This is part of the Systems
Analysis of Organisation, Ego, Control and Authoritarianism.
The sub sections are:
Interaction, Awareness and Universal and Individual Consciousness
PEAR / REG / GCP Experiments
Mysticism and Unified Science
Empirical science only claims "that a good theory need only provide an empirically adequate description of observable phenomena" [FR] It doesn't claim to be able to ascertain any kind of truth but rather it only claims to have phenomenological adequacy regarding descriptions of our perceptions of things. This means that empirical science is fundamentally unable to address any questions of ontology (what actually is) and it can only address questions of phenomenology (that which appears to the human mind).
Empiricism is a mixture of naïve realism and positivism. As we saw earlier, naïve realism leads us to assume that the objects of sense perception are physical external objects, and positivism leads us to assume that these objects are the only things that are real. Upon this false foundation, empiricism operates and constructs the rest of empirical science. Hence empirical science has only been able to analyses the objects of perception and the perceived relations between them (phenomenology) and has been totally unable the address issues such as consciousness, present moment awareness and life. This is because in its empiricist foundations it denies the existence of consciousness when it assumes that the objects of consciousness are real external objects (false ontology).
“Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality.” [FR] But “Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge” [FR] And because of this reliance on the objects of sense perception, which are unquestioningly assumed to 'be' external objects, empirical science has succumbed to naïve realism and devolved into Scientism.
"Sociologists coined the term "scientism" back in the 1940s, when they realized that many scientists unthinkingly accepted many scientific theories as simple, unquestioned Truths, just like believers in any "ism," and thus we often acted like any prejudiced "believer," especially outside our immediate areas of expertise." [FR] But scientists generally ignore these fundamental limitations of empirical science, and the general public is totally unaware of them. This confusion causes empirical science to intrude into questions of ontology where it is totally incoherent and irrational. This leads to Scientism, which is a very crude form of dogmatic pseudo-religion - the most obvious denomination of which is materialism.
""materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself." (Schopenhauer)... an observing subject can only know material objects through the mediation of the brain and its particular organization. The way that the brain knows determines the way that material objects are experienced." [FR] Materialism is the result of naïve realism.
"Because it is now a scientifically established fact that less than 4% of the universe is composed of matter as commonly understood modern philosophical materialists attempt to extend the definition of matter to include other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. However this opens them to further criticism from philosophers such as Mary Midgley who suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined." [FR]
"Let us now return to our ultimate particles and to small organizations of particles as atoms or small molecules. The old idea about them was that their individuality was based on the identity of matter in them... The new idea is that what is permanent in these ultimate particles or small aggregates is their shape and organization. The habit of everyday language deceives us and seems to require, whenever we hear the word shape or form of something, that it must be a material substratum that is required to take on a shape. Scientifically this habit goes back to Aristotle, his causa materialis and causa formalis. But when you come to the ultimate particles constituting matter, there seems to be no point in thinking of them again as consisting of some material. They are as it were, pure shape, nothing but shape; what turns up again and again in successive observations is this shape, not an individual speck of material..." Erwin Schroedinger [FR]
"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and this world as actually constituted of separately existing fragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or building blocks. Rather one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes." (David Bohm) [FR]
Furthermore skepticism "is the application of reason to any and all ideas - no sacred cows allowed... Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are 'skeptical' we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe." [FR]
"To some degree skepticism manifests itself in the scientific method, which demands that all things assumed as facts be questioned. But the positivism of many scientists, whether latent or open, is incompatible with skepticism, for it accepts without question the assumption that material effect is impossible without material cause." [FR] Therefore materialism is not a skeptical position to take - because it is based upon the unquestioned assumption and belief in the primacy of matter which is an undefined concept. If people were to question it and not simply assert their beliefs empirical science could be a skeptical position but any deep questioning soon shows it to be unable to withstand such questioning and it would rapidly collapse and make way for a more holistic science that took account of the role of consciousness in the formation of the objects of sense perception out of which the mind constructs the experiential context that people call "the world".
