|
Abstract:
This paper argues that the bridge between science and spirituality is found in the interconnected structure and function of meaning. Disclosing this connectedness involves an appraisal of subjective experience, the science of signs and Sri Ramana Maharshi's notion of Self-realisation.
It is possible to connect science with spirituality in meaningful ways that do no injustice to science or religion. Such a meeting is possible by following and building upon David Bohm and Basil Hiley's holistic thesis illustrated in The Undivided Universe (1995). This is the approach here: to show evidence of a holistic interconnection which automatically embraces science and spirituality within its boundless expanses. My method will be to renovate the underlying links, connections and relationships of meaning that bind science and spirituality into a perfect marriage.
The first and most obvious connection is found in a shared attitude towards truth. Unlike the postmodernist who views truth as relative, the spiritual seeker and the dedicated scientist are both concerned with universal truths that transcend cultural and physical relativities. For science these are called Laws of Nature. For the spiritual seeker these eternal truths are also known as the Laws of Nature.
Commitment to truth is well known in the scientific community but it is equally important for the spiritual seeker. "What is truth'? asks the thirteenth century German mystic, Meister Eckhart. "Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I could keep the truth and let God go". (Budhananda, 1992: 84) Is not Meister Eckhart's commitment to truth so appropriate for scientific investigation that any scientist would be pleased to emulate it? These are some basic connections that link science and spirituality in ways that perhaps do not build a marriage or a bridge, but do initially indicate the absence of a bottomless divide.
The present holistic approach can, however, be taken many steps further by asking some questions about the nature of science and of the scientific experience. What then is science? In a recent article Ian Stevenson proposed that science is more an attitude than a method.
The attitude is one of testing interpretations of observed phenomena against further observations until one interpretation emerges as the best. Unfortunately, judgments about the best interpretation vary greatly. (Stevenson, 1999: 257)
To see science more as an attitude than a method is to find some small expansion of the conventional objective methods of science. Such methods are listed by Stevenson as: controlled conditions, repeatablity, falsifiability, predicability, quantification, control groups and location. For Stevenson these are non-core features of science even through they are frequently important.
If Stevenson is right and science is an attitude rather than a method then the attributes of this subjective attitude should form the character of the scientific experience, the second question referred to above. The scientific experience is an experience normally seen to involve the so-called 'gap' between the physical world 'out there' and the world of thought 'in here'. If this gap does exists, as assumed by most science, then science and spirituality can never be strongly linked. If on the other hand, there is no gap then scientific experience will simply be a feature of subjectivity and a significant barrier preventing interconnection will be removed.
The Gap
Much of modern science appears to have blindly followed the father-figure of the mind-body problem, Rene Descartes who proposed a division between external observation and internal thought. This dualist model has given support to the desire for, and the belief in, what is objective and trustworthy in science and what is not. The notion of a gap between these two (the inner and the outer) lends credence to the dogmatic realism of a 'detached observer', and a knowable external physical world rooted in physical space. But what evidence is there for this so-called gap between inner and outer worlds?
Many philosophers, including several of Descartes' contemporaries found dualism difficult to accept. Writing almost a century after Descartes, Kant filled the gap by insisting that for sensible beings like us it was impossible to know, in any absolute, non-sensible way, 'things-in-themselves'. For evidence of an outer physical world we must begin with our sensibilities and faculties of representation. Kant suggested that there was an inseparable relation between inner and outer experience, that is, between self-consciousness and consciousness of the object.
These two do not comprise 'halves' of experience as a whole, which subsist independently of each other, but they are conjoined in the same ensemble of universally valid and necessary logical presuppositions, and inseparably related to each other through this ensemble. (Cassirer, 1985: 198)
For Kant the expression of both 'self' and 'object' is one and the same and is signified by his concept of transcendental apperception. Similar comments can be made about space and time for they exist only relative to our sensibilities. "The existence of space is dependent on the inner organisation of the subject's personality, which clothes the sense-qualities in spatial form". (Sebeok, 1976:194) For Kant, a knowable external physical world rooted in physical space was an illusion for both the world and space are dependent on an a priori framework that forms the 'constitution' of human sensibilities.
If we accept Kant's position there is no gap between the illusion of noumena (of objects in-themselves and absolute space and time) and the reality of the phenomena of transcendental apperception. Kant's basic position of the integration of inner and outer worlds in human sensibilities finds basic agreement with many of the developments of modern science, such as Einstein's theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. In contrast, there is little in the history of science that supports Descartes' dualism, a theory which is widely regarded as raising more problems than it solves.
