|
|
The Philosophical Implications of
Classical and Quantum Physics on Transpersonal Therapy in the Post Modern Era |
|
|
By Joseph Rivera, The current
focus of this paper, first off, sets out to establish and explain
transpersonal psychology as a more legitimate realm of Psychotherapy. I will
attempt to do so by grafting it alongside the more well-established stems of
science pertaining to the physics developed in both the classical and quantum
fields. By doing so I hope to force the reader to reevaluate everything they think they believe and know by pushing
this all out in a manner consistent just short of standing them upside down
on top of their heads. So, without further adieu, I shall begin. First there
was Copernicus who stated that the sun revolved around the earth; then,
nearly 2000 years later there was Galileo who changed that statement to the
Earth revolving around the sun. Then, when In the early
part of the 20th century, Einstein came out with his theory of
relativity and shook up So how can
people go on knowing that everything they do is already predetermined and
that nothing they do can change their inevitable outcome? What possible
therapeutic usage could that serve? Well, besides the fact that no body
really pays much attention to physicists or even knows what the theory of
relativity is exactly—besides possibly knowing that it was something thought
up by Einstein—luckily, that concept is no longer held true. Enter the world
of Quantum physics. Quantum
physics is extremely difficult to explain. It’s even more difficult to
understand. Some physicists have stated that’s its impossible to even explain
in pictures. However, I will attempt to do so anyways. Quantum physics or
Quantum mechanics first off was pioneered by Niels Bohr. It is basically the
study of the atom and how it works. Not to get into the math, it basically states that,
unlike So, what
does this mean and how does this apply to our concepts? Well, in this way, it
can be stated that we are in control of our destinies—that we do maintain
some ability to choose. In fact, every one of the choices we make in the
present—the total number of possibilities—create an equal number of possible
futures. (Deutsch, S. 2003.)
Basically, what this means is that if I were to, say, choose to want to, I
dunno, jump off a bridge—the outcome of whether I do or don’t are both
represented in two possible futures: the future where I jump and the future
where I don’t. No outcome—no matter how nonsensical—can be stated as exact,
and instead can only be stated as likely or possible. In fact (or in
possibility), in this same scenario, this concept of multiple universes even
leaves open the possibility that in one of my futures I jump and don’t die,
or that I jump and don’t even get hurt, no matter the height. Because, for
even the simplest of choices, there can be an infinite number of
possibilities. These possibilities can even exist all at the same time, and
it is only our perceptions that can cause one to be and not the rest. This is
sometimes referred to as the paradox of superposition of identical (infinite)
plane waves. (Kothari, L., S. 1970.) No example has this concept been
explained best than in the example of Schrödinger’s cat. (Lee, J., et., al.
2005.) According to Schrödinger’s cat, Schrödinger places his cat in a box
with a radioactive isotope with a half-life of about an hour. The box is
sealed and the cat can’t get out. After an hour, without looking in the box,
it is possible that the cat is dead and that the cat is alive at the same
time. It is only when I open the box and look at the cat does the cat then
become either dead or alive. Reality does not exist unless I am conscious of
it. Quantum
physics also poses the issue of entanglement. The quantum principle of
entanglement suggests a paradox which defies the law of locality—that one
event must come into contact with another event in order to alter its
possible future. The
best physical example of locality is the example of how pool balls must come
into contact to transfer their motion from one to the next. However, what
entanglement showed was that two separated electrons at the subatomic level
could be in complete unison despite not even being in the same area.
(Kim, H., et., al. 2003)
It would be as if a pool ball on one
side of the table (with-out even moving) caused another pool ball at the
other side of the table to go into the pocket (without physically
interacting). This seemed to infer some superluminal or telekinetic
transference of information, possibly even faster than the speed of light
because of its instantaneous nature. (Kim,
H., et., al. 2003) Stated in a
more appropriate way, another experiment called the field of safe travel
(Kadar, E., E. 2005), explains how individuals when they drive are able to
make non-localized judgments based on perceptual cues in accordance with
their eye movements. “On a straight road, novice
drivers drive slowly and often look at the road close to the car; whereas
experienced drivers drive faster and look farther ahead. […] the field of
safe travel [thus] is a non-local contact field between the driver and the environment
in which the environmental layout acts as a perceptual constraint on drivers’
speed and steering. Because speed
depends to a considerable extent on the driver’s capabilities, the length and
width of the field may be modified by skill level.” (Kadar, E., E. 2005) This explains a few things: it shows how we are able to
make decisions almost instaneously—that is if we allow our automatic
processes to take over and are extremely adept and skillful—without having to
be shoved, prodded, pushed, or even talked to. Taken to its logical
conclusion, the other thing this shows is that we are still subject to the
theory of relativity, in that even if I were the most skillful driver in the
universe and allowed my automatic processes to create some response at the
exact same moment I received that visual cue, i.e., a person pulling out in
front of me, my actions would still not be considered as instaneous as they
rely on my perceptions which are subject to the speed of light. Meaning my
eyes still rely on light to see, so I can’t see something faster than light
is able to travel. It is only if I act before the light reaches my eyes to
coincide at the exact moment in time in complete unison with the actual
physical cue, i.e., the person pulling out not just the perception of it. Because of
all this, we can conclude two things: (1) that we are all possibly somehow
connected to one another through our very actions, perceptions, and even our
basic fundamental elements, and (2) the possibility that reality is consciousness,
as the atoms themselves seem to be based more on an abstract concept of
thought than actual physical matter. (Henry, R., C. 2005) This latter
conclusion is kind of abstract, so let me go a little further. According to
the renowned physicist and astronomer, Sir James Jeans, “[…] the Universe
begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no
longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter…we ought
rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”
(Henry, R., C. 2005) This can lead one back to the philosophy of Descartes
who stated, “I think therefore I am.” With this mindset, it is possible that
we are literally in total control of our futures. It is nice to believe that
the only thing that separates a super hero from a regular person is that the
super hero chooses to be super. This brings new meaning to the question,
“What would Jesus do?”