Quantum physics, after a century of instrumentalism, is beginning to accept this fact, as a recent article in Nature illustrates: "we have to give up the idea of [naïve] realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today." (Anton Zeilinger)... By [naïve] realism, he means the idea that objects have specific features and properties — that a ball is red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, or that an electron has a particular spin. For everyday objects, such [naïve] realism isn't a problem [so they still believe]. But for objects governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, like photons and electrons, it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may depend on how we look.” [FR]
"The concepts of science show strong similarities to the concepts of the mystics... The philosophy of mystical traditions, the perennial philosophy, is the most consistent philosophical background to modern science." (Fritjof Capra)
"The old foundations of scientific thought are becoming unintelligible. Time, space, matter, material, ether, electricity, mechanism, organism, configuration, structure, pattern, function, all require reinterpretation. What is the sense of talking about a mechanical explanation when you do not know what you mean by mechanics? The truth is that science started its modern career by taking over ideas derived from the weakest side of the philosophies of Aristotle's successors. In some respects it was a happy choice. It enabled the knowledge of the seventeenth century to be formulated so far as physics and chemistry were concerned, with a completeness which lasted to the present time. But the progress of biology and psychology has probably been checked by the uncritical assumption of half-truths. If science is not to degenerate into a medley of ad hoc hypotheses, it must become philosophical and must enter upon a thorough criticism of its own foundations." (Alfred North Whitehead) [FR]
"In contrast to the mechanistic Cartesian view of the world, the world-view emerging from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic, holistic, and ecological. It might also be called a systems view, in the sense of general systems theory. The universe is no longer seen as a machine, made up of a multitude of objects, but has to be pictured as one indivisible dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process." (Fritjof Capra) [FR]
"There is this hope, I cannot promise you whether or when it will be realized - that the mechanistic paradigm, with all its implications in science as well as in society and our own private life, will be replaced by an organismic or systems paradigm that will offer new pathways for our presently schizophrenic and self-destructive civilization." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy) [FR]
The materialist, mechanistic belief system only comprehends the form and behaviour of phenomena as they appear to the human conscious mind yet it assumes that it is studying a material universe. Although it wields massive influence in this world it is clumsy and confused. However a metaphysically mature system science can comprehend the greater complexity of subtlety that lies beyond the veil of materialist assumptions.
There is a collective field of consciousness that permeates the entire systemic context (universe), this isn't just a superstitious belief as many people assert who themselves superstitiously believe in an inert material universe. Cartesian dualism and the concepts of inanimate matter and animate life are fundamentally false. ALL systems are animate, and matter is an idea that naïve realists postulate when they confuse the objects of sense perception as being physical external objects.
Most of system theory has thus far been defined and applied entirely within an empiricist framework. Within that scope it may be very accurate but the boundaries of that scope are severely limiting and distort the overall theory. To understand the systemic context we need to break through the limitations of empiricism using rationalism.
As organisms we all experience a world of interacting organisms and as perceptual experiencers within an empirical context we experience a world of objects in space but these are just our perceptions. A particle experiences a world of interacting particles and a meme experiences a world of memetic ecosystems within minds and cultures. Each system has its subjective perspective on the systemic context and human beings are no different.
As empiricists people take the objects of sense perception, assume that they are real external objects that exist just as they appear (naïve realism), and then uses those objects as the foundation of their ontology (what is believed to exist). They then build their science upon that foundation.
Hence we end up with a system science with an ontological foundation of objects in space or organisms in ecosystems. Such a limited system science ignores the fact that there are systemic processes that underlie the objects and organisms themselves. Indeed that underlie the consciousness that allows us to experience and know the object or organisms to begin with.
This work develops a systemic perspective but from a very different angle to traditional system theory. It started with a mathematical model of general systems and worked toward a system theoretic metaphysics of the nature of reality. It then applied this to understand the world that systems experience themselves in and then applied that to understanding the phenomena and dynamics within the systemic context. The surface phenomena in the world have very deep systemic roots which empiricism cannot comprehend.
