My Book

My Book
Donate $39 and I'll send you my book.

Translate

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Jungian Psychology, Animal Telepathy
& the “Science of Consciousness”


The following article, under the above title, was published in today’s Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS) on-line discussion group:

[Moderator(s): In conformity with requirements set out by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [and with no expectation it will be quickly or widely recognized as being “crazy enough to have a chance of being correct” (Niels Bohr)], the following essay postulates the existence of a non-spatial—and, thus, species non-specific—3rd dimension of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; a dimension of consciousness within the context of which the current paradigm of the (‘classical’) “science of consciousness” is to be understood as a ‘special case’ (focusing exclusively upon the consciousness of the ‘thinker’) of a more all-inclusive description of consciousness based upon the acknowledgement of three rather than only one dimension of consciousness; a description of consciousness which extends the range of applicability of the ‘classical’ “science of consciousness” to Jungian psychology and, for example, animal presentiment and telepathy.]

The original goal of classical physics was to establish the fundamental laws for describing the structure and contents of the space-time physical reality, rather than merely to maintain and preserve the paradigm of classical physics itself as the reigning paradigm for the determination of all physical theory. And it was for this reason that the classical physicists of the early-to-mid 20th century—who, interestingly enough, placed more importance upon the development of an all-inclusive physical theory than upon merely the preservation of classical physics—widely, but not immediately, acknowledged the validity of both the Michelson-Morley experiment and the discoveries of Einstein and Heisenberg.

In other words, in order that the original goal of classical physics be achieved at all, it was eventually found to be necessary to set aside classical physics itself in favor of a more inclusive physical theory with a wider range of applicability; a physical theory including classical physics, relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

Similarly, the ultimate goal of science is to achieve an all-inclusive description of both the physical reality and the totality of human (and animal) consciousness and experience, rather than merely to maintain and preserve the scientific method as the unassailable and reigning paradigm for the complete and accurate description of the physical-conscious reality.

In other words, just as it eventually became necessary to acknowledge both relativity theory and quantum mechanics in order to more closely achieve the original goal of classical physics to establish a complete physical theory, it may very well also be necessary to set aside the entire paradigm (and the fundamental rules) of the scientific method itself in order to actually achieve, not merely in theory but in reality, the ultimate goal of science; that is, an all-inclusive understanding of both the physical and the conscious reality which includes information which is as different from, and outside the paradigm and conceptual boundaries of the scientific method (and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’), as relativity theory and quantum mechanics are different from and beyond the frame of reference of classical physics. (In other words, it is, perhaps, the very assumptions, pre-conceptions and psychological-conceptual structures of the scientific method itself—for example, the uni-directionality of time in a forward direction; the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness itself to only the “self”, the ‘thinker’, and the members of the human species; and the singular, excessive and exclusive reliance upon the certainty, reproducibility, predictability and reliability of experimental results as necessary for the unambiguous description of scientific reality—which are now providing the main stumbling blocks to revolutionary developments in both theoretical physics and the understanding of both human and animal consciousness.)

Thus, the existence of, in particular, the “science of consciousness” within the framework of the scientific method necessarily raises an important question crucial not only to the future development of the “science of consciousness”; but, also, to the very future of the scientific method itself as the reigning paradigm for the most complete and accurate description of both the physical and the conscious reality:

What, precisely, is the ultimate goal of a “science of consciousness”?

Is that goal merely to arrive at an understanding of consciousness from strictly within the framework of the scientific method itself—that is, to maintain and preserve the status of the scientific method as the only paradigm capable of providing a complete and accurate understanding of both human and animal consciousness and experience? Or is its purpose, instead, to actually acquire a deeper understanding of consciousness than that which can be provided from within the confines of the scientific method; that is, an understanding which also includes information from outside of a rigidly scientific paradigm, but which is just as important to the understanding of the entirety of human and animal consciousness and experience as was the inclusion of relativity theory and quantum mechanics in the development of a more inclusive physical theory?

