www.integralscience.org
Copyright 1994 Thomas J. McFarlane
www.integralscience.org
Just as a grand unified theory of physics would show how complementary theories of physics are compatible, a more comprehensive understanding of religious concepts would show how many complementary religious concepts are compatible. Even if we don't yet see how apparently contradictory views can be harmonized, we need to have faith that this harmony is possible if we are to find a unified vision. And this faith is the driving spiritual force behind both scientific and religious breakthroughs.
To me, this unified theory of religion is to be created as an offering to the world. There will always be people with other world views, and perhaps none of them will accept this offering. That's fine. My motive is simply to respond as best I possibly can to what I see as the most profound problem of present humanity. Whether or not humanity profits by my striving is entirely up to God, as it were. After all, I may be totally wrong -- in which case I am very thankful that there are other views being presented!
This is exactly the problem of humanity today: When we identify our own cultural or religious or ethnic traditions as absolute, then conflict with others is inevitable. That is the historical fact. That is exactly why a comprehensive view of religion is needed -- and a view that is also compatible with modern science. It would speak to the universal longing in the human soul for peace on Earth. It is my hope that this vision will help more people in the world to see our common humanity as more fundamental than our cultural and ethnic and religious diversity. If our differences come before our unity, then we are in for conflict and suffering. So let us strive for unity.
Thinking about abstract theoretical unifications and acting compassionately in the world are not necessarily distinct activities. A loving heart and deeply compassionate mind do manifest in words. And words that come from such a source are words with power to transform, words that can actually touch others. It's not speaking per se or doing per se that is important in this age of alienation, but speaking and doing from a loving heart and compassionate mind. And that does not exclude expression in abstract intellectual form.
Any system of thought or world view is necessarily based on some givens. And these given assumptions are not compatible with their negations which may well be the basis for some other world view. That's the nature of systems of thought. But the claim that any such particular system is an all- encompassing, comprehensive theory of everything is not a part of the system itself, but rather a statement about the system. That is a meta-claim, if you will. And it is an incorrect claim that comes from a misunderstanding of the nature of systems of thought. So there's nothing inherently wrong about these systems in my mind. The problem only arises when one makes the mistake of taking a particular system as absolute.
Any system of thought is limited in some way by the very nature of concepts -- they distinguish, define, and thereby implicitly limit and exclude. So no conceptual system is absolute. That's not to say, however, that there is no Absolute at all. It just says that the Absolute cannot be completely captured by any single conceptual system. Yet specific systems can reflect part of the Absolute. And each has its relative value. Now these specific systems, it seems to me, have the structure of a tree. At the base are very universal theories that are not very limited. From the base emerge distinct branches that correspond to "contradictory" theories. And these branches, in turn, have smaller branches emerging from them that represent more specific variations of these basic theories. So, to me, the task of finding a "unified theory of religion" really consists in two things. First, it is to find the most basic theory at the trunk that it is possible to formulate at this time. Although it will necessarily be of a very universal nature, it will be (like all other theories) limited somehow. Second, it is to find a meta-theory for understanding the structure of the tree itself, how all these theories fit together and can be seen to coexist and harmonize.
Any theory, no matter how comprehensive, is just a theory. But some theories are more comprehensive than others. They can unify a whole class of other theories, even though they do not unify them all. Today, for example, physicists have a well-grounded theory of quantum electrodynamics that contains as a special case all the theories of physics that existed 100 years ago, even ones that were contradictory when seen out of today's unifying context. But no physicist considers this unifying context anything more than just another stage. It is a more universal stage, but you are quite right: it is still just another stage.
But it seems to me that there is a significant difference between stages or theories at the same level and stages or theories at a more universal level. We can endlessly swap one set of clothes for another, change from one religion to another. This kind of change is like the endless wheel of samsara. When we change from one world view to another that is more universal and comprehensive, on the other hand, we are moving toward Liberation and Enlightenment. We are not merely swapping one set of clothes for another, but stripping down. And when we strip down all the way, we become entirely naked. We have, to use the tree metaphor, reached the base of the trunk.
Can we find a very basic unified theory near the trunk? It won't be the ultimate most basic theory because no theory is ultimate, but it can be the most basic theory yet formulated. The universal theories near the trunk can be thought of as approaching the trunk closer and closer without ever reaching it, like the way the fractions 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,... get closer to zero without ever reaching it. We want to get as close as we can, even though we can never actually get there.
Here's my proposal for the foundation of a theory of theories. I'd like to preface it with a disclaimer, though. First of all, no theory (including a theory of theories) is ultimate or absolute. We can only hope to represent a part of the Truth with concepts. But we can nevertheless strive to represent it as completely as we can. So this proposal is not intended as some absolute and final framework that negates all others. But it is the best and most comprehensive that I can conceive.
Second, since this is a theory of theories, it is necessarily very abstract and general. Were it otherwise, it would be too specific and concrete to serve as a general framework for a wide class of theories. So if it seems to have no relation to specific theories, that is the reason.
Finally, this is no fully developed and polished exposition. It is only a sketch of the fundamental ideas and the general approach that seems best to me. But is it a beginning.
To provide a general context for all theories requires that we begin with what is common to them all, and that is that they are all conceptual. Any theory is a conceptual representation of some sort. So the basic "stuff" of theories are concepts. So we should focus more closely on the idea of the concept and see if we can't see what the essence of a concept is.
Concepts, words, thoughts -- these all serve to direct and define, and in order that a concept be free of ambiguity it must distinguish that which it directs us to or defines from everything else. At the basis of every concept is a distinction. "light" is based on the distinction between light and dark, for example. Without this distinction, "light" would have no definite meaning. The point here is most likely familiar to many who have read religious philosophy: thought and conception is based on duality. Transcending thought is transcending duality and the distinctions at the basis of thought. And the first step to transcending anything is to fully recognize its nature.
So let us take the act of distinction as fundamental to all conception and hence to all theories. For those who have read Bruce's expositions on "dimensions", this is very closely related to that idea. It is also closely related to the Logos and the notion of symmetry. For more on these connections, one can read my essays in the Bridge archives.
Can we get more fundamental than distinction? Is seems not. For whenever we have anything at all we at least have a distinction, namely, the distinction between that thing and nothing. And if we have no distinction at all, then we have absolutely nothing, for there is nothing to distinguish from anything else. At that point we are speechless and we can say nothing. That, some have said, is the highest teaching. But our task at hand is to attempt to say something. And in doing so we must invoke the Word, we must distinguish. By it everything was made.
So things are created from distinctions. And, in particular, theories are created from distinctions. This perspective explains, by the way, why our thoughts should be able to represent the outside world so precisely as in the case of the application of mathematics to physical theories, for example. If both the world and our ideas are created from the same act of distinction, then it is plausible at least that there might be a correspondence between the two. Moreover, the laws reflected in nature correspond to the laws of mathematics reflected in our minds since both are based on the more fundamental laws of distinctions. So the "theory of theories" would take the form of a theory of distinctions and their laws. The mathematician and mystic G. Spencer-Brown has taken the first step in describing the laws of distinctions in his book _Laws of Form_ (Julian 1972, Dutton 1979).
Basing a science of religion on secondary and indirect sources of data such as scripture is to put it on an uncertain foundation at best. If we look at other sciences, we find that they are based on immediate and primary data, and not secondary data. We don't base physical science on physics textbooks but on actual experiments that we ourselves could verify given the prerequisite training and technical apparatus. Similarly, a secure foundation for a science of religion should be based not on scriptures but on immediate religious insights that we ourselves could verify given the prerequisite training and psychical apparatus.
If we approach religion with the understanding that the scriptures of the world are themselves ultimately based on the immediate religious insights of their authors, then by basing a science of religion on that same foundation we will then have a means of seeing how the scriptures arise from the same source. There is then a sense in which the scriptures are scientifically verifiable, and not merely "basic data" to be taken at face value. We can verify the truth in them ourselves.
The catch is that, just as in physical science, not just anyone can go out and verify all the statements in a science. Physicists must be trained for years in order to be able to comprehend the significance of data obtained in particle accelerators, for example. To anyone else such data would be meaningless. A religious science should be no different. And the mystics say as much. One must discipline the mind and purify the heart before one is able to verify the mystical truths. But it can be done.
Consider the science of mathematics. Recently Andrew Wiles announced that he had proved Fermat's Last Theorem. Now in what sense is this proof accessible to the public? The fact of the matter is that no layperson is able to verify his proof -- it's just too esoteric. In fact, not even 90% of mathematicians are able to verify it. Only a relatively small group of mathematicians in his specialized subfield of mathematics are able to follow his proof. And this is true of most of the results at the cutting edge of mathematics these days.
Now if public accessibility is a prerequisite for a science, then our most certain science of all -- mathematics -- is not even a science. The theorems are very private matters, in fact. Not only are very few people able to verify them, but when they do it is something that they see in their own private consciousness. Does that deny mathematics the status of a science?
What makes mathematics a science is that theorems can, in principle, be verified by anyone who has been trained in the discipline of mathematics. The mind of the person wishing to verify the theorems must be trained to see mathematical truths. Not just anyone can grab a math journal and expect to be able to judge the truth of the latest theorem. And the same goes for physical sciences. One must be trained in the science in order to be able to verify its claims. And that leaves out a very large majority of the public.
Now why should a science of spirit be any different? If anything, it seems to require even more discipline and training than the mathematical and physical sciences in order to verify religious truths. But that does not prevent it from being a science.
A science, whether mathematical or physical or spiritual, is a living tradition that has its foundation in a community of practitioners who have been trained to see the truths of that science and who train the next generation to see the truths. The scriptures and textbooks that result are not the basis of scientific knowledge but the expression of it.
The foundation of religious traditions lies not in words or theories but in the experience that they are created to express, and without this experience we will only have theories, and lack substance. Any theory is just that, and is a collection of empty concepts if it is not grounded in our own immediate experience. We can never be reminded too often of this fact. The whole purpose of theories, after all, is to direct us to a more profound experience of the substance at the basis of the theory. That is the end, that is the purpose of all this theory making. A theory should be like a mandala, something to be contemplated. The word theory, in fact, comes from the Greek word that means to behold. So let us not forget the true basis of all these theories, for then they would have been created in vain.
This is a real danger. We could spend our lives spinning theories of other people's experiences, but we wouldn't have been transformed ourselves. The ultimate end is Realization, and that doesn't come by mere conception. There is a place, however, for thought and theories. They can be very valuable aids, even when we haven't completely restored the primal experience at the roots of our tree. Theories aren't created just for the edification of their creators, or just to merely describe. They are created to help others see as well, to evoke the same experience. If we see them this way, they can be of great value.
There is great value in scriptures. We would be very lost without them to guide us. Just as we would be very lost in physics without the textbooks and journals that physicists write. They are an important part in the training of students. But physics is not ultimately grounded on these books. It is grounded in experience. Its subject matter is not the writings of physicists but the experiments of physicists. Because there is this appeal to immediate experience, it is more than just ungrounded speculation. It is science.
We cannot object to basing a science on personal experience without throwing out science altogether, including our most certain sciences like physics and mathematics. And all experience is ultimately personal.
The problem is not that our experiences are ultimately personal, but that we are unable to distinguish between the contingent elements that depend on the observer and the universal elements that are independent of the observer. The basis for a verifiable science rests in the universal element of each observer's personal experience.
Now if the minds of the observers are not trained to distinguish and recognize the universal element in their experiences, then there will be naturally no basis for agreement and no science. Throwing out experience altogether because many minds are not trained is to radically compromise the basis of knowledge and to avoid the real challenge which is to ourselves become so trained so as to recognize the universal in our own personal experience.
Mystics from every tradition have spoken of some kind of spiritual organ of knowledge that must be awakened and trained. They all say that this organ is not reducible to perception or conception and is radically different from these in the sense that it provides knowledge based on identity rather than knowledge based on a relation between knower and known.
Mystics from every tradition have also spoken of techniques and practices to develop, awaken, and train this spiritual organ of knowledge. Through practices of meditation and contemplation this organ is trained to see the "true nature of things". And those who have made the necessary sacrifices and undergone the necessary discipline to not only awaken this organ but to train it have access to a canon of shared experience and "admissible evidence."
It is true that there are many contradictory theories to be found in the writings of the mystics. But this is not a property peculiar to mystical experience. In physics, for example, there is not one unique theory that is consistent with the data. It is possible to have different, even contradictory, theories that explain the same data. They must, of course, be consistent as far as agreeing with the same data is concerned. But they may be inconsistent in other ways, the reason being that we always add something extra when we formulate a theory from data. And that something extra is constrained, but not completely determined, by the data alone.
There was a time in physics when two theories (and both had experimentalist physicists who were convinced of their theories) say
1) Light is a wave. It is not localized in space.
2) Light is a particle. It is localized in space.
In the early years of this century, this was a real conflict in physics. There were experiments to justify both positions, and the positions were clearly contradictory. What to do? The open minded scientist who is interested in truth will not dismiss one position and defend the other, but rather seek a reconciliation of the two. It was this attitude that led to the development of quantum mechanics, which explains both the wave and particle experiments with one unified theory. But quantum mechanics never would have been found if physicists had merely taken sides and argued.
The moral to the story is that the problem with contradictory theories is not with the theories but with us. If we take the attitude that theories are the final word, then one must be right and the other wrong, and we end up with religious wars. But theories are approximations to truth, symbols of truth, and no one theory captures the whole.
Just as the physicists meditated on waves and particles and came up with quantum theory, perhaps we can meditate on the transcendent and immanent views of God and come up with a reconciliation.
And only afterwards do the distinctions arise between the contingent and universal aspects of *any* experience, religious, scientific, or otherwise. For all experience is less than suchness only because of the distinctions of an interpretation that are superimposed upon it. Scientific notions of verifiability presuppose an interpretive framework that distinguishes between contingent aspects of experience and universal (inter-subjective) aspects. So already we are involved in a presupposed interpretation. And it is good to keep this in mind, lest we be fooled by our concepts and mistake them for the reality, which is beyond the limits of subject- object dualism.
Critics of science sometimes say that the scientific view of the world is very restrictive. This problem is nothing peculiar to science, though. Any way of looking at the world can be a prison. It need not be scientific. Indeed, many examples come from religion, which has been both a power of liberation and a power of bondage. The problem is not with science or religion. It is with the minds that cling to certain modes of thought. We cling to them and we are prisoners. But we let go and they transform into our liberators. There are minds bound by religion and science alike, just as there are minds liberated by them.
A science that arbitrarily denies ways of knowing other than perceptual and conceptual is not a true science. It is a limited science that purports to be all-encompassing. This denial of the mystical way of knowing is itself unscientific. Such a denial is not a claim that is verifiable. It is just an unjustified prejudice, a materialistic "superstition." But science is often confused with this materialistic attitude, just as religion is often confused with a fundamentalist attitude, neither attitude reflecting the pure essence of religion or science.
A science that is a tyrant, dictating "truth", is no more a true science than such a religion would be a true religion. Yet we know all too well such "false" religion and science. I feel perfect harmony of true science and true religion, and see them both as sacred ways of being and knowing. I hope that the limited views of both science and religion become less common among both scientists and religious persons as both are redeemed.
There is a codependence of objective and subjective. Viewed objectively, physical laws are ontological properties of the world. Viewed subjectively, they are epistemological preconditions of experience. Neither is absolutely fixed.
Changing subjective preconditions of experience can change objective experience, but I'd say it depends on how deeply one changes. I agree that superficial changes in personal and cultural presuppositions do not affect the rate of fall of objects (neglecting extraneous forces). But there are levels of the psyche that go far deeper than the merely personal or cultural levels of conditioning. They are the subjective correlate to the objective physical laws. And if they change, so will the world that is experienced. But this would correspond to very radical change, and it may not be accurate to even call such an experience human anymore. One would be in another world entirely.
What I think Galileo did was to provide a more accurate understanding of our own preconditions of experience or objective world. But this understanding was taken by many to be absolute until it was finally shattered by Einstein. And if we think we've found the true and fixed laws today, we are fooling ourselves. Ours may be a more comprehensive and accurate understanding, but even if it were complete it would still only be as fixed and absolute as the deep structures of the psyche which arise in dependence with the world and its laws.
As humans, we are by definition living in this particular world that has arisen in dependence with our particularly human preconditions of experience. That being given, understanding the world means for us understanding the true nature of this particular world and this particular psyche. Superficial beliefs that are not in harmony with the human mode of existence naturally lead to conflict and confusion. So it is wise for anyone who desires harmony and clarity of understanding to understand the nature of this world without any distortion from the more superficial levels of the mind.
But this human mode of existence is not the only way a world can be, and is not the only way experience can be structured. There are thousands of worlds with thousands of beings. The ways of consciousness are infinite, and we see here but a thin sliver of all that is possible.