Metaphysics is a domain of philosophy and it primarily involves ontology (theories of "that which is") and phenomenology (theories of "that which appears to be"). We cannot help but employ metaphysics in everything we think and do - it's just that most people employ an unconscious metaphysics.
For example, if you believe that humans and the planet 'exist' and are 'real' then that is an ontological belief. Or if you believe that you experience things and those experiences give you an understanding of a 'world' in some way then that is a phenomenological belief. Metaphysics is an approach that brings unconscious beliefs into consciousness and rigorously tests them.
The system theoretic metaphysics that forms the foundations of this work primarily addresses the ontological issue "what is a system?" and the phenomenological issue "what is a system's experience of the systemic context?". It is impossible to study systems accurately without clear answers to these questions - otherwise one is operating on unconscious assumptions that are based on non-systemic metaphysics.
To explain very briefly the results of the metaphysical exploration into systems, a 'system' is a pattern of information that conditions the flow of information. Each system experiences only its own interpretation of the information flowing through it hence they have a conditioned subjective perspective on the systemic context. (see Core terms for the Information System Paradigm)
It can be a useful analogy to speak of a universal consciousness that permeates all things but this does not mean there is some high-level (human-like) consciousness that is somehow separate from human consciousness. Some people think that this idea means that it doesn't matter what we think and everything just “is what it is” so we don't need to do anything because everything is somehow controlled by some 'other' consciousness. But this is an artefact of unconscious dualism.
I will explain with a systemic analogy. On all levels of systemic complexity from the simplest systems to the whole universe there is a network of relations, and through this network there is a flow of information, which results in interaction. What we perceive as an object is really a complex, multi-levelled network of relations (systems within systems) so objects are essentially “made of” interaction or the flow of information through the network of relations. This flow of information is a kind or proto-consciousness that is more like computation than human consciousness.
When the flow is observed from the outside it seems like energy or matter ( E=m.c2 ). However when the flow is experienced within, it seems analogous to pure-awareness, which allows systems to experience each other and thereby interact with each other.
Just as systems integrate into higher-level complex forms they also integrate into higher-level complex awareness. Feedback loops allow for awareness of awareness and so on resulting in self-awareness, simple animal consciousness and eventually full conscious sentience in organisms such as we human beings.
So whilst there is a great concentration of awareness within humanity, this awareness permeates and animates the entire systemic context. People have used the analogy of a universal consciousness or of a computational process animating a systemic virtual reality. I generally use the latter analogy because it is amenable to scientific analysis. This has been mathematically modelled using system matrix notation (SMN). This model operates as a virtual-reality-generative-process that creates systemic virtual realities within which quantum physics and special-relativity naturally arise. The core aspects of the mathematical model have been implemented in software to show that it really works.
In light of this explanation it does matter what we think because our thoughts are part of the systemic process. And we humans are charged with understanding and resolving the systemic crisis because we have the greatest concentration of awareness within this planetary system. We are not just separate objects with a systemic context between us but rather, we are emergent high-level systems, with a systemic context within us and between us.
Consciousness in various forms permeates the entire systemic context, manifesting as emergent sentience on different levels of systemic complexity. Hence consciousness is ultimately One and the whole universe is with us in the current struggles between the Higher Self of the planet and the ego of the planet. Consciousness is not contained just in our lives, nor any particular place but throughout the whole universe, the whole systemic context. And it is not just we humans who are involved; from particles to cells, to the planet and the universe as a whole, everything is involved in the process.
The fallacy of Cartesian dualism and materialism has been exposed, most notably by experiments conducted by Princeton university which studied the measurable effects of intentional influence, e.g. willing a coin toss to give heads or willing for peace to descend upon a situation.
These experiments are like the photo-electric effect that blew classical physics apart and gave rise to quantum physics just as physicists started to think that they had discovered all there was to discover. So too these experiments will eventually blow materialism apart just as it thinks its about to triumph over the planet by installing a mechanistic global regime.
