Extending the
Modern science was effectively born when instruments were invented
that made it possible to observe and measure things much more accurately than
ever before. The telescope and
microscope are classic examples of such instruments, but just as important are
accurate clocks, thermometers and weighing machines. Being able to do this
ushered in many benefits, and we have a lot to thank science for. It has
changed the world and our lives in many important ways. But there was a price
to be paid, because it was only a short step from being able to measure and
quantify things to believing that if something did not lend itself to
measurement or quantification, then it might not be all that important or might
not even exist. So, as measurement and quantification grew in importance and
sophistication, a whole range of human experience was pushed to the margins or
right out of sight. And although it was not the original intention, science
increasingly became science of the
physical, because the way it looked at the world and the knowledge that it
generated was about the physical aspects of the universe, the physical aspects
of our home planet and the physical aspects of the human being, to the virtual
exclusion of all other aspects.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. The problem arises
only because most scientists – and, to be fair, much of the world – appear to
believe that science is exploring all
possible aspects of the universe, all
possible aspects of the world and all
possible aspects of the human being. In other words, they believe that the
physical reality is the only possible reality and that all the many things that
might at first sight seem not to be non-physical in nature can ultimately be
explained in terms of the physical (for example, consciousness is assumed by
science to be an epiphenomenon of the brain) or may not exist at all. I am sure
this is why Richard Dawkins and others of his ilk are so popular in many
circles today. In passing, it is worth noting that the “new physics” and the
“new biology” may have taken us beyond reductionism, but I do not think they
have not taken us beyond the physical.
It is because scientists do not normally admit to the existence of
modes of perception other than the physical that they do not admit to the
possibility of other forms of reality. They continue to believe that the
physical universe is one and the same as the whole universe. The mistake they
make is to use their narrowly based “map” to interpret a world that not only
far transcends the limitations of this map, but also far transcends the
comprehension of any one of us. This is because scientists have come to rely
almost exclusively on their physical senses and on extensions to these senses
(this is, effectively, what telescopes, microscopes, weighing machines etc.
are) to explore the world. Although it should be self-evident, perhaps we need
to remind ourselves that if we use only one form of perception – the physical
one - to view the world, the world will respond accordingly, by seeming to be
physical, and only physical. If we had used another form of perception, the
world would seem different. This is analogous to viewing the world through
different coloured lenses. If we look through a red lens, the world seems to be
red. If we look through a blue one, it seems to be blue. What the world seems
to be depends on the “lens” we use to view it.
There can be little doubt that the physical “lens” has become the lens
of almost universal preference in the modern world. I say “almost” because
there are some people who are able to use other “lenses”, in addition to the
physical one. The world they experience is richer and more extensive than the
world most people experience. This is because they experience the non-physical
as well as the physical, and I shall say more about this in a moment. But we
have to ask why the physical “lens” has become the lens of universal preference
today. I believe it is because, for the vast majority of people, the non-physical
“lens” has become dormant, through lack of use over the centuries or millennia.
Most people today probably do not know that such a “lens” even exists. However,
what many people do have is the occasional fleeting glimpse of what it would be
like to have the use of their non-physical “lens”. This happens when they have
particular types of “extraordinary experience” that have one thing in common –
they are rejected by science.
Most of us have extraordinary experiences from time to time. It could
be a vivid dream, or a powerful sense of being totally connected to the whole
of creation, or a feeling of absolute certainty that we have just met the love
of our life. Or it might be a lasting sense of inspiration brought on by
something or someone. Although each of these counts as extraordinary, they are
not all that extraordinary, in the sense that they do not pose a threat to the
prevailing worldview, which is essentially the worldview of science. Science
does not discount these experiences. On the other hand, there is a whole class
of experience – which includes telepathy, precognition, distant healing,
clairvoyance, a near death experience, or an out of the body experience – that
cannot be explained by science. But it goes further than this. Science often
rejects them because it believes that they are impossible. They are indeed
impossible from the point of view of science, but that is only because science
has, unknown to itself, become a restricted form of knowledge. It because
science today is the world viewed through only the physical “lens”.
Although science undoubtedly tells us much that is useful about the
world and ourselves, it does not and cannot give us the whole picture. There
are two reasons for this. The first is that scientific knowledge is always
changing. Despite the claims of some that we are close to producing a “theory
of everything” or to knowing “the mind of God”, it is helpful to recall that
the history of science is littered with the corpses of “hard facts” that have
had to give way to newer “hard facts” as we make new discoveries. This is well
illustrated by our understanding of the nature of matter.
At one time, many centuries ago, we were convinced that matter
consisted of tiny solid things that we decided to call “atoms”, because we
thought there could be nothing smaller (that is what the word “atom” implies).
This belief eventually had to give way when we discovered that atoms consisted
of even smaller things that we decided to call “protons”, “neutrons” and
“electrons”. For some time this was the scientific “truth” until it was
replaced by another “truth”, that protons and neutrons are themselves
constructed of even tinier particles, which may not be particles at all, but
“probabilities” or “tendencies to exist”. This process, of facts being replaced
by newer facts, is unlikely to stop, and there is no a priori reason to suppose that the facts of the early 21st Century
are more sacrosanct than those of any other period. If they were sacrosanct, we
would soon reach the point at which there is no more for us to discover and
learn. Science would have done it all for us. That would be the ultimate
boredom, the ultimate stasis. Quite apart from anything else, it just does not
ring true, and it sits ill beside the daily diet of human affairs. If as a
species we cannot even live in peace and harmony with each other and the
planet, claims that we shall soon know nearly everything about almost
everything sound hollow indeed. We still have a very great deal to discover and
learn. The likelihood is that what we currently know is greatly outweighed by
what we do not know. Of one thing we can
be sure, that however much we think we know and understand today, our knowledge
and understanding will be different in the future.