Even though there is little evidence of the dualistic gap between inner and outer reality, Cartesian dualism continues to have a strong and influential role in much scientific investigation. This is even the case in the study of consciousness. A quick survey of all the articles which have appeared in the Journal of Consciousness Studies since its inception in 1994 indicates that the overwhelming majority of them are written from a stance which separates consciousness from the physical world. This usual scientific approach to inquiry privileges the physical world and locates it as the legitimate field of study even when consciousness is the designated area. The lack of any solid evidence of a gap between inner and outer worlds has therefore not prevented recent studies into consciousness from building on such insecure foundations.
Meaning
Today we tend to talk in terms of subjective experience rather than human sensibilities or transcendental apperception. But whatever terms we use, all investigations will lead to the conclusion that this framework is integrated and not divided. In other words, the processes of observation and of concept formation are entirely integrated. Nowhere is there a division between what can be called an inner and an outer world. The lack of evidence for such a gap, yet the continual assumption in scientific investigation that such a gap exists, reflects the problem of bridging science and spirituality.
Both science and spirituality come within the framework of human sensibility - of subjective experience - and this means that science is produced by the same general subjective processes as spirituality. To make the cohesion of this framework more apparent we need to take a broad look at the medium which links both science and spirituality. This is the medium of meaning. Both science and spirituality create meaning, and meaning is the ever present medium of subjective experience. The critical question at this junction is therefore, what do I and most other writers mean by the term 'meaning'?
Meaning has presented a special problem for linguistics and the difficulty of defining it is said to be exceedingly complex. (Pike, 1967, 598 - 640). A broadly held view in linguistics is that meaning is generated by semiosis, that is, by the interaction of signs and also by the interaction of sign elements, such as signifier and signified (Saussure) or between a sign, its object and its interpretant (Peirce). In this view, meaning is solely derived from semiotic interaction (semiosis). This is the traditional linguistic view of meaning and for present purposes I will call it the derivative role of meaning.
A slight variation on the traditional linguistic view of meaning is found in the philosophy of John Searle where meaning "is a form of derived intentionality." (Searle, 1999: 141) For Searle, intentionality is fundamental, but this state does not equate with any fundamental role of meaning; rather, intentionality is restricted to a choice-process within the state of conscious awareness. Such a limiting view of meaning has not begun to take account of the nature of signs or semiotic activity.
The view that derivative meaning is all there is to meaning is challenged by the present author who proposed in The Meaning of Consciousness, (Lohrey, 1997) that meaning has both derivative and fundamental functions. These two operations are entirely integrated yet distinct. Perhaps the best way to describe them is in terms of:
a) the meaning generated by forms; and
b) the meaning of formlessness.
The meaning generated by forms is meaning that is derived from the interaction of forms, that is, in the conventional sense of semiosis, of deriving from the interaction of signs and sign elements. As everything in science can be a sign, the derivative meaning of forms includes the general purpose of all scientific investigation as well as most non-scientific activity. The derivate meaning of forms (semiosis) is therefore entirely general and applicable to all human behaviour.
The meaning of formlessness is not meaningless meaning. On the contrary, here there is a fullness of meaning which is also entirely general but it cannot be equated to the meaning of forms. Formless meaning underpins all forms and provides the background context out of which forms emerge and interact with each other to create semiosis. The meaning of formlessness thus precedes semiosis but it is also present in all aspects of semiosis. Another way of describing the relationship between semiosis and formless meaning is in terms of relations. Formless meaning is identical with those fundamental relations that generate and construct signs and sign elements. Such formless relations have the force of creation and will be discussed further under the heading 'relations'. From the present point of view, forms are only ever stable systems of relations that are secondary to the basic relations which have created them. The meaning produced by the interaction of forms (semiosis) is thus derived from formless meaning.
We can say that in its fundamental operation formless meaning can be described as 'the meaning of meaning'. This kind of meaning is commonly associated with silence and with the ineffable and with spiritual quests that seek to actualise the silence of this formlessness in its most universal and divine state. The major focus of all spiritual activity is on this kind of meaning.
In its derivate sense, meaning is created by the interaction of signs and can be spoken of as 'the meaning of something'. Scientific investigation is always about the meaning of something. This is the case in physics, chemistry, biology as well as the social sciences. While most practitioners in these fields may not see themselves as using and creating meaning-as-semiotics this is overwhelmingly what is happening. The kind of semiosis which is seen to occur between and within matter - particles, cells, tissue, organs, plants, animals, populations and the languages of these fields - is only the derivative signs of life. It is the meaning 'of something', created by the interaction of stable systems of relations, systems that are called, particles, cells, tissue and so on.