Since 1979 there have been experiments that incontrovertibly prove that consciousness has direct influence over physical processes (psychokinesis or telekinesis [FR]), thus shattering the illusion of materialism. Not only has it been shattered by philosophical argument and psychology and information systems theory but now experimental data proves it. These experiments categorically prove that there is something fundamentally wrong with both the materialist and Cartesian dualist perspectives on reality.
The REG (Random Event Generator) experiments at PEAR the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab prove beyond doubt that consciousness has real measurable effects on physical processes and that roughly 80% of those tested, all 'normal' people, had a measurable influence on the output of the REG's. These effects are not attenuated by distance and they have the same strength whether the events are simultaneous with the intentional influence or whether the events are in the past or the future! They are magnified by psychological bonds such as love and by cognitive discipline such as focused non-agitated awareness (e.g. via meditation).
“The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, which flourished for nearly three decades under the aegis of Princeton University's School of Engineering and Applied Science, has completed its experimental agenda of studying the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes, and developing complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality. It has now incorporated its present and future operations into the broader venue of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL)... In this new locus and era, PEAR plans to expand its archiving, outreach, education, and entrepreneurial activities into broader technical and cultural context, maintaining its heritage of commitment to intellectual rigor and integrity, pragmatic and beneficial relevance of its techniques and insights, and sophistication of its spiritual implications.”[FR]
“The goal of [ICRL] is to strengthen the spiritual substance of science by integrating the subjective and objective dimensions of human experience into an expanded Science of the Subjective. This mission is pursued via three primary initiatives in research, education, and applications, each focused on the exploration and representation of the role of consciousness in physical reality.”[FR]
The experiments use Random Event Generators (REG's), which “use quantum-indeterminate electronic noise. They are designed for research applications and are widely used in laboratory experiments.”[FR]
The experiments sought “to determine whether collectively focused human intention can alter the randomicity of a machine and if so, what situations produce the most dramatic effects. On a basic level, an REG is a coin-flipper, automatically generating the equivalent of 200 flips of a coin per second. The result is a bell curve of probabilities, tailing off in both directions from 100 "heads" for each second-long interval. The generators will thus meander around the mean expected value of 100 in an unpredictable fashion but always near the baseline. Sustained deflections away from this baseline mean that the random generator is becoming less random or more coherent.
For some time now research has shown that certain subjects appear to be able to create a small-scale psychokinesis effect which leads REGs to be temporarily less random.”[FR]
“After a series of experiments carried out in 2006-7, the Intention Experiment has demonstrated that ‘group mind’ can:
Make seeds grow twice as high as normal
Change basic physical properties of leaves
Alter the essential structure of water
Change physical properties in a plant and a human being
These scientific experiments offer the first scientific demonstrations that collective thoughts have the power to change the world. The six studies involving seed growth have been presented and published by various scientists who conducted the studies with McTaggart at the Society for Scientific Exploration annual meeting in June 2008.” [FR]
“Helmut Schmidt has done extensive tests with individuals, usually involving flashing lights that subjects are instructed to alter in a specific way (e.g. moving them in a circle or across a horizontal display). He has shown significant effects, especially with his high-performing individuals, although his initially powerful results have diminished somewhat over the years. Dean Radin echoed this point, stating that his initial effects have tapered off in significant ways after the first few years, perhaps relating to his own habituation as the researcher. A key difference between Schmidt's work and Roger Nelson's is that Schmidt always includes conscious intention in his protocols, whereas Roger is more concerned with the field effects of collectively focused intention, whether the subjects are aware of the REG or not.
Thus, Roger's group at PEAR has been examining collective events in which many people are focused simultaneously on one thing (e.g. the Super Bowl, Academy Awards, O. J. Simpson verdict, New Year's celebration, Lady Diana's funeral) and local group events in which attention coheres in a certain way (e.g. church services, ritual circles, meditation groups, our conference itself). Perhaps the most exciting part of his work is the Global Consciousness Project, which hypothesizes, based upon positive data from earlier work, that dozens of these REGs hooked together via the Internet might constitute something like a global EEG, reflecting disturbances and deviations in collective attention.”[FR]
The Global Consciousness Project (GCP) has “been collecting data from a global network of random event generators since August, 1998. The network has grown to about 65 host sites around the world running custom software that reads the output of physical random number generators and records a 200-bit trial sum once every second, continuously over months and years. The data are transmitted over the internet to a server in Princeton, NJ, USA, where they are archived for later analysis.
