|
|
Further Clarification of Ullman’s New Abode: Recognizing the Limitations of the Holographic Paradigm ©2007 Mark A. Schroll, PhD.
For some time I had been toying with the idea that what we experienced as a dream had an antecedent history in an event that was beyond time and space ordering, and came upon us in something approaching an instantaneous happening at critical moments in the transformation of one form of consciousness or another (Ullman: 9, 1979). Bohm’s work and Ullman’s new abode provide us with the big theoretical picture—a new way of understanding what Jung was trying to get at with his collective transpersonal unconscious and archetypes.3 What I see of real importance is to find ways of giving ourselves new metaphors, new stories, new conceptual maps to help us visualize the invisible landscape of “the implicate order”—Ullman’s New Abode. In other words, Bohm’s implicate order is analogous with the dreamtime, indeed everything is the dreamtime. All reality is contained within the implicate order that we grasp and make sense of with the help of the archetypal patterns or cognitive signatures which Sheldrake calls morphogenetic fields. We remember these archetypal patterns, cognitive signatures or morphogenetic fields through morphic resonance or ritualized activities that help us remember and make conscious the dreamtime (Kalweit, 1988). Understanding this big theoretical picture (which is contingent on comprehending and developing insight beyond the limitations of the holographic model of consciousness) has been divided into five parts. 1) Ken Wilber’s criticism of the holographic paradigm. 2) Bohm’s response to Wilber’s criticism. 3) Gordon G. Globus’ defense of Bohm’s holistic physics. 5) The holomovement: Bohm’s initial narrative construction of wholeness. And 6) The holoflux: Bohm’s continuing attempt to construct a language and conceptual understanding of wholeness. Ken Wilber’s Criticisms of the Holographic Paradigm Wilber has pointed out that since a hologram is created using light waves, time order constraints continue to plague this model because it must be transmitted in terms of cycles per second. Therefore (in reference to Bohm’s ink drop model (Schroll, 2006)), the holographic frequency domain should not be considered an expression of the timeless/spaceless transcendental ground of Spirit (which is eternal and infinite), because: The fact is, the so-called frequency realm is simply a realm with space-time structures different from those of the linear or historical mind, and the mind has to impose its structures upon the less structured frequency realm. But in any event, or in any way you wish to interpret it, the frequency realm has some sort of structure . . . . And structure cannot be confused with that which is radically without structure, or perfectly dimensionless, transcendent and infinite (Wilber: 159, 1990). Worse yet, Wilber has demonstrated that equating the holographic frequency domain with Spirit-as-ground, “is exactly pantheism,” which neglects the necessary clarification of true mysticism: that reality lies beyond the world of appearances. The crux of this argument rests on Wilber’s contention (which he in turn credits to Huston Smith) that: . . . . Four levels of being [, often referred to as the Great Chain of Being,] are the absolute minimum you can use to explain the world’s great mystical religions. These are physical-body, symbol-mind, subtle-soul, and causal-spirit (Wilber: 161, 1990). 4 In order to thoroughly comprehend Wilber’s argument we need to understand that these four levels of being represent a series of progressively decreasing domains of appearance (or progressively increasing states of awareness), which eventually culminates in our ability to see beyond the world of appearances.5 Beginning with physical-body, this level represents the domain of appearance that is the furthest removed from Spirit-as-ground, the sensory-motor domain of matter: atoms, molecules, genes and their corresponding fields of study—physics, chemistry and biology. Symbol-mind refers to our rational-intellectual understanding: that is, “ . . . language, syntax, communication, discourse, logic, value, intentionally, ideas, meaning, concepts, images” (Wilber: 84-85, 1982a), which are capacities of understanding associated with the fields of psychology, sociology, philosophy and the humanities in general. Subtle-soul refers to mandalic representations of spirit: “Platonic forms, archetypes, [and] personal deity-forms” (Wilber: 10, 1984b), which are iconic representations associated with the study of theology. According to Wilber: In the soul-realm, there is still some sort of subtle subject-object duality; the soul apprehends Being or communes with God, but there still remains an irreducible boundary between them (Wilber: 10, 1984b). These first three levels of the Great Chain of Being can be summed up as the “immanent nature of Spirit” (Wilber: 58, 1993): a domain where the soul and the Godhead or absolute spirit come together, forming a unity without boundaries: “. . . a non-dual state of radical intuition and supreme identity variously known as gnosis, nirvikalpa, samadhi, satori, kensho, jnana, etc” (Wilber 10, 1984b), which are states of consciousness associated with the study of mysticism. Yet paradoxically, by progressing through this cosmic road-map of decreasing appearance or increasing awareness, we do not miraculously find at the end of our journey that we have somehow arrived at a destination known as Spirit-as-ground. Using this model as the foundation of his worldview, Wilber has argued that the holographic paradigm is guilty of confusing the paradox of spirit/Spirit (Being and Nonbeing) because it collapses the Great Chain of Being to its lowest level, physical-body or matter (Wilber, 1984b).
