young's process theory is one of the most exciting concepts I have ever encountered. The deeper I delve into its meaning, the more inclined I am to see it as a scientific metaparadigm of the future.
The discovery of holonomic principles opened up a whole new world of possibilities for theoretical reasoning and practical applications for me. Special thanks to David Bohm, Karl Pribram and Hugo Zucarelli for this.