[Their] purpose is to examine subtle correlations that reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We have learned that when millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network shows correlations. We can interpret this as evidence for participation in a growing global consciousness. It suggests we have the capability and responsibility for conscious evolution. We make the world we live in, and if we Do No Harm, we can help create a Planetary Smile.”[FR]
“For example, during Diana's funeral, there were twelve REGs running around the world. Averaging all of them revealed a significant deviation, especially in the middle of the ceremony. Roger also did a more fine-tuned analysis, charting specific events such as moments of silence or Elton John singing, that again manifested changes away from randomness. More recently, the beginning of bombing in Kosovo produced a significant deflection, though it was not spread evenly over all the generators. One generator in particular had a dramatic change, but they have no hypothesis to explain this uneven distribution. There was a slightly larger deflection in Europe than in the U.S. He uses periods before and after the targeted event as controls to assure that the randomicity of the machine has not been altered due to some mechanical glitch.”[FR]
See the table of results (spanning 1998-present) which shows a list of major world events and the resulting coherence of the global EEG network at that same moment. In this table “the results for individual events are shown. Table entries for most events have direct links to more comprehensive analyses. The events are identified by name, and a column with the heading, "Hypothesis Source", indicates who made the prediction. The number of contributing "REGs" is shown, and the "Resolution", which indicates the block-size for the analysis. The last two columns show the Z-score statistic for the analysis, and its associated probability.”[FR]
For example, have a look at their article September 11 2001: Exploratory and Contextual Analyses, which gives analysis and data that “shows the behavior of the Global Consciousness Project's network of 37 REG devices called "eggs" placed around the world as they responded during various periods of time surrounding September 11...
[The first] graph of data from the formal prediction for September 11 shows a fluctuating deviation throughout the moments of the five major events, during which ever-increasing numbers of people around the world are hearing the news and watching in stunned disbelief. Times of the major events are marked by boxes on the line of zero deviation. The uncertain fluctuation of the EGG data continues for almost half an hour after the fall of the second WTC tower. Then, at about 11:00, the cumulative deviation takes on a strong trend that continues through the aftermath period and ultimately exceeds the significance criterion...
[The second graph] shows the period from September 7th to 13th, and the time of the attacks on September 11 is marked with a black rectangle. You can see that shortly before the terrorist attack, the wandering line takes on a strong trend representing a persistent departure from what is expected of random data. A small probability envelope inserted at that point provides a scale to indicate the extraordinary increase in non-random deviation. The slope of the graph beginning just before the the first WTC tower was hit and continuing for over two days, to noon on the 13th, is extreme.”[FR]
In conclusion: “The formal analysis series shows a cumulative probability against chance of about 10e-6, or odds against chance of a million to one. Put another way, the composite score over many types of events exceeds Z = 4.7 (Nearly 5 Sigma, the standard often set in physics).”[FR]
There is no doubt about the data, the only thing in contention is the interpretation of the data. There has been resistance to interpreting these experiments because core materialist beliefs are fundamentally challenged by them. For more details on these experiments see [FR, FR, FR, FR, FR, FR, FR, FR, FR, FR, FR, FR] and also see these books for some understanding of the rising holistic scientific paradigm [FR, FR, FR, FR, FR] and these articles [FR, FR, FR].
Parapsychology has also been widely developed for intelligence and espionage purposes, most notably by the CIA [FR] in particular the phenomenon called remote viewing [FR] which is the "ability for a viewer to gather information on a remote target consisting of an object, place, or person, etc., that is hidden from the physical perception of the viewer and typically separated from the viewer at some distance." [FR].