Bohm’s Response to Wilber’s Criticisms
Weber: Unlike some people who question the validity of mapping physics onto the mysticism of the ancient wisdom traditions, you do not question it, if it is properly done. Bohm: What kind of mapping? Weber: For example, what [Fritjof] Capra tried to do in The Tao of Physics. Ken Wilber in Quantum Questions criticizes this approach and all similar attempts as invalid. By implication, your own work is open to the same attack. Bohm: Part of this ancient alliance between science and theology at the time of Newton was to make matter as “materialistic” as possible6 . . . . to emphasize the transcendence of God. There is sort of a trace of that in Wilber. Weber: Wilber says that matter is the lowest level of the hierarchical universe which he identifies with the Great Chain of Being. The upper levels contain the lower levels but not vice versa. People who try to ignore that, Wilber argues, are guilty of a kind of reductionism. Bohm: In the view I’m presenting nothing is being reduced. Pure idealism would reduce matter to an aspect of mind. Hegel was an example of that. Pure materialism attempts to reduce mind to an aspect of matter, and of course that’s what we see in a great deal of modern science. My view does not attempt to reduce one to the other any more than one would reduce form to content (Bohm & Weber: 150-151, 1986b). In his more recent work Bohm has continued to make it clear that the implicate order is not within space-and-time (Bohm, 1987); consequently, Bohm’s point of view cannot be accused of the kind of reductionism that Wilber is suggesting. Instead, from a completely different perspective, it is the conceptual framework of the Great Chain of Being that calls for our critical attention. In particular, we need to remind ourselves that the use of spatial metaphors, such as terms like “upper” or “lower” is limited. An obvious reason for exercising such caution follows from the fact that the space-time continuum is no longer limited to Euclidean descriptions of matter, thanks to Riemannian geometry, Einstein’s general theory of relativity and to a lesser extent, quantum theory. Thus, the application of spatial metaphors to domains other than matter would have even less significance and, more likely, no significance whatsoever. Unfortunately our language, which is based on a Euclidean perception of reality, continues to reflect a two-dimensional worldview. This argument is raised in the spirit of Bohm’s etymological accuracy, where it follows that since we are attempting to discuss the meaning of his theories, it would serve us well to practice the same precision he used in their expression. Those of us unfamiliar with the philosophical complexities of topological mathematics (that demonstrates the limitations of spatial metaphors) may enjoy Edwin A. Abbott’s classic satire on the subject (written in the late eighteen hundreds), titled Flatland (1952). More recent excursions into the relationship between topological mathematics and what might be more accurately referred to as cosmology, astrophysics and the philosophy of the infinite can be found in the work of Carpenter, 1981; Gribbin, 1986; Kaufmann, 1979; & Rucker, 1983). Likewise Euclidean conceptions of space have been applied in Freudian and post-Freudian attempts to map our understanding of consciousness and the ontological origins of dreams (Ullman, 2006; Eckartsberg, 1981). Bohm’s transcendence of these Euclidean limitations in his model of cosmos and consciousness is one of the many conceptual attributes that attracted Ullman to envision his new abode: On the surface our dreams are a seemingly anarchic play of images that descend upon us uninvited. As metaphorical expositions, however, these images reflect the core of our being and the place we have made for ourselves in the world. I use the term descend advisedly because, for too long, we have been misled into thinking that dream content ascends into consciousness from a primitive substratum of our personality. I believe the opposite to be the case. . . . What [then] is the agency that provides this unending source of unerringly apt visual presentations? (Ullman: 388-389, 1987, italics added). The answer Ullman is searching for in this question is motivated by the same search for understanding that led me to define consciousness as: The immediacy of the continually emerging effort to establish an awareness of the reciprocal interaction taking place between the person-the-environment-and-the-fundamental unifying principle bonding this relationship together at any given moment (Schroll: 57, 2005). The person and environment are fairly self-evident terms that hopefully do not require additional explanation, but what do I mean by this fundamental unifying principle? Answering these questions will lead us beyond the limitations of the holographic paradigm—a task to which we now turn. Gordon G. Globus’ Defense of Bohm’s Holistic Physics Additional