Unfortunately, despite the fact that we are made up of atoms and atoms
are subjected to the rules of quantum physics—and that reality as a whole is
simply just a thought, a culmination of all of our thoughts, or maybe, even
possibly, completely non-existent—as I had alluded to previously, with the
example about our visual fields, we as biological creatures don’t seem to be
ruled by these laws—or at least not cognitively. In fact, our neurological
systems are much too big. (Koch,
C., et. al, 2006.) “Although brains obey quantum
mechanics, they do not seem to exploit any of its special features. […] Two
key bio physical operations underlie information processing in the brain:
chemical transmission across the synaptic cleft, and the generation of action
potentials. […] Both processes will destroy any coherent quantum states.
Thus, spiking neurons (the neurons responsible for communication) can only
receive and send classical, rather than quantum, information. […] It is far
more likely that the material basis of consciousness can be understood within
a purely neurobiological frame-work…” (Koch, C., et. al, 2006.) Though this basically implies that we must abide by the
classical rules of physics—i.e., we can’t walk on water, fly through the air,
read each other’s minds, or move or bend spoons with just our thoughts—we do
still physically apply to the first previously stated quantum concept of
interconnectedness. (Davies,
P. 2001.) This is the concept I had mentioned before in which we are all
possibly somehow connected to one another through our basic fundamental
elements, and it is also where the quantum physical meets the mystical
(Bozarth, J., D. 1985.)—the concept that we are no longer alone in the
universe. According to Bozarth, “[…] in modern physics the
universe is thus experienced as a dynamic, inseperable whole which always
includes the observer in an essential way. In this experience the traditional
concepts of space and time, of isolated objects, and of cause and effect lose
their meaning. Such an experience, however, is very similar to that of
Eastern mystics.” (Bozarth,
J., D. 1985.) This may or may not imply that we have some actual all
knowing God presiding over our actions, but it does imply that we live in a
very symmetrical, give-and-take, quid pro quo, symbiotic world in which we do
not, nor can we exist independently from one another. Science as a
whole holds to it the advantage of being empirical and based on well thought
out and provable theory. In accordance with classical physics (to include
both the Newtonian and Relativistic fields), though a lot of it has been
disproved, many parts of it are still in use and being applied today. As for
Quantum physics, science can never be truly empirical, and the further you
get into it, or the smaller in nature in which you’re referring to, i.e., at
the level smaller than quarks and particles, it is simply theoretical and is
currently outside the range of empirical scientific research; however, what
areas that have been explored, i.e., at the level of particle physics and
larger, have never been shown to be false. Further research has only further
shown its reliability and validity. (Gribbin,
J. 1994.) As such, the philosophical implications of classical and Quantum
physics on Post modern therapy for the client (as far as I’ve been able to
deduce) are as follows:
Also, as this applies to the therapist, to lead a life
with a complete or at least basic knowledge of Classical and Quantum physics
can not only help to stimulate the imagination, but it can also lead to the
very concepts stressed in transpersonal therapy. As such,
some transpersonal therapists take a more mystical stance asserting that in
order to feel truly happy we must somehow learn to attain spiritual
fulfillment. (Cowley, A., S. 1993) According to “[Spirituality is] the experience
of wholeness and integration, irrespective of religious belief or
affiliation. Spirituality is neither seen as a statement of belief nor as a
measure of church attendance; indeed, as defined by the transpersonal
approach, an atheist can have a profound spiritual life.” (cited by Cowley,
A., S. 1993) So, spirituality, by their terms, can best be seen
somewhat in the same light as what I’ve already set out in accordance with
interconnectedness and the concept that reality is consciousness—ascertaining
complete control over our own lives. According to Au-Deane Cowley, “Therapists who have no
descriptions, guidelines, or theory for transpersonal phenomena [i.e., the
unpredictability of the universe] must revert back to the only guidelines
they have—the reductionistic views of Freudian psychology, the mechanistic
views of behaviorism, or the third-force focus on self-actualization as the
highest goal of human growth and development.” (Cowley, A., S. 1993) These types of reversions are considered by transpersonal
accounts to be too limited in their view for the attainment of higher levels
of consciousness. (Cowley, A., S. 1993) If our prevailing cultural and
psychological models have underestimated what we are and what we can become
then perhaps we have set up a self-fulfilling, self-limiting prophecy. […]