In one declassified CIA experiment "The target was a vacation property in the eastern United States. The experiment began with the passing of nothing more than geographic coordinates of the vacation property to the SRI physicists who, in turn, passed them to the two subjects... no maps were permitted, and the subjects were asked to give an immediate response of what they remotely viewed at these coordinates. [The two subjects were each isolated whilst they remotely viewed.] The subjects came back with the descriptions which were apparent misses. They both talked about a military-like facility. Nevertheless, a striking correlation of the two independent descriptions was noted. The correlation caused an OSI officer to drive to the site and investigate in more detail. To the surprise of the OSI officer, he soon discovered a sensitive government installation a few miles from the vacation property... [Further remote viewing produced detailed] information concerning the interior workings of this particular site... [the subject] who had no military or intelligence background, provided a list of project titles associated with current and past activities including one of extreme sensitivity. Also the codename of the site was provided. Other information concerning the physical layout of the site was accurate. Some information, such as the names of the people at the site, proved incorrect." [FR]
The CIA were also researching psychokinesis (mind over matter [FR]), for example a declassified document describes an experiment where "A man was found by Targ and Puthoff who apparently had psychokinetic abilities. He was taken on a surprise visit to a superconducting shielded magnetometer being used in quark (high energy particle) experiments by Dr. A. Hebbard of Stanford University Physics Department. The quark experiment required that the magnetometer be as well shielded as technology would allow. Nevertheless, when the subject placed his attention on the interior of the magnetometer, the output signal was visibly disturbed, indicating a change in the internal magnetic field. Several other correlations of his mental efforts with signal variations were observed. These variations were never seen before of after the visit." [FR]
People either believe these things or disbelieve them but few are able to be rational about them and they simply assert beliefs whilst remaining in ignorance of the facts. This is most likely due to centuries of conditioning to inoculate people against even thinking about a subject that could lead them directly to self-empowerment and real liberation. A common attitude is described here in a declassified CIA report from 1977 "biases and fear of ridicule [initially] prevented CIA from completing a scientific investigation... CIA was buffeted with investigations concerning illegalities and improprieties of all sorts... where the fear that certain government research contracts would be claimed to be ill-founded and held up for scorn, was another factor precluding CIA from sensitive areas of research. Also, there tend to be two types of reactions to parapsychology: positive or negative, with little in between... many people instantly reject the subject saying, in effect "I would not believe this stuff even if it were true." Others, who mostly have had personal 'conversion' experiences, tend to be equally convinced that one unexplained success establishes a phenomenon. These prejudices make it difficult to evaluate parapsychology carefully and scientifically. Tantalizing but incomplete data have been generated by CIA-sponsored research... on occasion unexplained results of genuine intelligence significance occur... the evaluation is not yet complete and more research is needed" [FR].
Even given the incontrovertible evidence there was still strong resistance from various CIA divisions "saying the experiments were not meaningful because of poor experimental design... [so it was arranged for] a critique of the investigation from a disinterested consultant, a theoretical physicist with broad intellectual background... his conclusion was, "a large body of reliable experimental evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that extrasensory perception does exist as a real phenomenon, albeit characterized by rarity and lack of reliability."" [FR]
Since then countless research projects have been under way throughout the world by many different groups. I too have done deep theoretical research in this general field, not just intellectual research but more like remote viewing into conceptual territory, thereby receiving impressions of mathematical, metaphysical and systemic theories and then using more traditional intellectual methods to explore these impressions and map out the theories, the mathematics and implementing computer models of the virtual-reality generative process that 'animates' this universe. I provide a detailed but indirect interpretation of the meaning of these experiments using information system theory and parallels with mysticism. It is indirect because it doesn't discuss these experiments at great length but it is detailed in that it lays down the mathematical and metaphysical foundations of the paradigm within which these experiments and a great deal more besides can be fully understood [FR]. These experiments reveal only the tip of an iceberg, which is the tip of the mystic paradigm. Only this tip can be comprehended from the materialist paradigm because that paradigm is too limited and distorted by false and unquestioned beliefs that stupefy the mind. To understand the rest one needs to undergo a paradigm shift and let go of false materialist beliefs.