responses to Wilber’s criticisms have come from Gordon G. Globus, who defends Bohm’s holistic physics by posing the question: Is there a kind of physical theory—perhaps holistic—whose story is consonant with the perennial philosophy?. . . . [More specifically], Is the story of Bohm’s physics consonant with the story of the perennial philosophy? If so, then Wilber’s whole argument would collapse, whatever the ultimate fate of Bohm’s ideas, since Wilber believes that in principle any attempt to relate physics with mysticism “is simply to misunderstand entirely the nature and function of each” (Wilber, 1984[b], p. 5) (Globus: 50, 1986). To date (that I know of), Wilber has not responded to Globus’ critique, an observation that has gained support with the publication of the (1994) essay “The Worldview of Ken Wilber,” written by two of his closest colleagues Roger Walsh and Frances Vaughan. In Walsh and Vaughan’s essay, they list no new publications by Wilber regarding the issue of physics and mysticism. Much to the contrary, in a section titled Physics, Wilber’s books Quantum Questions (1984b) and The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes (1982b) are cited as his definitive statements on this topic. The final paragraph in this section does cite Globus’ 1986 article, but fails to discuss its criticisms. Instead, Walsh and Vaughan attempt to put this matter to rest by saying: . . . some other theorists such as Capra (1991[a] and Globus (1986) [believe] there may be some identifiable parallels between descriptions from physics and certain mystical investigations, [but] these parallels are likely to be few, abstract, and certainly not proof of mystical claims. For Wilber, then, “genuine mysticism, precisely to the extent that it is genuine, is perfectly capable of offering its own defense, its own evidence, its own claims, and its own proof. . . . The findings of modern physics and mysticism have very little in common (Wilber, 1984[c], p. 26.) (quoted in Walsh & Vaughan: 16, 1994). Am I the only one who is dumbfounded on this issue, or is there something amiss that Walsh and Vaughan find nothing new to add to this discussion? This lack of interest in Globus’ critique by Walsh is particularly curious, as both Globus and Walsh share appointments in psychiatry and human behavior at the University of California at Irvine. Given the fact that Globus’ critique was published in 1986, it seems only fair that anyone (such as Walsh) with the least amount of interest in brain science would have responded by writing at least a sentence or two specifically addressing this issue in that length of time. In addition to his previous criticism of Wilber, Globus has suggested alternative avenues of research and theory construction available to transpersonal psychology: Suppose one holds (which Wilber would not, I think) that mind, soul, and transcendent spirit are all emergent properties of brain functioning, with transcendent spirit the highest level emergent. Then, although physics is surpassed by the transcendent aspect of spirit, brain science is not. In this nontraditional ontology, a scientific description of brain functioning at its very highest level of “super-system” functioning ought to be consonant with the mystical description of transcendent spirit (Globus, 1982) (Globus: 51, 1986). As an aside, Globus does agree with Wilber’s observations that causal-spirit (mysticism or transpersonal awareness) has little or nothing in common with physics. But, he disagrees with Wilber’s criticism that Spirit (Nonbeing), the ground of all levels in the Great Chain of Being, has little or nothing in common with physics. Spirit-as-ground, says Globus, is where “the stories of physics and the perennial philosophy cohere” (Globus: 51, 1986). Furthermore, Globus makes a careful distinction between the perennial philosophy and mysticism, making the case that because the perennial philosophy and Bohm’s holistic physics are conceptual in nature, they should not be confused or compared with mysticism. Walsh has made this point very clear, stressing the “crying need” for gnostic intermediaries: “. . . . individuals who are both deeply immersed in the practice of the consciousness disciplines and are also competent scholars of traditional disciplines such as psychology and philosophy” (Walsh: 30, 1983). Adding that: . . . an effective gnostic intermediary must not only know what he or she is attempting to communicate, but must also know the conceptual environment into which it is being introduced, and to know this well enough to be able to link the two in a skillful and legitimizing way that will produce an “aha” reaction from the receiver (Walsh: 30, 1983). Walsh’s encouragement for us to become gnostic intermediaries builds upon Wilber’s argument that “the geist-sciences ‘rest on the relation of lived experience, expression, and understanding’” (Wilber: 100, 1982a), a point of view Wilber develops in considerable