| Resonance One of the most proliferate and dramatic modes of interaction in all objective science is that of resonance, the coupled sympathetic oscillations of participating components of mechanical, electromagnetic, thermodynamic, quantum, or biological systems that can produce extraordinary physical effects and responses. The corresponding subjective concept of resonance as facilitator of deeper personal experiences such as trust, hope, and affection are also well acknowledged. But in the new science of the subjective, resonance assumes the even more critical role of coupling the subjective and objectives hemispheres of experience to one another via its demonstrated capacity for imparting order to random physical processes. Such resonance devolves from the principle of indistinguishability mentioned earlier, whereby the surrender of information distinguishing the two interacting subsystems within a single complex system translates into enhancement of the structural strength of the bonded system. Thus, when the perceived boundary between consciousness and its physical environment is permeated via subjective merging of the "I" with the "Not I," the resultant bonded system may manifest tangible alterations in both the environment and the corresponding experience of the consciousness. If this resonance entails a teleological component, be it conscious or unconscious, the bonded system may acknowledge that intention in some characteristic manner. As suggested by our experimental results, the scales of such effects may be marginally small, making them difficult to identify on an incident-by-incident basis. Nonetheless, they can manifest in significant probabilistic trends accumulated over large bodies of experience. This leaves us with the intriguing possibility that what we denote as "chance" or "random" behavior, in any context, rather than deriving from some ultimately predictable, fully mechanistic behavior of a deterministic physical world, is actually an immense subsumption of a broad distribution of potentialities reflective of all relevant resonances and intentions of consciousness with respect to the system or process in question.
Eddington proposed the possibility in only slightly different terms:
It seems that we must attribute to the mind power not only to decide the behavior of atoms individually but to affect systematically large groups — in fact to tamper with the odds on atomic behavior... Unless it belies its name, probability can be modified in ways in which ordinary physical entities would not admit of. There can be no unique probability attached to any event or behavior; we can only speak of 'probability in the light of certain given information,' and the probability alters according to the extent of the information [34].
Complementarity
It would be wrong to cast this plea for creation of a science of the subjective solely in terms of a replacement for, or even an extension of, precise objective science. Rather, if they are to be mutually productive, the two perspectives need to complement each other, in very much the same spirit as the Complementarity Principle first proposed and later generalized by several early quantum physicists. Niels Bohr originally conceived this profound idea to ameliorate the wave/particle dilemma in quantum mechanics, in the sense that neither the wave nor the particle was to be regarded as the "correct" representation of atomic-scale physical matter, but that both were needed to triangulate its evidence and comprehension. Bohr himself quickly recognized that this complementarity was not solely a physical property, but a much more fundamental aspect of human consciousness:
...we must, indeed, remember that the nature of our consciousness brings about a complementary relationship in all domains of knowledge, between the analysis of a concept and its immediate application... in associating the physical and the psychical aspects of existence, we are concerned with the special relationship with complementarity which it is not possible thoroughly to understand by one-sided application either of physical or of psychological laws... only a renunciation in this respect will enable us to comprehend... that harmony that is experienced as free will and analyzed in terms of causality... The real problem is: how can that part of reality that begins with consciousness be combined with those parts that are treated in physics and chemistry? Here we obviously have a genuine case of complementarity [35].
Bohr's colleague, Werner Heisenberg, author of the uncertainty principal, expressed a very similar recognition:
We realize that the situation of complementarity is not confined to the atomic world alone; we meet it when we reflect about a decision and the motives for our decision, or when we have the choice for enjoying music and analyzing its structure [36].
They were joined in this generalization by Wolfgang Pauli, most celebrated for his "Exclusion Principle," but perhaps more importantly for our purpose, for his collaboration with Carl Jung on the concept of "sychronicity." Pauli wrote:
On the one hand, the idea of complementarity in modern physics has demonstrated to us, in a new kind of synthesis, that the contradiction in the applications of the old contrasting conceptions (such as particle and wave) is only apparent; on the other hand, the employability of old alchemical ideas in the psychology of Jung points to a deeper unity of physical and psychical occurrences. To us... the only acceptable point of view appears to be to the one that recognizes both sides of reality — the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical — as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously... It would be most satisfactory of all if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality [37].
While it may be presumptive to embellish this wisdom, it is our opinion that the powerful philosophical extension of the principle of complementary into the domain of human consciousness that Bohr first proposed propagates its roots even more deeply into the subjective foundations of modern science than even he may have imagined. Objective science, in its neoclassical format, and subjective science, as we now propose it, should be regarded as two complementary ethics, fundamentally united by the yearning of the human consciousness for understanding of its relationship to the cosmos and for participation in the creation of reality, although necessarily distinguished by the tactical approaches employed in pursuing these goals. Thus, objective science, launching itself from the sharp distinction between self and non-self implicit in its Aristotelian heritage, must continue to utilize its ability to discriminate, to isolate, and to represent elements of reality via precise observation and dispassionate logic. Subjective science should complement this thrust by acknowledging and utilizing the innate consciousness strategies of association and assimilation to achieve a unity of self and not-self, in its search for a participatory role in the mechanics of creation. Failure to recognize and utilize the essential complementarity between these objective and subjective strategies andpurposes of consciousness within an integrated scientific method will ultimately frustrate any research, experimental or theoretical, that attempts to comprehend either the dimensions of human consciousness or the subtleties of the physical world.
| |