"Normal consciousness is a state of stupor, in which the sensibility to the wholly real and responsiveness to the stimuli of the spirit are reduced. The mystics... endeavour to awake from the drowsiness and apathy and to regain the state of wakefulness for their enchanted souls." (Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel [FR])
The nature of reality goes much deeper than materialism can comprehend and whilst this deeper reality is often explored to exploit it in the context of narrow materialist agendas the general public is kept ignorant of it. Genuine scientific results have gone unreported and thereby effectively censored from the public mind and also from the scientific community because of profoundly irrational conditioned responses. The cultural discourse keeps people's minds imprisoned within an ever deepening materialist delusion that effectively keeps them disempowered and struggling in quiet despair as they drive the treadmill of the machine that we call civilisation.
The ultimate test of the holistic efficacy of any world view is the impact that it has on our lives and the world at large over time, and empiricism has produced unbounded unstable growth of exploitative monstrosities that are on the verge of destroying all life on this planet as well as the human spirit within each of us. Politicised pseudo-religion was no better either. Both are empiricist delusions, one dressed up as science and the other dressed up as religion – neither is true science or true religion. It is empiricism and naïve realism that is their fundamental flaw, which is protected by orthodoxy and denial. Mysticism is the core of true religion; it destroys illusion and overcomes this flaw; it conceives of the Whole and our place within the whole and thereby keeps things in balance and harmony, so too does holistic systems theory.
Mysticism is true, holistic skepticism, it is the application of reason, with no dogma to constrain us, it is reason that guides us into the deepest mysteries of existence. This is why it is anathema to all authoritarian dogmas, whether secular or politicised pseudo-religion, that seek to set and maintain a particular discourse in denial of the deeper realities of existence. "There is a principle which is a bar against all. This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in all the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual." (John Steinbeck) [FR] "It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason." (Thomas Jefferson) [FR]
Aside from the stereotyping and misrepresentation of mysticism from political institutions (both secular and religious), mysticism is the logical result of deep skepticism (open-minded rational enquiry with no prior assumptions) and the overcoming of naïve realism. Once we stop irrationally believing that the objects of sense perception are material objects "out there" but are instead cognitive objects "within the mind" then we realise that everything is information in flux - it is all a type of low-level consciousness. This is a profoundly liberating and empowering realisation that undermines all delusional entrenched power structures and mechanistic hegemonies. This liberating power of mysticism underlies the suppression of mysticism by authoritarian regimes in order to effectively enslave, deceive and exploit vast populations within materialist / authoritarian superstitions.
Mystics have known of the field of universal consciousness and participated in it for thousands of years. The emerging world view at the cutting edge of modern science is fundamentally a mystic world view and a systemic world view - they are almost identical in their fundamental principles and they differ only in the language and analogies used to express them.
It is mainly this parallel between system theory, quantum physics and mysticism that is explored via the systemic metaphysics of which this book is a product. This work seeks to build a conceptual bridge between the different emerging world views and to distil the best aspects of all of them to help create the foundations of a holistic science. See Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science for more on that aspect.
Materialism is a classic example of narrow context rationality that is irrational in the wider reality. Imposing materialism on the world is no different from imposing dogmatic pseudo-religion on the world, both are narrow context delusions that might seem reasonable when one is entangled in their web of confusion but they are unbalanced and dangerously destructive. By imposing a materialist belief system upon the world we only come into conflict with reality and in this case we crush the subtle living nature of ourselves and the world; we turn ourselves into economic robots or political cannon fodder and the planet into nothing more than a "natural resource" to be consumed. Things have been forced into the delusional mould of a machine when they are really a living conscious being. Liberating life from the machine is what the coming paradigm shift brings about by recognising the deep holistic nature of all systems and the consciousness that permeates all things; this planet is a conscious living system; see The Central Idea, Survey of the Central Idea and Gaia or the Man Machine?.
The next section is: Memes
Or return to: Systems Analysis of Organisation, Ego, Control and Authoritarianism.