detail in his book Eye to Eye (1990a). More recently Walsh extended his investigation into becoming a gnostic intermediary to the study of shamanism (Walsh, 1990). Having made this distinction between mysticism and the perennial philosophy, Globus goes on to ask if physics—more particularly Bohm’s holistic physics—and the perennial philosophy have something in common; Globus believes they do. Based on his investigation of this issue, Globus (1986) concludes that the story of physics is consonant with the story of the perennial philosophy; however, Globus is again careful in this affirmation, saying that: “. . . rather than physics possibly supporting the perennial philosophy, the issue is one of mutuality of fit between the perennial philosophy and physics” (Globus: 50, 1986). These careful points of clarification by Globus, in addition to Bohm’s rejoinder to Wilber’s critique, should not, however, be taken as a defense of the holographic paradigm. Bohm too, in a conversation with Weber, has called attention to the limitations of the holographic model of the universe: [I]f we remain with the holographic model, this essentially sticks to the implicate order and leaves out the super-implicate order. In other words, it’s a tremendous simplification of quantum mechanics to make [it synonymous with] the holographic model; that is good enough in the classical sense where you use the holograph. But as a model for organizing the implicate order through the informational field—the quantum information potential--it leaves out what is very interesting, namely that this implicate order now actively organizes itself. This is crucial to understanding thought and the mind. . . . [T]here is a principle I once thought of, [which serves to explain this relationship, that I referred to as] “soma-significance.” Instead of “psychosomatic.” The word psychosomatic emphasizes two entities, mind and soma (or body), but I want to emphasize two sides of one process. Any process can be treated either as somatic or as significant. A very elementary case is the printed paper: it’s somatic in that it’s just printed ink; and it also has significance. I say all along the line any part of the body or the body processes is somatic, it’s the nerves moving chemically and physically; and in addition it has a meaning which is active. . . . I am trying to say that all of nature is organized according to the activity of significance. This, however, can be conceived somatically in a more subtle form of matter which, in turn, is organized by a still more subtle form of significance. So in that way every level is both somatic and significant (Bohm & Weber: 37-38, 1986a).7 Bohm’s reference to the super-implicate order can be considered analogous to Wilber’s concept of Spirit-as-Ground. Wilber agrees: “David Bohm has clearly moved toward a more articulated and hierarchical view, even if he objects to the word hierarchy” (Wilber: 162, 1990b). Still it would actually be more precise to say Bohm objects to the idea that evolutionary development progresses in a strictly linear, stage-like fashion, such as the Great Chain of Being suggests. Nevertheless a more complete discussion of Wilber and Bohm’s views on this issue, including the comments offered by Walsh and Vaughan under the heading Evolution (1994, pp. 10-13), exceed this essay’s limitations. To recap and summarize what has been said, if successful this discussion has shown that Bohm’s implicate order model of cosmos and consciousness is not a harbinger of a new holographic paradigm. Does this mean that Bohm’s search for wholeness must be forsaken? Not in the least! The hologram was merely a metaphor that Bohm found useful toward illustrating what he meant by the implicate order. Unfortunately too many people took the metaphor as the domain of reality he was trying to get them to see. In pointing out the limitations of the holographic model of the universe, Bohm has shifted our discussion toward a deeper examination of the implicate order’s self-organizing activity (projection, injection and reprojection) as a means of understanding the relationship between thought and mind. This inquiry led Bohm to develop his concept of the holomovement. Bohm’s coinage of the term holomovement reflects his pursuit of a conceptual language capable of describing the ontological reality that carries an implicate order, an enterprise that dovetails with Bohm’s theory of the quantum potential and the investigation of what physicists have referred to as nonlocality. This is a topic that we will now examine in more detail. The Holomovement: Bohm’s Initial Narrative Construction of Wholeness In seeking to understand what Bohm meant by his concept of holomovement, we should begin by harking back to our discussion of the implicate order in (Schroll, 2006). Recalling that it was Bohm’s contemplative persistence of something that goes beyond the present understanding of quantum theory that produced the broader