Helpful-Unhelpful philosophy
To those scientifically trained, it must be apparent
that the scientists
named in this e-Journal, are a minority who disagree with a majority.
Although it is less the case in recent years, majority science is
Reductionist, that is to say:
"In philosophy, the practice
of trying to show that certain entities may be
eliminated by reducing all reference to them to reference
to some other entities.
In more general use, the practice of describing a phenomenon (particularly
one
involving human thought and action) in terms of an apparently more
`basic' or
`primitive' phenomenon, to which the first is then said to
be equivalent." (WebOED 1.1)
For example: Reductionism points out that the human
being is made of cells,
consisting of molecules, which consist of atoms in certain configurations.
The evolution of the human body has been a matter of chance configurations
of molecules which have acquired the ability to replicate themselves.
Science applied with this rigid philosophy has indeed been successful,
but there
has been a cost.
In an endeavour to be truly scientific, able to test, measure
and quantify much
of modern academic psychology has also been reductionist, and
Behaviorist.
The apostle of Behaviorism was J.B. Watson, who in 1913 wrote:
"The time seems to have come when psychology must discard all reference
to
consciousness, when it need no longer delude itself into thinking that
it is making
mental states the object of observation.
. . .Psychology as the Behaviorist views it, is a purely objective,
experimental branch
of natural science which needs introspection as little as do the
sciences of chemistry
and physics."
J.B. Watson, 1913, p.163, 176
To this day in some mainline universities, text books are issued
with titles like
"Psychology, the Study of Behaviour". Much is made of neural
structures, and
statistical studies of behaviour. The living, loving and creative
human being
disappears. Measure and quantification, together with statistical analysis
have
been heavily emphasised. Of course, there have been
many great independent psychologists,
like Freud, Jung, Adler, and many more modern people, who have not fitted
the pattern
at all. And from the 1990s onwards, it has been becoming fashionable
to study consciousness
once more rather than merely behaviour, and there has been a huge volume
of research
done, both from a materialist point of view, and from the wider perspective
of the QM physicist. It is not at all apparent yet from all this research,
that there is any
consensus.
Similarly until recently, in philosophy departments of most mainline
universities, except in Germany,
under the influence of Reductionism, philosophy has largely been
reduced
to Linguistic Analysis. When academics subscribe to the latter school
they deprive
themselves of rendering the same service to the ideals of society, as did
philosophers of
earlier ages.
Generalisations are of course dangerous, and we will always find university
departments
which have a more spiritual orientation. This will especially apply to
Catholic and other
private universities.
Perhaps partly in reaction to this situation, conservative
religion has
tended to ignore science, and to construct perceived reality
almost solely in the light
of holy books, and revelations of the past. Fundamentalist narrow devotion
to the
holy books has notoriously split Christian from Christian, and religion from
religion.
Liberal religion has sometimes been too influenced by Reductionist science,
and on occasion
thrown up the sponge, with regard to engaging with spiritual dimensions.
This has
driven numbers of Christians towards being materialist humanists.
It seems insane that this should be the case, when some of the
greatest scientific minds
of the twentieth century have clearly and conclusively shown, the Reductionism
is not
sufficient as a philosophy. It has been shown that we must also
look at wholes.
Yet scientific endeavour is often carried on as if Einstein, Heisenberg,
Pauli, Sarfatti,
Bohm, and a great many others, as if they had never existed. It
is also insane that
the religions largely ignore the new science, which points to quite firm
Ground of Faith.
In 1932 there was the Copenhagen Agreement, by which it was taken
as a matter of
faith, that the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics has no spiritual and
other-dimensional
implications, that although it seems to imply a wider reality,
this is simply a meaningless
epiphenomenon of the mathematics. But the physicist Victor Mansfield (to
whom we refer
on several occasions on the main page of Issue No.2) has this to say:
In this book I have been discussion the standard Copenhagen interpretation
of quantum
mechanics, one developed by Bohr ( who headed the effort at his institute
in Copenhagen),
Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, and others. Even within this interpretation there
are variations
in the view of the relation of mind to quantum mechanics. The most
conservative
and most orthodox interpretation (the one that I have been taking throughout)
is that
of Bohr who carefully distanced himself from any invocation of mind
to understand
the details of quantum mechanics. But despite being actively involved
in the formulating
the Copenhagen interpretation, Heisenberg and Pauli clearly referred to the
role of
mind in physics. It's also clear, judging from both the literature
and discussions
that occur on the philosophic foundation of quantum mechanics, that the orthodox
interpretation is losing its grip on the physics community. Now it's more
of a standard
to pay homage to, rather than one to follow rigidly. (Synchronicity...
p.123)
Mansfield continues:
From the beginnings of the development of quantum mechanics there have
been
physicists who attempted to include some form of mind or consciousness into
the foundation
of quantum mechanics. They believed that quantum theory could only be understood
by making explicit appeal to the functioning of mind. They were usually considered
the radical fringe and out of step with the materialistic and positivistic
currents
of thought of the day. Today there are modern thinkers who are still trying
to solve
the mind-matter puzzle by incorporating mind in their work at the foundations
of quantum mechanics. They are generally trying to build a quantum mechanical
theory of consciousness, to understand mind within quantum theory.... p.123
.... Whichever approach we take, if we are solve the mind-matter problem
posed by
thinkers, both ancient and modern, and raise in a particularly sharp empirical
form
by the synchronicity phenomena, we need a radical change in our conceptions
of both mind and matter. p.124
This e-Journal celebrates the work of these great and spiritually
minded physicists, and
also the mystics, not as proving the value of reach other, but
as companions in Spirit.
Those of us who gain insights into multidimensional reality, will feel
less driven to hide,
but will be emboldened to share what they discover.
holism: "A term coined
by Gen. J. C. Smuts (1870-1950) to designate
the tendency in nature to produce wholes (i.e. bodies or organisms)
from the ordered grouping of unit structures."(WebOED
1.1)