shifting our self-concept may be one of the most strategic interventions for
personal and cultural transformation. (Cowley, A., S. 1993) Placed in another way, according to Ellie Pozatek, this limiting
of what is and what isn’t—or stated differently as when the therapist claims
to possess some all-knowing power and insight into what is and isn’t
happening in the client’s life—can be a huge detriment to the client’s actual
success in treatment. According to Pozatec, “[…] shared beliefs form the basis
for a consensus that, if unchallenged, becomes accepted as true. The problem
of this certainty is that the group’s beliefs determine what the group
considers possible—beliefs can either limit or expand the range of what the
group thinks can happen.” (Pozatek, E. 1994.) Pozatek then gives examples for how this can be truly
detrimental to include cases concerning: family problems, language deficits and
differences, and differing perceptions due to the client and therapist having
different cultures leading to misunderstandings. (Pozatek, E. 1994.) So, both
Pozatek and Cowley hold that the solution is merely just a change in
perspectives. According to Pozatec, “Human beings experience multiple,
and often conflicting realities. Social workers need to respect the complex
meanings an event can have for a particular person at a particular time.
Client’s lives are complicated; social workers must strive for an approach
that respects and includes that complexity if they are to be truly helpful.”
(Pozatek, E. 1994.) Also, they both seem to suggest that this transformation
is needed due to the fact that more and more of the issues of the day revolve
around more moral and philosophical issues to include political strife,
pandemics, and all other types of really nasty natural and/or human made
phenomena. According to Levin (1987) in his book Pathologies of the Modern Self, “Suffering in our society reflect
the unique relationship between the self and the social practices and
institutions to be found in a time of social and ethical transition. […]
transpersonal therapies have evolved to meet the personal and societal
challenges of the postmodern era, a time, when we are engaged in a race
between self-discovery and self-destruction.” (cited by Cowley, A., S. 1993) In the light of everything that seems to have been going
on recently these reflections be them based on physics or the mystics can no
longer be afforded to be ignored. Whole world encompassing issues are rising
up, and it is time that therapists learn to take them into account; it is
time they incorporated them into their practices to further shape the view
points and aspects of the current realms of psychotherapy in order to meet
the ever growing needs of their clients. According to Perry London (1986) in
his book The modes and morals of
Psychotherapy, “[…] as more individuals have
become healthy and affluent, their problems and symptoms seem more than ever
before to spring from an existential vacuum and to revolve around spiritual
and moral dilemmas. In fact, a case can be made that psychotherapy is a
moralistic as well as scientific enterprise in which therapists take the
roles of secular priests.” (cited by Cowley, A., S. 1993) It is not the same world it was 100 years ago when Freud
was around; it is not even the same world 30 years ago when “By their own theories of human
nature, psychologists have the power of elevating or degrading that same
nature. Debasing assumptions debase human beings; generous assumptions exalt
them.” (cited by Cowley, A., S. 1993) Therefore I base it as every therapist’s and
psychologist’s task, before they entail to put down or set out to disprove me
and my conclusions set forth in this paper and those in other papers
concerning transpersonal therapy, they first must learn to open their eyes
and look at the world around them that is established in a universe ruled by
the laws and theories well-established in the realms of Classical physics and
Quantum mechanics. Work Cited Baylis, W., E. Relativity in
introductory physics. Canadian Journal of Physics. 82 (11), 853-873. November
2004. Bozarth, J., D. Quantum theory and the person-centered approach.
Journal of counseling and development. 64, 179-182. 1985.
Cowley, A., S. Transpersonal
social work: a theory for the 1990s. Social Work. National association of
social workers. 38 (5), 527-534. September 1993.
Damour, T. The theoretical
significance of G. Measurement Science & Technology. 10 (6), 467-469.
June 1999.
Davies, P. Liquid Space. New
scientist. 172 (2315), 30-34. November 2001.
Deutsch, S. Astray amongst
multiple universes. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine. 22
(5), 128-130. 2003.
Gribbin, J. Uncertainty rules
in the quantum world. New scientist. 142, 18. 1994.
Henry, R., C. The mental
universe. Nature. Nature Publishing Group. 436, 29-30. 2005.
Kadar, E., E., Effken, J., A.
From discrete actors to goal-directed actions: toward a process-based
methodology for psychology. Philosophical Psychology. Taylor & Francis
Group. 18 (3), 353-382. June 2005.
Kim, H., Ko, J., Kim, T.
Two-particle interference experiment with frequency-entangled photon pairs.
Journal of the Optical Society of
|
|
|
|