philosophical proposal of the implicate order. It was in pursuing the theoretical refinements associated with the implicate order that eventually produced the idea of the quantum potential’s ability to inform the content of its environment. Through this line of thought, Bohm eventually reached the additional insight that the implicate order’s cyclic process (injection, projection, reprojection) could be referred to as the holomovement. Defining his concept of the holomovement, Bohm writes: . . . the thought occurred to me: perhaps the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment is universal, while the extended and separate forms that we commonly see in experience are relatively stable and independent patterns, maintained by a constant underlying movement of enfoldment and unfoldment. This latter I called the holomovement. The proposal was thus a reversal of the usual idea. Instead of supposing that matter and its movement are fundamental, while enfoldment and unfoldment are explained as a particular case of this, we are saying that the implicate order will have to contain within itself all possible features of the explicate order as potentialities, along with the principles determining which of these features will become actual (Bohm: 40-41, 1987). Bohm’s definition of the holomovement may also have a broader metaphysical connotation. This possibility occurred to me during a lecture by Huston Smith (1984). Smith was discussing his ontological model of reality, saying that these four levels (physical-body, symbol-mind, subtle-soul and causal-spirit) could be thought of as the fingers on our hand; adding that our thumb, which is able to touch all four fingers, could be seen as the ground-of-all-being. This got me wondering: Is Bohm’s implicate order (which generates the holomovement) analogous to Smith’s thumb? This question remains unanswered and is provided here as contemplative food for thought. But this definition of the holomovement is limited to its immediate significance as an extension of Bohm’s concept of the implicate order. To understand its relationship to the EPR paradox, nonlocality and quantum potential, we must recall our previous discussion of these issues (Schroll & Krippner, 2006), whose broader context is made clear by Sharpe: [H]olomovement physics explains nonlocality. In the holomovement, the basic connections between elements are neither local nor nonlocal. They are, rather, alocal, or neutral concerning locality. The nonlocal connections of the EPR experiment can be thought of as coming from the more basic alocal connections of the holomovement (Sharpe: 113, 1990). The Holoflux:
Weber: Could we begin by clarifying the difference between the holomovement, the holograph and the implicate order? Bohm: Holomovement is a combination of a Greek and Latin word and a similar word would be holokinesis or, still better, holoflux, because “movement” implies motion from place to place, whereas flux does not. So the holoflux includes the ultimately flowing nature of what is, and of that which forms therein. The holograph, on the other hand, is merely a static recording of movement, like a photograph: an abstraction from the holomovement. We therefore cannot regard the holograph as anything very basic, since it is merely a way of displaying the holomovement which latter is, however, the ground of everything, of all that is. The implicate order is the one in which the holomovement takes place, an order that both enfolds and unfolds. Things are unfolded in the implicate order, and that order cannot be entirely expressed in an explicate fashion. Therefore, in this approach, we are not able to go beyond the holomovement or the holoflux (the Greek word might be holorhesis, I suppose) although that does not imply that this is the end of the matter (Bohm & Weber: 187, 1982b, italics added). Without exception (as an examination of the literature discussing Bohm’s implicate order demonstrates), authors employing the use of the term holomovement have failed to continue Bohm’s conceptual revision of its meaning. Thus, while this conversation between Bohm and Weber was published ten years before Bohm’s untimely death, this does seem to have been the end of the matter. The knowledge of Bohm’s continual revision of the conceptual understanding of the holomovement first came to my attention during the conference “Science and Mysticism: Exploring the New Realities” (Bohm, 1984). During the question and answer period, Bohm was asked how precise the term holomovement was as a means of describing the type of movement to which he was referring. Bohm answered that through additional conversations with Karl Pribram the limitations of using the word holomovement became clear, because the word movement indicates the propagation of some phenomenological-sensorimotor event through the spacetime continuum. Likewise this is why holography cannot illustrate quantum states in a state of potentia, because