Читать книгу God Does Not Play Dice: The Fulfillment of Einstein's Quest for Law and Order in Nature - David Ph.D. Shiang - Страница 6

A treasure stumbled upon, suddenly; not gradually accumulated, by adding one to one. The accumulation of learning, “adding to the sum-total of human knowledge”; lay that burden down, that baggage, that impediment. Take nothing for your journey; travel light.

Norman O. Brown, Love’s Body

Many different descriptions have been used to characterize the mental voyage that I went through, including “transcendence” and “the highest state of consciousness.” Such terms might be appropriate in some settings, but I prefer to approach this formidable yet delicate subject with a vocabulary that is as free as possible from preconceived notions. The above terms have their value, but such descriptions are normally tainted with misleading, unwarranted, and negative connotations. For example, the concept of “transcendence” in Eastern philosophy, which is used to symbolize the realization of what is referred to as “ultimate reality,” often mistakenly carries with it ideas of irrationality and illogic. We are told that this experience and the insights gained are beyond the scope of rational investigation and verbal communication. It is presumed that such a phenomenon, if it can be talked about at all, is closed to analytical scrutiny.

Judging from typical writings on the subject, which are often full of seeming nonsense and apparent contradictions (e.g., what is the sound of one hand clapping?), it is easy to see why those who cherish rationality and logic (and I include myself among them) would want to have nothing to do with this method of perception. After all, those of us who instinctively feel that nature is governed by reasonable laws can and probably should dismiss whatever is said to be illogical to begin with. Let me say at the outset that higher consciousness, properly understood, has nothing to do with illogic, irrationality, anti-science, or anti- reason. It is, rather, a knowledge beyond that which can be gained by measurement, reason, and experiment. It is knowledge beyond the scientific method.

If there are potential difficulties in using such designations as “transcendence,” perhaps we should seek a different kind of description. “Mind of God” is certainly useful and has been used by any number of thinkers such as Einstein and Stephen W. Hawking. Einstein wanted “to know how God created this world.” Hawking suggested that “the ultimate triumph of human reason” is to “know the mind of God.” However, God means different things to different people. Einstein and perhaps Hawking see the term as a representation of the universe’s order and harmony. Others view God as a benevolent being who cares about humans and actively intervenes in their daily lives as a direct result of prayer and devotion. (This latter God seems to be what Steven Weinberg so steadfastly and vehemently rejects. As we shall see, we have no use for this type of supernatural God either.)

Due to the lack of agreement about the meaning of “God,” let us use the phrase “gold mine of consciousness.” It appropriately combines images of precious and dazzling treasure with the active workings of the mind. In addition, there is apt to be a minimal amount of unwarranted philosophical baggage associated with this term, unlike with the word “God.” There is nothing necessarily irrational about the idea of a state of consciousness in which one gains significant insights into nature and reality. (If you equate “spiritual,” “religious,” or “mystical” encounters with nonsense or with “temporal lobe seizures or some other aberration in brain physiology,” as Michael Shermer does in How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, please set your views aside for the time being. Try not to bring too many preconceived notions with you on our journey, as they are likely to get in the way. You can always go back to your original outlook later if you so desire.) Finally, “gold mine of consciousness” is not limited to a specific culture or historical period, and it does not imply an explicit philosophical or religious tradition. I will maintain later that the question of God is ultimately one of knowledge vs. ignorance, not faith vs. reason or belief vs. denial, but it is, I think, better not to begin with the concept of God as a prerequisite.

I can imagine that my use of the terms “transcendence” and “gold mine of consciousness” has some of you wondering where all of this is heading. Am I going to abandon priceless rationality and logic in favor of some sort of mystical mumbo jumbo of the sort found in what we often call “occult” books? Believe me, I too have little use for ESP, channeling, UFOs, levitation, pyramids, crystals, or astrology. Are the solutions to riddles that I promise simply the obtuse and nonsensical ravings of a lunatic, or even worse? As one schooled within the scientific tradition, where skepticism rightfully abounds, I empathize with any feelings of doubt that you may have at this point. In fact, I wholeheartedly welcome your reservations. But please don’t develop a case of premature closing of the mind. (If you can cite evidence where I say that none exists, I would be grateful. I don’t think you can do it, however.)

While I have great admiration for the scientific method (logic, reason, hypothesis formulation, experiment, etc.) and want you to maintain your critical faculties to the fullest here, let me suggest that your possible lack of familiarity with my subject matter in no way diminishes it. Remember the words of philosopher and logician Alfred Jules Ayer, who once said that “we can hardly maintain a priori that there are no ways of discovering true propositions except those which we ourselves employ.” My suggestion of a method that you don’t know much about may be surprising, and the conclusions I put forward may be extraordinary, but this does not weaken my case in the least.

To some of you, the words “gold mine of consciousness” may conjure up visions of a blissful, transcendental state involving a feeling of unification with the cosmos. All of us are familiar with wise-looking gurus dressed in flowing robes who promise us inner peace and eternal “I see the light” happiness. And evangelists preach that “the kingdom of God” is within us. Judging from the abundance of spiritual activity around us, the selling of salvation is a major growth industry. There are good reasons for this phenomenon, even though some of those who would save us may not have the best of intentions. In any case, our subject is not really new; it has long been explored by many thinkers from different cultures and backgrounds. Older texts such as the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, or the Bible as well as relatively contemporary discussions by insightful authors such as Richard M. Bucke, Alan Watts, Jean Houston, Fritjof Capra, John White, and Charles Tart are quite pertinent to our discussion.