Now, to begin with, it must be acknowledged that both the scientific method and the “science of consciousness” originate in the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, and the assumption that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is both the fundamental datum of human experience and the ‘inertial frame of reference’ for the complete and accurate description of both the entire physical and conscious reality; a consciousness and an assumption which, in turn, are based upon the metaphysical duality and the philosophy of Descartes. And it is on this basis that the findings of, especially, Jung and the other archetypal psychologists with regards to the consciousness of the “self” (see, for example, the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes) are, to this day, widely trivialized, disregarded and ignored (but no less so than the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis and Parapsychology) as being ‘unscientific’; and, thus, utterly and completely irrelevant to any emergent “science of consciousness”.

In other words, it was only natural that, from its very inception from within the conceptual framework of Cartesian philosophy and the scientific method, the “science of consciousness” would deny, trivialize and ignore the reality of the “mutually exclusive in a complementary way” (Quantum Physics and Ordinary Language, Bergstein) consciousness of the “self” (and its obvious relevance to the understanding of human consciousness, as well as its possible validity in the establishing of, specifically, a “science” of consciousness) and focus, instead, upon exclusively the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; the real question now being whether the scientists of consciousness will continue to “circle the wagons” (by focusing exclusively on the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and its scientific descriptions of, exclusively, human consciousness), or whether the information with regards to both the consciousness of the “self” and animal consciousness will, instead, be acknowledged, considered, and incorporated within a more inclusive ‘science’ of consciousness beyond both the ‘classical’ “science of consciousness” and the human consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.

But there is, in fact, a much more serious problem (than even acknowledging the reality of the consciousness of the “self”) which must be encountered by any “science of consciousness” which seriously purports to describe the entirety of both human and animal consciousness; even a ‘science’ of consciousness which has become more complete (even if less ‘scientific’ or ‘classical’) by acknowledging, also, the reality of the consciousness of the “self”. And that has to do with those ‘Johnny-come-lately’ findings of Reverse Speech Analysis and Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics [in the context of decades of research demonstrating the validity of presentiment, pre-cognition, extra-sensory perception and/or clairvoyance in humans (The Power of Premonitions, Dossey and Extraordinary Knowing, Mayer) as well as animals; see, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo0gyXZQv0o&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0V6KBzIhu4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYkoQ9WnwAM&feature=related ];

which clearly demonstrate the existence of information which, although of immediate relevance to the understanding of consciousness, not only flies in the face of both the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method and the “science of consciousness”; but, also, threatens the very existence of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ itself which is based upon the assumption of both the uni-directionality of time and the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness to only the “self”, the ‘thinker’, and the members of the human species.

And what I have observed over the past few years is that the fundamental goal of those presently involved in the “science of consciousness” is certainly not to develop any all-inclusive understanding of human (to say nothing of animal) consciousness; but, rather, merely to preserve the scientific method itself (and, not coincidentally, to prevent their own consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ from collapsing into psychosis); which necessarily requires the trivialization of the reality of not only the consciousness of the “self” (which, of course, is the consciousness that experiences psychosis in the first place); but, also, a non-spatial (or 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space)—and, thus, species non-specific—time-independent consciousness; the existence of which is made necessary by the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis, Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics and Parapsychology.

In other words, the only description of consciousness which is, in any way, seriously capable of actually achieving the ultimate goal of the “science of consciousness” in the description of both human and animal consciousness is a description of consciousness which is based upon the acknowledgement that there are not merely one or two; but, in fact, three dimensions of consciousness:

1) the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—symbolized by the “fig leaves” in Genesis 3:7 (see, also, Saying #37 in the Gospel of Thomas), and by the Third Seal (6:5-6) and the “beast of the earth” in Revelations 13:11 and Sura 27:82 of the Quran;

2) the consciousness of the “self”—symbolized by the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 3:3-6, and by the Second Seal (6:3-4) and the “beast of the sea” in Revelations 13:1 (which, together with the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, comprise the dualistic or ‘fallen’ consciousness); and,

3) a non-dualistic, 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space (and, thus, species non-specific), time-independent, “observing consciousness” Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27)— symbolized by the First Seal in Revelations 6:1-2, and represented by the “Tree of Life” in Genesis 3:24, which symbolizes the Vision of the “Son of man”/the “Vision of Knowledge”/the “Night Journey” of Mohammed.

Michael Cecil