A Deeper Dimension
It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure. - Albert Einstein (“The Ultimate Quotable Einstein”, p.409, Princeton University Press, 2010),
Einstein observed, “Try and penetrate with our limited means
the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws
and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable.
Veneration of this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.
To that extent I am, in fact, religious."
The quote directly above, was taken from Walter
Isaacson’s,
Einstein: His Life and
Universe
(2007), reveals that Einstein perceived that the scope of
scientific inquiry had definite and specific limits. This understanding of
science seemed tied to Einstein’s personal religious beliefs, which pivoted on
his personal [spiritual] drive to grasp and understand the “mystery" of the universe and
life. In several ways, Einstein stressed the limits of knowledge. He concluded
that imagination is more valuable and versatile than knowledge, since
imagination includes not only “what is” (knowledge) but also contains
possibilities outside the prevailing scope of accepted knowledge and science.
It would seem likely that many people would tend to equate science with knowledge, at times. Simplified, the definition of knowledge is an understanding derived from “facts, information, descriptions, or skills.” The Oxford Living Dictionary defines knowledge in the context of philosophy as “True, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.” In general, it is understood that in philosophy knowledge is commonly understood to involve reasoning. Yet, here, Einstein appears to be saying that there is something “intangible and inexplicable” that lies beyond the realm of “all the discernible laws and connections” – laws which would appear at first glance to embody what is known and “understood” to be.
Spooky Action at a Distance & Divergent Perspectives
In Confessions Lev Tolstoy (1828 - 1910) who is best known for his epic novel War and Peace (1865–69) and Anna Karenina (1875–77), observed, “The problem facing speculative science is acknowledgement of the fact that life that lies beyond cause and effect.” (Confessions 1988) That was brilliant insight - especially it was made long before "acausal" - a reality outside reality - had even been acknowledged scientifically. Niels Bohr, a Nobel prize-winning Danish quantum physicist stated unequivocally that “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” In a letter to Max Born on 3 March 1947 to describe the strange effects of quantum mechanics, specifially quantum entanglement, where two particles may interact instantaneously - synchronizing their spins over a distance & at speeds faster than the speed of light, Albert Einstein referred to that quantum physics effect as spukhafte Fernwirkungen, which means “spooky actions at a distance”
Wolfgang Pauli, another Nobel prize-winning quantum physicist was careful to recognize that “although [particle physics] allows for an acausal form of observation, it actually has no use for the concept of meaning” — that is, meaning is not a fundamental function of reality but an interpretation superimposed by the human observer. Many - and perhaps most quantum physicists - have reached the conclusion best expressed by Frank Wilczek “Embracing divergent perspectives at the same time is a key to understanding reality!” As a point of order I should highlight the fact many use the Schroeder Cat argument that quantum physics deals only with subatomic particles. However, quantum entanglement involves particles as large as a molecule and the electrical charges (electrons) in the human brain are smaller than molecules.
Antonio Damasio, Hume’s Law & Intangible Concepts
Antonio Damasio states, in Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (2005), “I am skeptical of science’s presumption of objectivity and definitiveness. I have difficulty in seeing scientific results, especially in neurobiology, as anything but provisional approximations.” Psychology, due to the myriad intangible concepts, especially when it comes to concepts such as freedom, love, justice, and equality could not be, properly, considered a “hard” science like chemistry or physics. Chemistry and physics both appear, on the face of it, to possess the capacity to accurately measure and observe all the variables involved (though quantum mechanics may bring physics into question, as well). A critical question would be: How does one measure ideals such as freedom or emotional concepts like love?