Although there is much of value in the diverse literature, I think that it is better to proceed without stopping for an examination. On one hand, I do not want to duplicate what others have said. There are countless descriptions of euphoria and universal harmony that may be of some use in understanding such a state, and I see no need to cover the same ground. On the other hand, many authors who write about the “gold mine,” perhaps using a different terminology, tend to suggest that it is “ineffable” or “non-intellectual.” They almost admit a kind of defeat concerning intellectual discourse before they begin. The words “irrational” and “illogical” are often found in this context, closing off all attempts at intelligent discussion. (No wonder scientists and many others have a hard time dealing with the subject.)

If we were to rely on the typical work about higher consciousness as a reference, it is likely that we would spend far too much time examining points of debate. Some writings are so cryptic that few can agree on just what they mean. In other cases, the points of view expressed are in direct opposition to my own, particularly regarding what can be communicated about the experience. We may therefore be better off taking an approach that is somewhat different from the ones already mentioned. I propose that we use the mythological perspective, which can serve as a useful guide.

Let us look at the “gold mine” from two viewpoints. The first has to do with the process of psychological transformation that one undergoes as one experiences the “gold mine.” The second focuses on the contents one discovers inside the “gold mine.” The mythological journey of the hero will serve as a useful aid in probing the central features of the quest. Considering that many different avenues can lead to the “gold mine,” the heroic archetype provides us with important signposts in making sense of a most bewildering ordeal.

The hero, the obstacle that must be overcome (often represented by a dragon), and the treasure are the three core elements in the struggle, and they are at the center of a myriad of seemingly unrelated myths. Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, and others have done an admirable job of noting the common themes underlying hero myths throughout history, and their work can help us delve more deeply into the significance behind the symbols.

In its simplest form, the hero myth involves someone of unusual capacity who undergoes a most difficult journey, overcoming many obstacles on the way to attaining great treasure. Jason, Heracles, Perseus, and Odysseus are notable examples from ancient Greece. Oedipus is one of the most celebrated heroes in all mythology, as he slays the Sphinx and is rewarded with the hand of the Queen. In this case, the archetypal obstacle (dragon) takes on the form of the menacing Sphinx, and the treasure is the Queen. (Oedipus, of course, does not know at first that he married his own mother, leading to all sorts of problems down the road. Did someone say tragedy? A minor digression: one significant aspect of Freud’s “discovery” is that he formulated his incest-patricide theory before consulting the Oedipus legend, as his own letters show. Like many of us, scientists and non-scientists alike, he went to the evidence in search of confirmation, not illumination. And he found what he was looking for. I examine in detail Freud’s formulation of the Oedipus complex in Weird Scenes Inside the Gold Mine.)

The dragon can have any number of external faces, but for our purposes its importance lies in the fact that it symbolizes psychic obstacles that must be overcome in order to achieve psychological transcendence and liberation. The physical represents the mental. Obstacles can be as diverse as false temptations, monsters, blind alleys, and illusions. By slaying the dragon, the hero achieves breakthrough and gains the treasure. The reward can take many forms: a maiden, gold, diamonds, power and glory, the elixir of life, immortality, etc.

Our second perspective deals with the bizarre contents of the “gold mine” itself. Using the mythological journey of the hero as a metaphor, the end point is of immeasurable importance. It can be described as the attainment of higher consciousness and psychological fulfillment—a treasure trove of rich insights into the nature of reality. Here, deep mysteries such as the relationship between past, present, and future are laid bare and solved. In addition, one realizes that we are here as a result of a creator or designer and that design is a primary feature of the world. The notion that things happen by chance and accident is seen to be a false assumption based on ignorance.

Certainty and knowledge replace speculation and supposition, and an unprecedented level of understanding is achieved. Unlikely as it may seem, there is a vast amount of illuminating content that comes from the experience. The expedition we are about to embark on should help you if you have an interest. The more one considers the knowledge that is gained upon reaching the “gold mine,” the easier it will be to make the experience one’s own.

You may have noticed my use of the word “design” above. If you accept such a notion (if only for the time being), you are, of course, welcome to call the designer “intelligent,” “dumb,” or anything else, depending on your point of view. Stephen Jay Gould points to “odd arrangements and funny solutions” as “paths that a sensible God would never tread.” Shermer tells us that “the eye has evolved independently a dozen different times through its own unique pathways, so this alone tells us that no creator had a single, master plan.” Such thinking is a staple of many in the anti-God community. However, who is to say that God should be bound by Gould’s definition of “sensible”? Gould and Shermer expect a designer to conform to their ideal of a perfect (or at least intelligent) engineer, and when they find that some aspects of life appear to have been put together using tape and glue as core components, they insist that there is no God. No intelligent designer would be so stupid, so dumb, so lacking, they claim. They see “mistakes” in nature as evidence for natural selection. Such thinking is perfectly logical, but it has nothing to do with reality. What if God’s master plan includes what some perceive to be bad design and poor planning? What if God actually intended multiple pathways for the eye? We will explore these ideas in more detail later.