The second reason that science is a partial form of knowledge is
because, as with all other forms of knowledge, it is the product of the means
of acquiring it. Ultimately it is we who
are the means. It is we who do the acquiring. Now, if we were to apply the
whole of ourselves to acquiring knowledge in the pursuit of science, then
science would reflect this. It would be science
of the whole. However, if we apply only part of ourselves, then scientific
knowledge will be correspondingly limited. It will be science of the part. Since we have applied, almost exclusively, the
physical and intellectual parts of ourselves to the pursuit of science over the
last few centuries, science today reflects this. It is science of the physical
and the rational. If, however, we were to awaken and use parts of ourselves
that we have forgotten about – such as our non-physical “lens”– our
understanding of who we are and what the universe is would change out of all
recognition.
Meanwhile, the fact that the worldview of science has become the
dominant paradigm of our time is causing all kinds of problems. It has
effectively relegated religions to the role of “ethics providers”. And it has
led to the widespread belief that the universe and all its contents, human
beings included, are basically physical in nature, that the universe is little
more than a sophisticated machine and that we, too, can best be understood as
machines. However, what we believe strongly determines what we value. If our
core beliefs are that the universe is little more than a highly complex
machine, that it consists entirely of physicality, and that we, too, are little
more than complex machines, then our values will reflect these beliefs. They
will be physical/material values, and this means that we will tend to give the
highest priority to material things. It can be no accident that shopping is now
the world’s main activity, and that economists and financial pundits are the
new high priests. It is surely no exaggeration to say that our lives, our
economics, our politics, our healthcare and our education are all rooted in
material values and the beliefs that underpin them. We are paying a high price
for this. Why are we surprised that we exploit and destroy each other and the
world on such a scale? The fact is that we do not care for things we do not
value.
If, as many scientists insist, we and the universe are merely physical
mechanisms, that the universe began suddenly for no reason, and that life
emerged by chance, then the whole show must be meaningless. The fact that this
statement, being part of the universe, must also be meaningless is little
consolation! A life without meaning is a bleak life indeed. The search for
meaning for many people has become a desperate attempt to find instant
gratification and to solve problems that are largely of their own making. That
is probably why, in today’s world, there is nothing like a good crisis or
tragedy to give people a sense of meaning. It is interesting to reflect on the
growing status of the emergency services over the last 20 years.
The Non-physical
For the avoidance of doubt, when I say “non-physical” I am not
referring to auras or qi or ghosts or
anything like that. These are simply subtle manifestations of the physical,
available to anyone who is very sensitive to the subtle. The non-physical is
different altogether. Perhaps the easiest way to describe it is to say that it
is the total and instantaneous connection of everything in the universe. And I
do mean everything and I do mean instantaneously. Thoughts are connected to
thoughts. Events are connected to events, wherever they are. Lives are
connected to lives. Past, present and future are connected to each other. When one experiences and perceives the
non-physical directly for oneself, one soon realises that our familiar physical
reality (the world as we know it) is rather like the small tip of an immense
inverted iceberg, where the non-physical reality constitutes by far the greater
part. In such a reality, the things we currently think of as extraordinary or
paranormal or impossible become ordinary, normal and possible. Once we start
experiencing the non-physical directly for ourselves, we see that telepathy,
precognition, distant healing, clairvoyance, a near death experience, an out of
the body experience, and many other “impossible” things, start to make perfect
sense. More importantly, they become part of our normal everyday lives.
The actual process of awakening and training our dormant non-physical
senses is not easy. There is a lot to it. It is as much a general character
training as it is a specific training in being able to experience at will what
we may have experienced only very haphazardly and infrequently. I will go into
some detail about the training later. Meanwhile, if we did go though such a
training, the range of our consciousness would extend considerably, and I
believe that our lives would change fundamentally as a consequence. For
instance…
First, extraordinary experiences – such as telepathy and clairvoyance
– would eventually become a normal, accepted part of our daily lives. That
alone would change much that we think and believe. And that, in turn, would
lead to changes our behaviour and how we live our lives.
Second, we would learn about aspects of the universe and the human
being that we are unaware of. It would be like seeing, for the first time, the
bigger part of an inverted iceberg, and it would feel as if our current reality
is the tip of this iceberg, below the surface, in the dark. What we think of today as indisputable
scientific facts will eventually be seen to be the product of restricted
(physical) consciousness. It would completely change our understanding of who
we are, as human beings, why we are here, and what we are capable of. This
would give us new meaning and purpose, and that would lead to new values and
priorities.
Third, we would have something very new to be serious about. We would
have a new source of deeper meaning. What do I mean by this? At present, by far
the biggest source of meaning in the world is worrying about, or trying to
solve, problems. The problem with this is that nearly all of the problems of
our time are of our own making. When coupled with the fact that a lot of people
appear to derive their sense of meaning and purpose from having problems and
crises and to deal with, there is a widespread, albeit unconscious, vested
interest in having a reliable supply of problems to deal with far into the
future. This must surely act against any real attempts to solve problems once
and for all, and could account for the huge growth of the “problem solving
industry” in the last 30 years or so. Perhaps we should not be surprised that
poverty and crime and injustice and unhappiness (to name but a few) seem to be
as widespread as ever. If, however, we had the use of our non-physical senses,
we would see that there are very different things to be serious about, very
different sources of meaning and purpose, which have nothing to do with
problems. We would cease to be a problem-creating race, and become a
life-enhancing race.
chris@school-of-consciousness.com