Echoing what Damasio said, the neuroscientists Funk and Gazzanigna “Moral neuroscience is an intricate and expanding field...... Morality is a set of complex emotional and cognitive processes that is reflected across many brain domains. Some of them are recurrently found to be indispensable in order to emit a moral judgment, but none of them is uniquely related to morality.........Some of the emotions processed are more central to morality than others, but all emotions contribute to moral judgment given specific contextual situations. (Brain Architecture of human morality, Funk and Gazzaniga)…….The neural circuits of brain regions implicated in morality overlap with those that regulate other behavioral processes, suggesting that there is probably no undiscovered neural substrate that uniquely supports moral cognition.” Brain Architecture of human morality, Funk and Gazzanigna Current opinion in Neurobiology 2009 19:678-681)
In other words, what makes it so incredibly difficult to make any hard - or black and white - statements about how the mind works is because human consciousness is so incredibly complex and sophisticated- and why it may be so difficult for human beings to find the right balance - without losing their common sense. I can't help but comment that an early Christian mystic St. Gregory of Nyssa observed that "man" being created in the image of God - who is clearly way beyond comprehension and equally beyond words. Looks like St Gregory was quite literally correct. Pretty amazing what some common sense can do for people! - Huh?
Nowhere could the limits and boundaries of rational analysis and knowledge be more apparent than when it comes to the question of "purpose" as well as in the dimension of right or wrong. At an Address to the Princeton Theological Seminary on May 19, 1939, Einstein stated unequivocally, as noted in the book, Ideas and Opinions (1954, 1982): that it is “equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations.”
What is referred to as Hume's Guillotine states the premise that factual statements do not
necessarily lead to evaluative or what “should be.” Scotty Jenkins, in his essay-blog,
David Hume and Deriving an “Ought” from an
“Is”,
observes that “The blunder, according to Hume, is one of logic.
Factual statements are logically different from moral statements, so no factual
statements can, by themselves, entail what people morally ought to do.” Jenkins
goes on to say that Hume “thought they [value judgments and morals] come from
sentiments or feelings rather than logical deductions.”
Sixty-one years after Einstein concluded that “what is” does not rationally reveal or determine “what should be,” Antonio Damasio, in his book, The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (2000), states “Inevitably emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.” It would seem an inescapable conclusion that there would likely be a lot of concepts and behaviors that relate, in the end, to ideas of right or wrong. I feel that I can learn something from just about everybody, so I frequently question people as to what the meaning of life is to them, personally. I asked a biology PhD that question, and her response was, “In science, purpose does not exist.
There is no scientific evidence that there is any purpose for humanity!” “Human aspirations” necessarily directly relate to purpose and ideals, and these questions would needless to say be framed by a person’s ideas of right and wrong, and good or evil. Lev Tolstoy, after publishing the novel War and Peace, went into a prolonged and intense spiritual crisis. After years of struggling with the question of the purpose of life, Tolstoy concluded that rational analysis cannot possibly answer that question, and finally accepted that there is meaning to life as a matter of “faith.” As the scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, observes in his book, Science and Spiritual Practices: Transformative Experiences and Their Effects on Our Bodies, Brains, and Health (2017) by “The trouble is that the sciences give us vast amounts of data, but it is devoid of personal or spiritual meaning.” (p.169)
Reductionism, Physiology, and Transcendence
The psychologist, Raya a Jones' 2013 article cites Jung’s 1933 observation: The “modern belief in the primacy of physical explanations has led…. To a psychology without the psyche.” Carl Jung, as well as the positive psychologists Kenneth Pargament and Annette Mahoney, and others, have noted that in history of psychology there has, in the past, been a distinct bias for explanations and research almost entirely focused on physiological factors and breaking intangible concepts such as spirit and spirituality down into psychological and physiological components via the vehicle of reductionism. Some refer to that trend in history as materialism. Being limited to observable and measurable variables, the modern science of psychology would then be constrained to ‘uncovering’ the bones, the molecules, the cells, and the interconnected nerves.
This is a form of “reductionism.” Psychologist World’s article, Reductionism in Psychology, states "In psychology, reductionism refers to a theory that seems to over-simplify human behavior or cognitive processes, and in doing so, neglects to explain the complexities of the mind. Reductionism can be undesirable if it ignores variables that may be contributing to the subject being theorized.” However, in a very real sense, reductionism diminishes the true essence of a human being in eliminating all the intangibles which create human consciousness as a unity and creative force. In the anthology, The Human Quest for Meaning (2012), edited by Paul Wong, the psychologist Michael Steger provides a very coherent synopsis of the role and function of meaning in human consciousness. Steger states that “meaning is, at its heart, an integrating factor for people. Meaning pulls together people’s ideas about who they are, the kind of world they live in, and how they relate to the people and environments around them. Meaning incorporates these elements into people’s aspirations and overarching aims.” What makes human beings, human are the integrative concepts such as justice, love and compassion, as well as equality or freedom.