these “states” are beyond the constraints of spacetime and matter. Realizing this, Bohm suggested the concept of holoflux referring to phenomena that are not bounded by a rigid structure whose quantum transformation is more dynamic than any fractal image: Flux refers to a change in state rather than movement in time or place. In other words, a transition in quantum state from potentia (Bohm’s implicate order) to spacetime and matter (the explicate order) does not require a path. Holoflux is what I mean by the unifying principle bonding the reciprocal interaction of person and environment together at any given moment. The difficulty in grasping the concept of holoflux is almost certainly related to social factors causing us to forget the primordial tradition, because holoflux represents the physical description and means of theoretical expression to guide us toward a rediscovery of the primordial tradition (Schroll: 58, 2005). A similar point was articulated in a conversation between Bohm and J. Krishnamurti at Brockwood Park, Hampshire, England, October 7, 1972: Bohm: Would you say energy is a kind of movement? Krishnamurti: No, it is energy. The moment it is a movement it goes off into this field of thought. Bohm: We have to clarify this notion of energy. I have also looked up this word. You see, it is based on the notion of work; energy means, “to work within.” Krishnamurti: Work within, yes. Bohm: But now you say there is an energy which works, but no movement. Krishnamurti: Yes. I was thinking about this yesterday—not thinking—I realized the source is there, uncontaminated, non-movement, untouched by thought, it is there. From that these two are born. Why are they born at all? Bohm: One was necessary for survival. Krishnamurti: . . . In survival this—in its totality, in its wholeness—has been denied, or put aside. What I am trying to get at is this, Sir. I want to find out, as a human being living in this world with all the chaos and suffering, can the human mind touch that source in which the two divisions don’t exist?—and because it has touched this source, which has no divisions, it can operate without the sense of division (Krishnamurti & Bohm: 498-499, 1973, italics added). Resume` and Conclusion We began this essay’s inquiry with the task of demonstrating the limitations of the holographic paradigm. Hopefully the reasons as to why the holographic paradigm is a limited conceptual metaphor, summarized in the sections by Wilber, Bohm and Globus, are clear. If not, and I realize this discussion is extremely subtle and technical, re-reading and contemplating these sections may be necessary. Once we understand this, we come to a much more difficult problem whose complete discussion (let alone solution) exceeds the limits of this essay. This problem concerns Ullman’s insight as to the source of where dreams originate whose understanding necessitates a more extensive examination of Bohm’s theories, the work of Jung and their relationship with transpersonal psychology. Here we have come full circle back to Ullman’s search for the agency that provides this unending source of unerringly apt visual presentations that I refer to as searching for the fundamental unifying principle. The short answer to identifying this source, this fundamental unifying principle, is the holoflux, which has been further hypothesized represents the physical description and means of theoretical expression to guide us toward a rediscovery of the primordial tradition. This primordial tradition includes what the Australian Aborigines refer to as the dreamtime. The long answer that represents a significant challenge to IASD before we are able to fully comprehend the experimental significance of “sacred places” influence on dreams (let alone design better experiments) and the holoflux, is to understand what Bohm refers to as soma-significance. Understanding this will necessitate bringing together all of what we discussed in this essay with psi’s multifaceted inquiry (Schroll, 2007a, forthcoming 2008; Turner, 2006) and the burgeoning inquiry known as consciousness studies (Gray, 2007; Mentor, 2007; Charet & Webb, 2007 and Williams, 2007). Notes 1. My initial follow-up to Ullman’s inquiry began with the 5th PsiberDreaming Conference in two essays 1) “Introduction to the Physics of Psi Dreaming: An Interview with Stanley Krippner” (Schroll & Krippner, 2006), 2) “Ullman’s New Abode for Understanding Psi Dreaming: An Introduction to Bohm’s Holistic Physics” (Schroll, 2006). 