Gestalt
A possible model for meaning in both its fundamental and derivative forms is to liken it to dynamic gestalt configuration where there is an active background, field of relationships (formless meaning) out of which arise in the foreground a series of stable, explicit systems of relationships (forms) which interact with each other to produce derived meaning. These are the interactive and gestalt processes found in the production of language. The force and energy of these movements, both in the emergence of explicit forms and in the interactions of the forms, comes from a life force which is the nature of relations themselves. In other words, this agency is the agency of meaning.
One common location for such an agency of meaning is the context of subjective experience. The context of subjective experience represents a field of meaning from which emerge sign elements and as the explicit objects constructed by observation. These are the percepts and concepts of thought. Thus in all subjective experience we have an energetic background field of meaning (which is non-conscious) out of which emerges the explicit content of conscious awareness in its various forms. This background field of formless, non-consciousness creates meaning in two ways. Firstly, it infuses meaning into the explicit forms of conscious awareness in the manner in which every context provides meaning to constituent forms. Secondly, it provides the background field- the medium - in which these explicit forms can and do interact and thus create derivative meaning.
The gestalt model of meaning leads inevitably to the view that the actual forms of conscious awareness create conscious awareness. This means that conscious awareness is not like a puppet or shadow theatre. It is not some kind of dividing screen on which the shadows of explicit forms are relayed and displayed. Rather the content of conscious awareness represents actual explicit forms which have arisen out of the energetic, non-conscious, background field of meaning. In other words, the state of conscious awareness is only constituted by and through the emergence of explicit forms which have been born from a background field of formless, non-conscious meaning.
Life
In science the agency of life is usually seen as the property of interacting biological forms. The interaction of biological forms has been called a semiotic activity by Jesper Hoffmeyer. In Signs of Meaning in the Universe Hoffmeyer takes a close look mainly at biology and finds evidence of semiosis everywhere, from "pheromones to birdsongs and from antibodies to Japanese ceremonies of welcome . . . the essence of the entire life process - life as semiosis" (Hoffmeyer, 1993:61) A logical consequences of Hoffmeyer's thesis of life as semiosis is that meaning and life are created throughout nature, but only in derivative and secondary capacities.
Hoffmeyer's book is unusual not only because he calls attention to the bridge between semiotics and biology but also because he finds evidence of meaning-making at every level of life. His conclusion is that the sign, not the molecule, is the crucial, underlying factor in the study of life. Thus Hoffmeyer locates agency, which is the agency of life, as semiosis; as the interaction of signs and the interaction within signs. In other words, life is produced by the interaction of forms. Described thus there seems to be something missing from this proposition for how can forms interacting constitute a causal agency. Surely these are secondary processes?
The present proposition that meaning has a fundamental role as well as a derivative function in semiosis challenges Hoffmeyer's thesis not on the basis of the agency of life, but on the location of that agency as semiosis. It is not the interaction of signs (semiosis) which is the location of life but the more fundamental level of formless meaning which is the source and location of life. The semiosis which Hoffmeyer refers to is only the derivate signs of life and this occurs between and within biological forms such as, cells, tissue, organs, plants, animals and populations.
These are the signs of life which can be traced backwards to the source of the life they possess, that is, to the life force which issues forth from the background of relations, a background which appears to have the same attributes as Rupert Sheldrake's 'morphic fields'. Sheldrake's thesis of a morphic field is of a field of information that creates physical forms (through morphogenesis) and transfers information between successive generations of biological forms to create their evolution. (Sheldrake, 1990)
From the present perspective, a morphic field does not contain information but formless meaning. Information is a technological term signifying semiotic activity and thus it relates to the interaction of forms. On the other hand morphic fields are always background fields that are essentially formless. As such they constitute the locations of formless meaning. A morphic field is therefore a formless field of energy structured by fundamental relations which constitute the agencies of life. In this creation role, morphic fields create, through morphogenetic processes of transformation, the explicit, physical forms of physics, chemistry and biology. Once physical and biological forms have been created (exist) their communal interaction produces derivative meaning, which Hoffmeyer refers to as the signs of life, or semiosis.
If life in the universe is to be found in the fundamentally relations of morphic fields, and in a derivate sense as the signs of life (through the interactions of forms within these fields), then the obvious conclusion to draw from all this is that the universe is alive at every level and in every substance and in every time and in every space. This conclusion comes from the logic that relations are omnipresent in the universe and this leads on to the inevitable conclusion that the agency of life, which is the force of formless meaning, is omnipresent in the universe. In other words, the visible universe exists within an infinite morphic field (a holomovement in David Bohm's terms) and so has meaning and consciousness at every point in space/time.
Consciousness
'Life' is a term with strong biological connotations while 'consciousness' is a term that has both psychological and spiritual uses. Life and consciousness come together however, in the present use of the meaning of meaning. It is proposed here that meaning, in its fundamental and formless role has energy, force and agency. The nature of this energy and agency is consciousness. I have proposed (Lohrey, 1997) that consciousness is identical to meaning and therefore occupies the same location as meaning. We can say then that every type of meaning represents a type of consciousness and every quality of consciousness is also one of meaning.
For example, implicit meaning constructs and is the content of formlessness and non-consciousness, while explicit meaning both arises from implicit meaning and represents the forms and the content of conscious awareness. (The category 'non-conscious' relates to implicit meaning and involves the subjective states of preconsciousness, subconsciousness and the repressed. In addition, this field of non-conscious, implicit meaning extends into the un-repressed unconscious which is a feature of the universal field of consciousness which can be called cosmic consciousness).
The symmetry of meaning and consciousness implies that consciousness is the vital force that occupies the subjective field in which signs interact, scientific undertakings emerge and spirituality develops. In this view, signs, science and spirituality are features of consciousness and can be studied in terms of their relational architecture rather than exclusively and formally in their own separate terms. This means that consciousness is best analysed as meaning which in turn is best studied in terms of relations.
The symmetry of meaning and consciousness also provides support for the proposition that meaning is not a shadow generated by the interaction of signs (as traditionally assumed). Meaning itself has movement, force, energy, agency - consciousness. This is the same dynamic power which the Indian mystical philosophy of Vedanta calls sakti. These are also the features we call life and thus being. Meaning therefore constitutes being-ness. A change of meaning will always represent a change of being-ness but it is also a change of consciousness.
What is interesting about this morphic field of consciousness (being-ness) is that it is infinitely expansive, which is to say that nothing exists outside meaning. In other words, nothing exists outside of consciousness. If this is true then the context of subjective experience, in which science occurs, is situated within the movement, force and agency of the ultimate reality of being-ness, that is, within the formless, morphic field of the meaning of meaning. From a spiritual position the ultimate reality is usually assumed to be God or cosmic consciousness. Enlightened souls such as Sri Ramana Maharshi often use the term 'the Self' to refer to this ultimate reality.
Is it possible to talk about spiritual matters like the Self in terms of the meaning of meaning? I suggest it's entirely appropriate, for the language of meaning and the relations which structure it provide a new way of understanding the processes of spirituality, being-ness, of the Self and the way science relates to our lives. Such a language provides the method of filling the gap between science and spirituality - with meaning. It should be noted here, however, that the concepts of 'self' and 'selfhood' are also psychological concepts used in Western literature. I often find a good deal of confusion in Western approaches to the self as a psychological entity. This confusion seems to stem from the lack of clear distinction between the ego (generally seen as a psychological system) and the Self (a spiritual state). (For a recent example of this kind of approach see The Self Is a Semiotic Process by John Pickering, 1999).
The Indian spiritual teacher Ramana Maharshi tells us, "Reality is only one and that is the Self. All the rest are mere phenomena in it, of it and by it. The seer, the objects and the sight, all are the Self only. Can any one see or hear, leaving the Self aside?" (Venkataraman, 1978: 487) In this reading the reality of the Self encompasses the subjective experience of the individual observer within an all-ness and one-ness of an infinite field of meaning we can call Self or cosmic consciousness. This doubling of the meaning of self and Self is reflective of the recursive symmetry we find between the fundamental role of meaning (as implicit meaning) and its' derivate sense in semiosis (the interaction of systems of relations).
While these sentences may be grasped intellectually this will be a very different result from the spiritual purpose of realising the Self. The difficulty of coming to a realisation of the totality of the Self is the difficulty of developing a holographic relationship with this one-ness. By this I mean a spiritual relationship in which the individual self is realised to be not separate from the cosmic, universal Self. This is a holographic relationship in that its construction leads to the non-dualist recognition and spiritual realisation of one-ness; that the self within is the Self within all beings.
Famous for his methods of self inquiry, Ramana Maharshi had this to say about this spiritual relationship:
The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. You say 'I am', 'I am going', 'I am speaking', 'I am working', etc. Hyphenate 'I am' in all of them. Thus I - AM. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. This truth was taught by God to Moses: 'I AM that I AM'. 'Be still and know that I - AM God'. So 'I - AM ' is God. (Venkataraman, 1978: 487)
What Ramana Maharishi is saying, in terms of derivative meaning, is that Self-realisation is captured in the meaning of 'I - AM'. (God-realisation and Self-realisation are taken by Ramana Maharishi as being synonymous). Here the predicate term is left off and so the meaning does not signify the usual subject/object relationship common in the normal interaction of signs we see in sentence structure. Rather, what is signified here is a prior and more fundamental state of meaning. This state is the formless state of agency, and this expression is how we can signify the agency of our subjectivity. Here the subject 'I - AM' relates to itself. The subject in this instance is the one who constructs these expressions and therefore there is no need to say "I think, therefore I am' to prove existence. The simple utterance 'I - AM' is all that is necessary to prove agency, existence and consciousness.
'I - AM' is the ultimate self-referral which it is possible to speak. The realised meaning of this self-referral implies a state of consciousness beyond words, a formless state of meaning beyond thought, a state of 'no-mind', a state of being where the individual self expands into the cosmic Self. This is a state of stillness beyond the defences of the ego where meaning rests with the infinite and eternal symmetry of that stream of consciousness which 'I - AM'.
Relations
While it is common to refer to derivative meaning in terms of relationships it is also possible to speak about this formless stream of 'AM-ness' in terms of fundamental relations. It was proposed by the present author (Lohrey 1997) that all relations derive from three basic formless relations. These are the relations of symmetry, non-symmetry and asymmetry. In turn these three relations are seen to derive from the one fundamental relation of symmetry. In reverse, symmetry represents the one universal relation from which all others have emerged.
Symmetry is therefore the ground state of a universe full of relations. From this ground state arises non-symmetries which, when complex enough, produce irreversible systems of relationships or asymmetries. The transformation of these three basic relations automatically establishes an order and a priority ranking so that symmetry is ranked the most important and has a firstness while non-symmetry has a secondness and asymmetry a thirdness.
Difficulties arises however, when we try to come to terms with the concept of symmetry. For example, how do we identify and represent symmetry, the ground state of an interconnected universe? This is a state in which there is said to be nothing, a void, a zero-point. As such, symmetry exists before representation, that is, as formlessness, before form. Any representation - that is, any representational form - can therefore only point to it by indirect implication, but not directly represent it in symbolic form. The meaning of symmetry can to some extent be implied by words such as 'invariance', 'sameness', 'vacuum', 'nothingness' and 'zero point'. The equals sign '=' in mathematics also implies symmetry. We can however, signify symmetry negatively, by what it is not; by its non-locality, its atemporality and its pre-spatiality.
Representing Symmetry
Symmetry, non-symmetry and asymmetry are the relationships of formless meaning. They are formless because they cannot be represented by forms. We can discover our inability to represent them quite easily. For example, to represent symmetry by a formula (such as, b=a identical to a=b) is to automatically impose a non-symmetrical formula on symmetry. This is so because 'a' and 'b' are always different and difference is another name for non-symmetry. If we try and represent symmetry by the formula for identity: (a=a), then again we impose a non-symmetrical representation on symmetry - the two 'a's are always different one from another. If we then say that the equals sign '=' represents symmetry we again impose a non-symmetrical relation on symmetry - the two lines of the equals are always different one from another.
The simple point of this exercise is that it is not possible to represent symmetry (a firstness) directly because all representational forms involve the interaction of stable asymmetrical systems (a fourthness etc). (Some linguists hold that difference, that is, non-symmetry is the defining quality of language but here they confuse a secondness with a fourthness). I have suggested that we can capture some of the meaning of symmetry with certain words and also by the equals '=' sign in mathematics. While the meaning of symmetry is implied by these words it is done so in a second order manner - by inference and implication.
Where does this leave us? It leaves us in a position where we are unable (through the vicissitudes of the structure of consciousness and meaning) to have a formula for symmetry. There is therefore no direct 'sign' of symmetry in the physical world or anywhere else. There is no sign because signs are forms constructed, within conscious awareness, as interacting asymmetrical systems. This is the case for mathematics as well as the rest of the universe.
If this inability to represent symmetry should worry us then it may concern us even more that the greater part of meaning is always invisible. For example, the man who says, "I only believe what I can see" is very confused for he does not even believe in the meaning of this sentence since most of its meaning is beyond his sense perception. While we may perceive the explicit forms of the 23 letters of this sentence, that is all there is which is visible. The rest, which is about ninety percent of the meaning of the sentence, is quite invisible. This ninety percent of meaning is composed of implicit meaning from which the 23 forms have emerged and by which the 23 forms produce the stable concepts of language.
As implicit relations are always non-conscious, ninety percent of the meaning of this sentence is invisible to the senses. Again there is an implication of an ordered ranking here which suggests that the semantic processes that create consciousness and observations are unable to be directly observed, and further, that the implicit processes which construct thought and representation also cannot be explicitly thought or represented. To know these processes of implication as we do is to rely entirely on that which is non-empirical, non-explicit, non-expressible and non-perceptible - which is meaning in its fundamental, formless state. To know this kind of meaning is a spontaneous act, for meaning has meaning for us simply because this is the medium of beingness, in which I - AM.
Representing Non-Symmetry
If we are unable to directly represent symmetry then our difficulties do not end here. A precise formula for non-symmetry (difference) is also impossible for the following reasons. Any simple formulas (for example, a b) may represent non-symmetry if we wish to say so but such a representation is actually an illusion for all representations of any kind are always interactions from complex asymmetrical systems. For example, the 'a's and 'b's of the formula as well as the non-equal '' sign have meaning for us only because they are elements within larger linguistic systems. It is the implicit meaning we import into these formulas from their larger background contexts which provides the sense of such formulas.
Non-symmetry therefore cannot be isolated from symmetry or asymmetry. In addition, non-symmetry is unable to be represented in any direct manner. This means that the secondness of non-symmetry and the firstness of symmetry can never be reduced to the fourthness, etc of semiosis. Such reversed ordering is actually impossible and any linguistic attempt simply creates illusions and confounds the natural order of this hierarchy.
Representing Asymmetry
Our inability to directly represent symmetry and non-symmetry carries over so that we are also unable to represent individual asymmetrical systems. An asymmetrical system always has a gestalt structure, that is, it has a background of implicit meaning and a foreground constructed by an explicit form which has differential and explicit meaning. A form therefore, is always an asymmetrical system. It should be noted however, that an asymmetrical system never exists on its own as an individual form but is always one of many that interact with each other within a larger ensemble of forms that are located within a background context of implicit meaning.
The collective nature of forms can easily be seen in language where no form can exist on its own and be a signifier, that is, have meaning. A form becomes a linguistic form - a signifier - once it becomes part of a linguistic system and interrelates to the other forms within the system. Thus an individual linguistic form, such as the letter 'a' only has meaning because it is: i) a gestalt of relations, ii) part of an ensemble of forms, and iii) an explicit form within a series of overlapping, implicit, formless contexts.
Our inability to represent the thirdness of an individual asymmetrical system is significant. This inadequacy provides powerful evidence that conscious awareness (the consciousness associated with thought and representation) only functions at the level of the interactions of forms. This level of complexity can be called a fourthness, etc. From the point of view of meaning, conscious awareness only comes into being - exists - through a complex interaction of asymmetrical systems within the nervous system. Conscious awareness therefore exists as semiosis, at an order and at a level of abstraction of a fourthness, etc.
This means that an awareness of forms and their interactions is not a fundamental state of consciousness (as is often assumed by cognitive scientists). Rather, it is a very derivative state, being at least a fourth or more level of abstraction. Yet we think and we speak on these levels of abstraction. Often we even believe that the truth we speak, which is generated by the propositional logic of these levels, is fundamental. However, the meanings generated by the interaction of the forms of our thoughts and words can only ever be derivative. Thinking and expression will always contain a great deal of implied meaning which by necessity represents evidence of ineffable and formless foundations. These foundations are constructed out of at least three prior levels of abstraction: symmetry, non-symmetry and asymmetry. Something of the 'feel' for these ineffable and formless foundations of implicit meaning can be had from the condition of 'blindsight'.
Blindsight
The term 'blindsight' refers to "the presence of unconscious visually-guided behaviour in patients with lesion of the visual cortex." (Marzi, 1999: 12) Blindsight has become interesting to those who write about consciousness because it presents a dilemma. The patient who cannot see objects, because their visual cortex is damaged, can however, 'see' these objects unconsciously. If one holds the traditional view that consciousness is only an awareness of forms, then non-conscious sight is incomprehensible.
Non-conscious sight is comprehensible however, if the model of consciousness we use is one based on formless meaning and on a hierarchy of relationships. Such a model provides a background of implicit meaning which is not simply a blank, rather, this background context represents an active consciousness that is non-explicit. Conscious awareness is only a derivative system involving perhaps no more than ten percent of the relations within the whole perceptual system. This means that approximately ninety percent of any particular sensory system will be non-explicit, that is, non-conscious, being made up of symmetrical, non-symmetrical and asymmetrical relations. (These are rough percentages extrapolated from an analysis of meaning in language).
If blindsight is a condition which prevents the coming into being of visually explicit meaning (which is what it appears to be) then the ninety percent of the visual system which is still intact will be operating normally. The normal functioning of implicit meaning is to operate as an active agency involving non-explicit consciousness. In the visual system this active agency can be termed non-conscious sight, or blindsight.
Within the whole system of subjectivity we should be able to discover evidence of the active agency of implicit meaning in a range of functions associated with sense perception. In other words, there should be clear evidence of non-conscious hearing, non-conscious sensation and non-conscious sense perception generally, as well non-conscious concept formation. Such non-conscious sense perception should be overlapping and integrated and its function will be to create, generate and bring into being the explicit forms and meanings related to each of the senses as well as to the more general area of thought. In this latter capacity the active agency of implicit meaning has a major role in meaning making and can be called intuition. In this sense, intuition represents non-conscious thinking and non-conscious perception. Such consciousness takes on a priority and significance above the derivative status of words and thought.
Cartesian Dualism
Western intellectual traditions have tended to ignore and erase formless meaning through strategies that reverse the natural order of abstraction. This is what happens in the Cartesian view of the world. The view presented here suggest that the Cartesian coordinates of x, y, and z of space and t, of time - the coordinates at the heart of Newtonian physics - are derivate systems unable on their own to create any order at all. Rather, each coordinate represents a complexity of interacting asymmetrical systems that are generated by morphic fields structured by the formless relations of symmetry, non-symmetry and asymmetry. These are energetic and formless relations which in science constitute the domain of pre-space, non-locality and atemporality. Interestingly, in psychoanalysis the domain constituted by pre-space, non-locality and atemporality represents the repressed unconscious.
If in our research we accept the Cartesian order as basic (by ignoring its contextual and energetic foundations) and focus on the semiotic interaction of the forms in this order (interactions which are a fourthness, etc) then such a focus will tend to produce the illusion of dualism and all its attendant difficulties. This will occur whether the research is in the arts or science. Dualism always occurs whenever a system's explicitness, that is, a system's differences are privileged over the symmetrical processes which have constructed the system in the first place. Such research will then be predicated on the illusion that there is a physical 'out there-ness' as opposed to the subjective 'in here-ness'.
In the binary systems of Cartesian thought the illusion of division is created by reversing the order of abstraction - a fourthness, etc becomes a firstness. As a consequence of this illusion (of a fourthness, etc becoming a firstness) the role of implicit meaning and the formless character of its morphic agency and its infinite interconnection are all conveniently erased. What is left over is the semiosis of forms which stand, as if alone and separate, from the processes of observation. This erasure and reversal of the order of abstraction through the prioritising of separation and difference is common to artificial intelligence (AI) which relies on binary systems. The illusions which such systems create, I suggest, is one of the reasons why AI is always so artificial.
Symmetry's Attributes
Although symmetry is formless it has infinite attributes. As all meaning is constructed from the three relations of symmetry, non-symmetry and asymmetry and as these three can be reduced to the one metaphysical relation of symmetry, this relation, which is 'omni' present throughout the universe at every point in space/time, comes to represent the Self or God. If this is so, then the nature of the Self is the nature of symmetry and the meaning of Self is the meaning of symmetry.
In contemporary terms, the principle of creation can be called the principle of symmetry. In the 'Creation Hymn' of the Rig-Veda, one of the oldest texts in the world, we are told in beautiful and poetic language about a single, primordial, abstract principle designated THAT, from which the entire universe has evolved. From the oneness of THAT the world of many is said to have come. Down through the ages sages have called IT by various names but usually employing pronouns to emphasise the impersonal and attributeless character of this principle.
From the pronouns of the past we have moved to the noun of today, the noun of symmetry. Symmetry is no less abstract and impersonal than THAT but as a signpost of creation it does have the advantage of implying the processes of creation and ITS' connectedness to the many through various forms of symmetry transformations. Connectedness and transformation are thus prime attributes of this historically attributless principle.
From the present perspective the meaning of 'I - AM' represents the kind of significant self-referral made possible within a holistic, symmetry system which is itself infinite and circular. While symmetry and the notion of a cosmic Self are difficult to define and understand they both have certain 'omni' attributes. Symmetry and Self constitute a formless consciousness which is non-local, pre-spatial and atemporal. The reflexivity of these words implies the circularity of symmetry within itself as a total, circular and holistic system. In spiritual terms such an holistic system is usually referred to as Self or God.
Evidence of symmetry's ever present presence is found within the context of subjective experience. As meaning and consciousness are identical, symmetry is the first and background context of subjectivity and in this role it represents the psychological nature of our unconscious mind in its various modes. Symmetry is also the structural feature of pre-reflective consciousness produced by the interactions of the sympathetic and para-sympathetic nervous systems. Symmetrical relations are always implicit and hidden from conscious awareness, which, as we have said, is itself generated and structured by and through an ensemble of asymmetrical systems which when complex enough become explicit. Evidence of symmetry within subjectivity is therefore evidence of the immanence of the Self within the individual self.
Symmetry is also the basis of all languages and all representational forms. It is impossible to communicate anything without using symmetry. The processes of representation are themselves symmetrical; for example, the word 'dog' stands in for - is symmetrical to - the non-symbolic, pre-reflective experience of. . . . The dots stand for - are symmetrical to - the un-nameable experience common to all. 'Common to all' implies symmetry.
Symmetry is also the basis of love and beauty. These feelings can be described as the harmonious re-connection, through self-reflection, of the universe with itself. For example, a sense of love is the sense of connection; a timeless, spaceless symmetry of feelings; a bonding involving something larger than the local time and space of the individuals involved. As for beauty, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder then this relativity is made holographic by a sense of unqualified connection, a connection where the beholder senses a symmetry within the symphony of a self reflected in Self.
In spiritual terms symmetry is created by love and beauty. Most religions acknowledge that God is love and this is entirely in accord with the formless state of symmetry. Meaning in its formless state of symmetry can be realised as love, as love which is open, expansive and holistic. This love which is turned inward towards itself so that it becomes self-love, this love is distinct from the body-love of narcissism or the physical love of two individuals. This is a spiritual love which seeks a communion with the universal Self through self-reflection. This is symmetry doubling. With such a love we are able to come to the holographic realisation that the self within is the Self within all beings, and that the river of life which flows through us is part of the wave function in an ocean of symmetry which flows throughout the universe.
As the ground state of the universe, symmetry also represents the basis of science. This means that the force, energy and agency of symmetry is present in every point in space/time, both before the Big Bang as well as in the eternal now. Pointing to this conclusion are the comments of a variety of scientists. For example, Heinz Pagels saw the task of modern physics as one of uncovering the symmetries of the world, (Pagels, 1982: 304) while Hermann Weyl said that "all a priori statements in physics have their origins in symmetry", (Wade, 1993: 17) and Werner Heisenberg argued that what was truly fundamental in nature "was not the particles themselves but the symmetries that lay beyond." (Peat, 1987: 94)
The evidence of formless symmetry within language, within non-conscious subjectivity, within love and throughout the entire universe at every point in space/time tells us that there are no gaps between inner and outer worlds because there is not inner or outer world. There is only one, undivided, interconnected, formless, unmoved agency of cosmic consciousness. The differences we see are the differences created by the derivative meaning of forms, the apparent relative autonomy of which has itself been created by the agency of formless meaning. We are therefore already connected to each other and to the environment without the need for conscious design. What is needed is a conscious design to re-learn about what is already there - to learn about coming home to what is already there.
The Bridge
The bridge connecting science and spirituality is now built. It rests on a common view and commitment to truth that is beyond cultural relativities. The structure of this bridge is provided by subjective experience which is the context for both spiritual observance and scientific endeavour. The component members of this structure are called by several names but whatever terms we use they represent the explicit features of a gestalt framework of experience that has a background constructed of formless, implicit, non-conscious meaning.
Meaning is common to both science and spirituality and the making of meaning, through the interaction of component features of subjective experience, is also common to both fields. Meaning in its fundamental role as formless relations provides a new language and a mode of analysis for re-assessing the activities of science and spirituality within an undivided universe. The short exposition I have put forward here rests on the meaning of symmetry. This formless relation, this non-local, atemporal and pre-spatial Reality we call Self, or God, provides us with both the means for analysis (in semiosis) and the ultimate goal of science and spirituality.
The gap between science and spirituality is now closed, for the scientist who seeks after symmetry walks a parallel path to the spiritual seeker who yearns for Self-realisation. The scientist looks outwards to trace the origins of the universe to the symmetry that lies beyond matter. The spiritual seeker looks inwards to the silence of the recursive symmetries of Self-realisation. While the paths are different, the goal of realising the one-ness of symmetry is the same for both seekers. That these paths do converge in symmetry should not surprise us once we have accepted the holistic implications of an interconnected universe built on the firstness of perfect symmetry - a Reality which has agency, consciousness, life (sakti) and which is present within every point in space/time. Another form of the same message is, that this should not surprise us if we have accepted the immanent and transcendental implications of a panenthestic spirituality which moves ever forward through processes of self-reflection to the final goal of Self-realisation. |