Of all the psychoanalysts and psychologists, Carl Jung appears to have a relatively unique grasp of the intangible and transcendental nature of human consciousness and the limits of the theoretical “hard science” of psychology. In his book, Psychology and Religion (1975), Carl Jung stated, “Whenever we speak of [symbolic] contents we move in a world of images that point to something ineffable. We do not know how clear or unclear these images, metaphors, and concepts are in respect of their transcendental object. . . (However) there is no doubt that there is something behind these images that transcends consciousness and operates in such a way that the statements do not vary limitlessly and chaotically, but clearly all relate to a few basic principles or archetypes.” Jung clearly identifies the characteristic of transcendence of “ineffable” concepts and abstractions above the hard-physical reality and biological physiology of the human being.
Jung goes even further than positioning “aspirations” and good or evil being beyond the scope of psychology. He states that there are some generally intangible characteristics of the human mind that are beyond the ordinary scope of the ‘science’ of psychology. In Collected Works, Volume 8 , Jung states, “Since nobody can penetrate to the heart of nature, you will not expect psychology to do the impossible and offer a valid explanation of the secret of creativity.” Now, Jung was talking specifically about “creativity.” In that context, however, surely ideals such as freedom liberty, compassion, justice, and equality would also need to be included in the same category of ‘expecting psychology to do the impossible.’
Ideals generally involve principles, values, and ethics, categories, and, ordinarily, do not readily lend themselves to quantification, measurement and rational analysis. These ideals rely on sophisticated abstractions, are frequently highly emotionally charged concepts, and most often could be categorized as “spiritual” values. In fact, the essence of ideals are statements of purpose. Ideals have played important roles in society throughout human history. For instance, in modern history, Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Lev Tolstoy, as well as Nelson Mandela and Anglican Bishop Tutu based their principles of nonviolent protest on their spiritual commitment to ideals among which was the commitment to nonviolence.
Emotional Intelligence
Andrew Newberg, the famous medical doctor and neurologist, observes in his book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth (2006), “If a concept or experience elicits no emotional response, it probably will not reach the level of consciousness.” This echoes what Jung stated decades earlier, in Collected Works, Volume 8 : “an idea which lacks emotional force can never become a life-ruling factor…... [that is] an idea must evoke a response from the emotions, I meant an unconscious readiness which, because of its affective nature, springs from deeper levels that are quite inaccessible to consciousness.” So, it would seem evident that not only that right or wrong has emotional roots, but that, it would also seem evident that a variety of behaviors and beliefs which also derive meaning(s) from emotional content.
A very salient characteristic of emotions is that emotions do tend to be very subjective. What one person feels in response to a specific event can and often is entirely different from what another person might feel about that same particular event. That makes emotions difficult to measure. Further, emotions are notoriously difficult to observe and frequently are generally only observable through the self-reports of individuals. Emotions do vary, not only from person to person, but emotions also vary from day to day within a person’s frame of reference. As, Viktor Frankl, in Man's Search for Meaning (2006), astutely observes, “For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day, and from hour to hour.” Each and every individual has a “fingerprint” unique to only them. In light of the fact that the human mind is a millionfold as complex as a fingerprint, the subjective factor of human consciousness would appear to be a very pervasive and salient characteristic of human consciousness and the science of psychology. Jung notes, in The Red Book, that very idea when he observed: "Only one law exists and that is your law. Only one truth exists and that is your truth."
The Truth of Truth
In the history of humanity, truth has been an idea – and “ideology” - which people have fought and died for since the dawn of civilization. Every major religion, including Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, as well as many other religions lay claim to being the Truth, and truth is a pivotal concept in religious writings. while there are similarities between religions, each religion has a different understanding of truth. The importance of Truth in religious beliefs may stem from the human predisposition to designate some things and people as ‘Sacred” which Emile Durkheim noted in the early 1900’s.
Wikipedia states, “Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard….. Truth is usually held to be opposite to falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also suggest a logical, factual, or ethical meaning.” In Old Testament scriptures, the original meaning of Truth, generally, had much more to do with right versus wrong, than the concept of truth as a philosophical standard. Proverbs 11:18 states: “The wicked works a deceitful work: but to him who sows righteousness shall be a reward of truth.” Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the science of psychology would seem very important. Mistaking knowledge for truth and mistaking the “science of psychology” which is based on knowledge, as the truth could possibly lead to flawed assessments of people, groups an social forces, in general.
In conclusion, then, it would seem that truth, purpose, ideals, and right or wrong are inextricably interconnected and intertwined, in Einstein’s words, into a “subtle, intangible and inexplicable” essence of being that would appear, on the face of it, to lie beyond all “discernable laws” and ordinary knowledge. That is, purpose and ideals transcend the science of psychology that some constrain entirely to physiological evidence and the firing of neurons. The bottom line is that there are some characteristics of human consciousness which lie beyond the ordinary scope of the “science of psychology!”
Much of the question, here, is a question of perspective. As one scientist (nuclear waste scientist) observed about this particular essay: "I am a scientist and can tell you unequivocally that the same problem exists in our field. People want certainty and in a lot of cases there isn't any. And, of course, in some cases like climate change there is consensus and certainty but no political support. In other cases, like human nutrition the consensus isn't jelling much." I guess it's all related to what is often called the human condition." Because people want certainty it would seem that leads many to assume psychology has 'all the answers' (that it needs) Sheldrake observes, “[S]ome people have made science into a kind of religion and are often exceptionally dogmatic. They accept the scientific worldview on faith, impressed by the authority and prestige of scientists,….” (p.161) However, the truth of it is, in part due to the complexity of human consciousness, most likely, there will always be some uncertainty in the science of psychology. Sheldrake goes on to say, “The least successful aspect of the modern sciences is in the understanding of consciousness.” Sheldrake was originally a biologist so he may not have been aware of the prominent psychoanalysts Carl Jung and Viktor Frankl, both of whom argued that spiritual processes are vital in the generating meaning(s) without which human beings would be, well....meaningless. Taken as a whole "orthodox psychology" has, in all truth, largely ignored and bypassed spirit and spirituality. In conclusion, I would can only say that it would seem that "Life" possesses a mysterious logic, elusive and rooted in its own meaning.
Materialist Doctrine - as several scholars and scientists point out - is fixated on laboratory experiments and quantification. As common sense would tell you you can't find the meaning of life in a laboratory - or even come close to squeezing the real world into a laboratory setting. Two major aspects of human behavior and human consciousness are excluded - the horrifically powerful emotions stemming from group related instincts in genocides and out group conflicts - and pretty much all of spirituality because spirituality is in that dimension beyond rational analysis - and in truth closely related to morals and right and wrong.
With all the books on spirituality and psychology available on the market, the public in general, clearly appears to firmly believe that psychology and psychologists are scientific and objective. That is what I believed - until I reviewed "The Story of Psychology," which is a 700 plus page complete 'History of Psychology' textbook, which was written by Morton Hall, who is a well-known and prolific author on the subject of psychology (Anchor Books, 2007). While there are a few references to soul (mostly archaic - i.e. ancient Greek religion-philosophy), there is not a single reference to either meaning, spirit, spirituality, or even religion. It is a comprehensive review of psychology over the course of the history of psychology - from Greek philosophers to modern psychologists. I was utterly shocked when I realized that an entire history of psychology left out - apparently deliberately - any reference at all to either spirit or spirituality.
When Science is Not Science: Hard Evidence of Severe Problems with Methodology
1. Kay Deux, a social psychologist, is the first (and only to my knowledge “academic” to point out that the materialist doctrine is a serious problem for social psychology. Of course, being a psychologist in the academic environment, she never even hinted that the Materialist Doctrine is the culprit of a major problem. Kay Deaux, in her analysis of group related studies and theories, in her chapter in the Social Psychology Handbook of Basic Principles observed that the exclusive use of laboratory experiments as the only tool of research “precluded” “affective displays.” In psychology, it is well known that emotions are notoriously subjective and not easily quantified. Kay Deux goes on to emphasize that “In contrast, natural groups, whether family, fraternity, or nation, are often the arena for intense displays of emotion and strong affective ties.” (p. 794 Social Psychology Handbook of Basic Principles edited by E. Tory Higgins and Arie W. Kruglanski)
2. Instincts and genocides. Even a precursory overview of Human History shows that throughout human history there has been genocide after genocide after genocide. Genocides are recorded in the Bible. Genocides record the most extreme forms of violence known to mankind. Assyrian history records that after the Assyrians took one city they flayed human beings alive then displayed the human skins on the city walls. Of course the Holocaust is the most horrific example of a genocide, but there are over two hundred recorded genocides in history - many of which, like the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks include within that "event" hundreds of separate atrocities. Archaeologists have actually uncovered what appears to have been a few small scale genocides dating back to the paleolithic age.
The bottom line is that it is a fact that in outgroup conflicts group related instincts only too often kick in a generate very powerful emotions. Obviously, that fact is Not in social psychology. I checked and it is not in the American Psychological Association literature either. And while neuroscience experiments and neuropsychology reference the amygdala, as well as plenty of literature about stereotypes and unconscious influences, there is no explicit statement that powerful emotions are a prominent and very salient characteristic of conflicts with outgroups. I also did a precursory look into research into the behaviors of the police, and though there were references to PTSD, there was no mention of the powerful emotions connected with high stress "apparent" life and death situations conflicts with outgroup members which would engage unconscious stereotypes and instinctual reactions. So, because psychologists could not get genocides into a laboratory setting they simply bypassed and overlooked that vary important factor and it didn't seem to occur to them that if you can't get the real world into a laboratory setting that they might want to go out into the real world and look for facts and evidence.
3. As Claudia Nielsen pointed out, the psychiatrist McGilChrist astutely observed that “The scope of inquiry and understanding of the Materialist Doctrine with its rigid adherence to the actually arbitrary principle of quantification and over-emphasis on physiological characteristics is severely restricted and limited in the analyses that can be performed.” What I have done here is to take an observation by the social psychologist Kay Deux that social psychology's fixation with laboratory experiments "precluded" affective displays when in the real world and real life are "often the arena for intense displays of emotion and strong affective ties” and added the very evident fact that social psychology - as well as psychology and neuroscience - overlooked and ignored all the numerous genocides in human history. The End Result is that the social sciences have not factored in the horrifically powerful emotions connected to group related instincts in conflict situations with outgroups.
As a result, the American people and American leaders have absolutely No Idea of what they are doing with our very salient issue of racism. It would stand to reason that the horrifically powerful emotions generated by group related instincts would play a role in the life and death situations with outgroup members and inevitably play a role in the disproportionate number of unarmed blacks killed by police (unarmed whites get killed as well) - which crisis situational training of then police would help - as Scandinavian countries. This blatant and flagrant shortcoming in the Materialist Methodology is not a trivial matter, but has exposed a major problem in the science of psychology.
The major point of the essay is that materialism methodology has excluded so much of the Truth that it is, effectively, a mockery of science. Everything depends on the state of mind and materialism like religious beliefs is an ideology. As Geertz observes the ideology is in essence an "orientation" based entirely on abstractions - which limits possibilities and narrows awareness. And materialist psychology as an ideology being a "scientific authority" is empowered and vitalized as a social/political force. So our leading ideology force in society has no common sense, no judgment. And that obsession with abstractions has overlooked, bypassed and ignored the powerful emotions originating with group-related instincts connected with conflicts with outgroups.
Link to Website: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/
Paypal - button below
Content Copyrighted Charles E Peck Jr. Copyright © 2021
References and Footnotes
Albert Einstein comprehensive website:
http://alberteinsteinsite.com/
Albert Einstein Biography: https://www.biography.com/people/albert-einstein-9285408
John Bargh, PhD: http://bargh.socialpsychology.org/
https://www.rogerdooley.com/john-bargh-priming
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/bargh/index.html
Rupert Sheldrake: https://www.sheldrake.org/
St. Augustine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine
St. Gregory of Nyssa (Franciscan):
https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-gregory-of-nyssa/
Friedrich Nietzsche:
http://nietzschecircle.com/