2. This overview (Schroll, 2007b), Krippner’s follow-up (Krippner, 2007), Curt Hoffman’s supporting research (Hoffman, 2007) and Rita Dwyer’s personal story of awakening (Dwyer, 2007) is available on CD. www.conferencerecording.com. 3. Jung’s influence on American psychology would not actually begin until the development of transpersonal psychology. Actually Jung and transpersonal psychology will not be properly recognized and understood until psychologists stop envisioning the human condition in terms of Newtonian physics, and begin to envision a quantum-relativistic view of humankind. Jung and transpersonal psychology’s search for something larger, more inclusive or whole makes sense within this worldview. Mind is no longer confined to something that happens in our physical bio-chemical brains and our skin encapsulated egos, but mind or consciousness is capable of being considered as a field of influence—like what Rupert Sheldrake refers to as a morphogenetic field (Sheldrake, 1981, 1988). Jung died in 1961, at the birth of humanistic psychology. 4. A more detailed discussion of Smith’s ontological model can be found in (Smith, 1982). Wilber (1982a, 1984b, 1993) also elaborates on this model. 5. Metzner has reminded me that according to his theory of personality (and Smith’s (1982) model), these four levels of being are not merely progressively increasing states of awareness; they represent increasing levels of reality (Metzner, 1996; see also Metzner, 1998). This essay’s limited space does not allow a complete discussion of Metzner’s theory of personality. 6. This ancient alliance between science and theology was historically referred to as natural philosophy or natural theology. Bohm takes up a discussion of natural philosophy and its relationship to consciousness and creativity in his interview with Michael Toms (Bohm & Toms, 1990). A discussion of natural theology is taken up by Stephen Toulmin (Toulmin, 1982). 7. A complete discussion of Bohm’s soma-significance concept exceeds this essay’s limits. Curious researchers should see (Bohm, 1985, 1986 and Ullman, 1990). Bibliography Abbott, E. A. (1952). Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. (6th ed.). Revised by B. Hoffman. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. Bohm, D. (1984, September 29). The implicate order: The holodynamic model of the universe. Presented at “Science and Mysticism: Exploring the New Realities,” Sept. 29-30, sponsored by Interface Harvard Science Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. This presentation was later published as “The Implicate Order: A New Approach to Reality.” In Unfolding Meaning, pp. 1-25, (1985). Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm. London: Ark Paperbacks. Bohm, D. (1986). A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 80 (2), 113-135.
Bohm, D. & Weber, R. (1986a). The implicate order and the super-implicate order. In R. Weber (Ed.), The search for unity: Dialogues with scientists and sages. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 23-49. Bohm, D. & Weber, R. (1982b). Mathematics: The scientist’s mystic crystal. In R. Weber (Ed.), The search for unity: Dialogues with scientists and sages. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 139-153. Capra, F. (1991). The Tao of physics. (3rd ed.). Boston: Shambhala. Carpenter, J. M. (1981). On the shifting structure of mathematical paradigms. In R. S. Valle & R. Von Eckartsberg (Eds.), The metaphors of consciousness. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 461-472. Charet, F. X. & Webb, H. S. (2007). Doing consciousness studies at Goddard College. Anthropology of Consciousness, 18 (1), 51-64. Dwyer, R. (2007, July 1). Personal reflections on dreaming and morphogenetic fields. 24th Annual International Association for the Study of Dreams conference, Sonoma State University, Santa Rosa, CA. CD available from www.conferencerecording.com. Eckartsberg, R. Von. (1981). Maps of the mind: The cartography of consciousness. In R. S. Valle & R. Von Eckartsberg (Eds.), The metaphors of consciousness. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 21-93. Globus, G. G. (1986). Physics and mysticism: Current controversies. ReVision, 8 (2), 49-54. Gray, C. H. (2007). Consciousness studies: The emerging military-industrial-spiritual-scientific complex. Anthropology of Consciousness, 18 (1), 3-19. Gribbin, J. (1986). In search of the big bang: Quantum physics and cosmology. New York: Bantam Books. Hoffman, C. (2007, July 1). Dream delay, dream decay: Dreaming in sacred places. 24th Annual International Association for the Study of Dreams Conference, Sonoma State University, Santa Rosa, CA. CD available from www.conferencerecording.com. Kalweit, H. (1988). Dreamtime and inner space. Boston: Shambhala. Kaufmann, W. J. (1979). Black holes and warped spacetime. San Francisco. W. H. Freeman & Company. Krippner, S. (2007, July 1). Comments on a preliminary study of “sacred sites” in Wales and England and home dream reports. 24th Annual International Association for the Study of Dreams conference, Sonoma State University, Santa Rosa, CA. CD available from www.conferencerecording.com. Krishnamurti, J. & Bohm, D. (1973). On intelligence. In J. Krishnamurti, The awakening of intelligence. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, pp. 477-507. Mentor, S. (2007). The machinery of consciousness: A cautionary tale. Anthropology of Consciousness, 18 (1), 20-50. Metzner, R. (1996, July 9). Personal correspondence. Metzner, R. (1998). The unfolding self: Varieties of transformative experience. Origin Press: Novato, CA. Rucker, R. (1983). Infinity and the mind. New York: Bantam Books. Schroll, M. A. (2005). Toward a physical theory of the source of religion. Anthropology of Consciousness, 16 (1), 56-69. Schroll, M. A. (2006, September 26). Ullman’s New Abode for Understanding Psi Dreaming: An Introduction to Bohm’s Holistic Physics. Paper 5th Annual PsiberDreamaing Conference. Available on CD from www.conferencerecording.com. Schroll, M. A. & Krippner, S. (2006, September 26). Introduction to the Physics of Psi Dreaming: An Interview with Stanley Krippner. Paper 5th Annual PsiberDreamaing Conference. Schroll, M. A. (2007a). Turner SAC/AAA Distinguished Lecture. Anthropology News, 48 (3), 52. Schroll, M. A. (2007b, July 1). Ullman’s new abode: Psi dreaming, sacred places, Bohm’s holistic physics and ecopsychology’s vision. 24th Annual International Association for the Study of Dreams Conference, Sonoma State University, Santa Rosa, CA. Schroll, M. A. (forthcoming, 2008). Toward a new kind of science and its methods of inquiry. Paper Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness spring meeting, Yale University Divinity Graduate School, New Haven, CT. Sharpe, K. J. (1990). Relating the physics and religion of David Bohm. Zygon, 25 (1), 105-122. Sheldrake, R. (1981). A new science of life. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, Inc. Sheldrake, R. (1988). The presence of the past. New York: Times Books. Smith, H. (1982). Beyond the post-modern mind. New York: Crossroads Pub. Co. Smith, H. (1984, September 30). Forgotten Truth: The Rediscovery of the Perennial Philosophy of the World’s Relgions. Presented at the conference “Science and Mysticism: Exploring the New Realities,” September 29-30, sponsored by Interface at the Harvard Science Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Toulmin, S. (1982). The return of cosmology: Postmodern science and the theology of nature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Turner, E. (2006). Advances in the study of spirit experiences: Drawing together many threads. Anthropology of Consciousness, 17 (2), 33-61. Walsh, R. (1983). The consciousness disciplines. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23 (2), 28-30. Walsh, R. (1990). The spirit of shamanism. Boston: Shambhala. Walsh, R. & Vaughan, F. (1994). The worldview of Ken Wilber. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34 (2), 6-21. Wilber, K. (1982a). The problem of proof. ReVision, 5 (1), 80-100. Wilber, K. (Ed.). (1982b). The holographic paradigm and other paradoxes. Boulder, CO: Shambhala. Wilber, K. (1984a). Of shadows and symbols: Physics and mysticism. ReVision, 7 (1), 3-17. Reprinted in Wilber, K. (Ed.). (1984b). Quantum questions: Mystical writings of the world’s great physicists. Boulder, CO: Shambhala, pp. 3-29. Wilber, K. (Ed.). (1990). Reflections on the new age paradigm—An interview. In Eye to eye: The quest for a new paradigm. (expanded ed.): Chap. 6. Boston: Shambhala, pp. 155-199. Wilber, K. (1993). The great chain of being. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 33 (3), 52-65. Williams, S. (2007). Meditations on anthropology without an object: Boulder hopping in streams of consciousness. Anthropology of Consciousness, 18 (1), 65-106. Ullman, M. (1979). The transformation process in dreams. ReVision, (Summer/Fall), 8-10. Ullman, M. (1987). Wholeness and dreaming. In B. J. Hiley and F. David Peat (Eds), Quantum implications: Essays in honor of David Bohm. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 386-395. Ullman, M. (1990). Dreams, species-connectedness, and the paranormal. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 84 (2), 105-125. Ullman, M. (2006). The dream: In search of a new abode. DreamTime, 23 (2), 4-7, 37-38. Close window to return to the bulletin board
|
| IASD Home Page | PsiberDreaming Home |
Participants of the 2007 IASD symposium “Bohm’s Holistic Physics, Sacred Sites, Spiritual Emergence and Ecopsychology’s Vision” will recall its twofold focus. First, it built upon Montague Ullman’s work (Ullman, 2006).1 Second, my theoretical overview offered a conceptual understanding of the orientation that led Paul Devereux and Stanley Krippner to experimentally investigate the influence of “sacred places” on dreams.2 This essay provides further clarification of Ullman’s New Abode. Readers of this highly technical essay may feel lost in its precision which is necessary. If we are unable to ask the proper questions, nature cannot provide us with its answers.
Taking Wilber’s criticisms into consideration, Rene` Weber explores the problems associated with the holographic paradigm by asking Bohm to clarify his position:
The term holomovement was further defined during a conversation between Bohm and Weber: