Dynamic relationships create heaven and earth

Affirming heaven requires new ways of understanding science and reality. Fritjof Capra's explanation of systems theory is a bridge to a more holistic understanding. He writes: “In science, the language of systems theory, and especially the theory of living systems, seems to provide the most appropriate formulation of the new ecological paradigm. Since living systems cover such a wide range of phenomena—individual organisms, social systems, and ecosystems—the theory provides a common framework and language for biology, psychology, medicine, economics, ecology, and many other sciences, a framework in which the so urgently needed ecological perspective is explicitly manifest.

“The conceptual framework of contemporary physics, and especially those aspects (suggesting a new metaphysics is needed), may be seen as a special case of the systems approach, dealing with nonliving systems and exploring the interface between nonliving and living systems. It is important to recognize, I believe, that in the new paradigm physics is no longer the model and source of metaphors for the other sciences. Even though the paradigm shift in physics is still of special interest, since it was the first to occur in modern science, physics has now lost its role as the science providing the most fundamental description of reality.

“I would now like to specify what I mean by the systems approach. To do so, I shall identify five criteria of systems thinking that, I claim, hold for all the sciences—the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. I shall formulate each criterion in terms of the shift from the old to the new paradigm, and I will illustrate the five criteria with examples from contemporary physics. However, since the criteria hold for all the sciences, I could equally well illustrate them with examples from biology, psychology, or economics.

“1. Shift from the part to the whole. In the old paradigm, it is believed that in any complex system the dynamics of the whole can be understood from the properties of the parts. The parts themselves cannot be analyzed any further, except by reducing them to still smaller parts. Indeed, physics has been progressing in that way, and at each step there has been a level of fundamental constituents that could not be analyzed any further.

“In the new paradigm, the relationship between the parts and the whole is reversed. The properties of the parts can be understood only from the dynamics of the whole. In fact, ultimately there are no parts at all. What we call a part is merely a pattern in an inseparable web of relationships. The shift from the part to the whole was the central aspect of the conceptual revolution of quantum physics in the 1920s.

“2. Shift from structure to process. In the old paradigm, there are fundamental structures, and then there are forces and mechanisms through which these interact, thus giving rise to processes. In the new paradigm, every structure is seen as the manifestation of an underlying process. The entire web of relationships is intrinsically dynamic. The shift from structure to process is evident, for example, when we remember that mass in contemporary physics is no longer seen as measuring the fundamental substance but rather as a form of energy, that is, as measuring activity or processes.

“3. Shift from objective to ‘epistemic’ science. In the old paradigm, scientific descriptions are believed to be objective, that is, independent of the human observer and the process of knowing. In the new paradigm, it is believed that epistemology—the understanding of the process of knowledge—has to be included explicitly in the description of natural phenomena. This recognition entered into physics with Heisenberg and is closely related to the view of physical reality as a web of relationships. Whenever we isolate a pattern in this network and define it as a part, or an object, we do so by cutting through some of its connections to the rest of the network, and this may be done in different ways. As Heisenberg put it, ‘What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.’

“4. Shift from ‘building’ to ‘network’ as metaphor of knowledge. The metaphor of knowledge as a building has been used in Western science and philosophy for thousands of years. There are fundamental laws, fundamental principles, basic building blocks, and so on. The edifice of science must be built on firm foundations.

“In the new paradigm, the metaphor of knowledge as a building is being replaced by that of a network. Since we perceive reality as a network of relationships, our descriptions, too, form an interconnected network of concepts and models in which there are no foundations. Things exist by virtue of their mutually consistent relationships, and all of physics has to follow uniquely from the requirement that its components be consistent with one another and with themselves.

“Since there are no foundations in the network, the phenomena described by physics are not any more fundamental than those described, for example, by biology or psychology. They belong to different systems levels, but none of those levels is any more fundamental than the others.

“5. Shift from truth to approximate descriptions. Scientists do not deal with truth in the sense of a precise correspondence between the description and the described phenomena. They deal with limited and approximate descriptions of reality. Heisenberg wrote in Physics and Philosophy, ‘The often discussed lesson that has been learned from modern physics (is) that every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.’

 

Fritjof Capra, “Systems Theory and the New Paradigm” in Carolyn Merchant, editor, Ecology: Key Concepts in Critical Theory (Humanities Press, 1994), 334-341.

A holistic or ecological worldview of reality

This is an excellent summary of a new scientific paradigm and a challenging new social worldview that is gaining acceptance in the twenty-first century. Even as there was nothing inevitable about the mechanistic paradigm of science, there is nothing inevitable about the survival and contribution to the evolution of human civilization of this new paradigm. It makes sense to me, however, and informs my writings about ethics and consciousness, as well as my self-understanding and interpretation of near-death experiences. So I am sharing it on this blog.

Physicist Fritjof Capra writes: “What we are seeing today is a shift of paradigms not only within science but also in the larger social arena. To analyze that cultural transformation, I have generalized Kuhn’s account of a scientific paradigm to that of a social paradigm, which I define as ‘a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions, and practices shared by a community, which form a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way the community organizes itself.’

“The social paradigm now receding has dominated our culture for several hundred years, during which it has shaped our modern Western society and has significantly influenced the rest of the world. This paradigm consists of a number of ideas and values, among them the view of the universe as a mechanical system composed of elementary building blocks, the view of the human body as a machine, the view of life in a society as a competitive struggle for existence, the belief in unlimited material progress to be achieved through economic and technological growth and—last but not least—the belief that a society, in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male, is one that follows from some basic law of nature. During recent decades all of these assumptions have been found severely limited and in need of radical revision.

“Indeed, such a revision is now taking place. The emerging new paradigm may be called a holistic, or an ecological, worldview, using the term ecological here in a much broader and deeper sense than it is commonly used. Ecological awareness, in that deep sense, recognizes the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena and the embeddedness of individuals and societies in the cyclical processes of nature.

“Ultimately, deep ecological awareness is spiritual or religious awareness. When the concept of the human spirit is understood as the mode of consciousness in which the individual feels connected to the cosmos as a whole, which is the root meaning of the word religion (from the Latin religare, meaning ‘to bind strongly’), it becomes clear that ecological awareness is spiritual in its deepest essence. It is, therefore, not surprising that the emerging new vision of reality, based on deep ecological awareness, is consistent with the ‘perennial philosophy’ of spiritual traditions, for example, that of Eastern spiritual traditions, the spirituality of Christian mystics, or with the philosophy and cosmology underlying the Native American traditions.

Fritjof Capra, “Systems Theory and the New Paradigm” in Carolyn Merchant, editor, Ecology: Key Concepts in Critical Theory (Humanities Press, 1994), 334-341.

LeShan: field theory and the soul

Psychologist Lawrence LeShan writes. “In the field theory world-picture, events ‘are,’ and we—so to speak—stumble across them as we perceive narrow successive ‘slices’ of the space-time totality. In science, the goal of understanding the nature of reality, Max Planck concludes, is ‘theoretically unobtainable.’ What we can legitimately ask is: ‘What logically follows if we can conceive reality to be structured in certain ways and proceed as, if it were so structured? What happens, what do we observe, and what can we learn and accomplish?’”

Meister Eckhardt puts it this way:  “The soul has something within it, a spark of super-sensual knowledge that is never quenched. But there is also another knowledge in our souls, which is directed toward objects; namely knowledge of our senses and the understanding: this hides that other knowledge from us. The intuitive higher knowledge is timeless and spaceless, without any fear and now.”

LeShan concludes: “We can only fit our construct of the ‘I’ into the field theory viewpoint by conceptualizing it in a way that is harmonious with the rest of the model. To do this, we must conceptualize the ‘I’ as boundary-less in the continuum; as not being ‘separate from’ or ‘isolated from’ the rest of ‘what is’; as not being limited by specific events such as the perceived ceasing of biological activity.

“From the field-theory viewpoint, it is not only the mystic, who exists as an organic part of the total space-time continuum, but all ‘entities,’ ‘unities,’ ‘objects,’ and ‘events.’ They exist ‘always’ in the total field that constitutes the cosmos, although they may be outside the range of perception. In this conceptualization the term ‘now’ has no real meaning.

“In this sense, field theory leads as inexorably to a concept of surviving biological death as classical physics does to a concept of total annihilation at bodily death. In the sense that all things that ‘were,’ ‘are,’ or ‘will be’ exist forever in the continuum, the individual continues to be. Relatedness is primary; individuality is secondary, but very real.

“There is a sense of peace, of ‘rightness,’ of being completely at home in the universe. There is a knowledge that time and space are illusions of the senses and that one is boundary-less in the continuum. One knows he is not confined within the limits of his skin and not dependent on the body for existence, and that the usual belief that this is so is illusion—which one’s vision now penetrates.

“Our ordinary perception of the creation and annihilation of the individual at birth and death is not made from a ‘privileged position’ from which we see objectively. It is [instead] the view from one limited position, and objectivity can only be reached with a theoretical description in which the laws governing reality remain invariant no matter what the position of the observer is.

“In conceptualizing the problem of survival from a field theory viewpoint, it is important not to confuse structure and function. We are tempted, because of our common-sense orientation, to ask, ‘What survives?’ implying that the answer be given in terms of structure rather than in functional (relational) terms.

“The easy confusion between these two is illustrated by the famous story about Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was asked, ‘What is a mathematical point?’ He replied, ‘A mathematical point is a place to start an argument!’

“His answer is more profound than it might appear at first glance. A mathematical point has no length, breath, or thickness. The question implies an answer in terms of structure that cannot be given. Wittgenstein’s answer wrenched the problem back to its proper frame of reference—to the functional qualities of the point and away from the invalid implications of structure.

“In a similar vein is the incident in which the mystic Jacob Boehme was asked, ‘Where does the soul go when the body dies?’ He replied, ‘There is no necessity for it to go anywhere.’”

Lawrence LeShan, The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist: Toward a General Theory of the Paranormal (The Viking Press, 1974).

Seeing "All in all" . . . in the "eternal now"

Groundbreaking scientists in the twentieth century, LeShan writes, recognized that new insights into physical reality required a new concept of wholeness. Max Planck affirms that in modern mechanics: “it is impossible to obtain an adequate version of the laws for which we are looking, unless the physical system is regarded as a whole. According to modern mechanics, each individual particle of the system, in a certain sense, at any one time, exists simultaneously in every part of the space occupied by the system. This simultaneous existence applies not merely to the field of force with which it is surrounded, but also its mass and its charge.”

Einstein explains: “Before Clerk Maxwell, people conceived of physical reality—insofar as it supposed to represent events in nature—as material points, whose changes consist exclusively of motions [but] after Maxwell they conceived physical reality as represented by continuous fields, not mechanically explicable. This change in the conception of reality is the most profound and fruitful one in physics since Newton.”

Physicist Werner Heisenberg asserts that: “The world thus appears as a complicated tissue of events, in which connections of different kinds alternate or overlap or combine and thereby determine the texture of the whole.” And physicist Louis de Broglie observes: “In space-time, everything which for each of us constitutes the past, the present and the future is given in block, and the entire collection of events, successive for each of us which forms the existence of a material particle is represented by a line, the world line of the particle. Each observer, as his time passes, discovers, so to speak, new slices of space-time, which appear to him as successive aspects of the material world, though in reality the ensemble of events constituting space-time exist prior to his knowledge of them.”

LeShan finds it striking that neither the mystic nor the modern physicist “can describe his data adequately in the ordinary language of commonsense.” Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer explains: “you know that when a student of physics makes his first acquaintance with the theory of atomic structure and of quanta, he must come to the rather deep and slow notion which has turned out to be the clue to unraveling that whole domain of physical experience. This is the notion of complementarity, which recognizes that the various ways of talking about experience may each have validity, and may each be necessary for the adequate description of the physical world, and yet may stand in mutually exclusive relationship to each other, so that for a situation to which one applies, there may be no consistent possibility of applying the other.”

From her experience as a medium, Mrs. Eileen Garrett says: Awareness becomes concerned with stimuli that occur in a nonsensory field. I have an inner feeling of participating, in a very unified way, with what I observe—by which I mean that I have no sense of any subjective-objective dualism, no sense of I and any other, but a close association with, an immersion in, the phenomena. The ‘phenomena’ are therefore not phenomenal while they are in process; it is only after the event that the conscious mind, seeking to understand the experience in its own analytical way, devises the unity that, after all, is the nature of the supersensory event.

The ‘explanation’ given for precognition in this theory,” she continues, “is that in this metaphysical system pastness, presentness, and futurity do not exist, although sequences of events remain. (That is to say that there are object-object relationships, or sequences, but not subject-object relationships.) The only time is ‘the eternal now.’ Events are, they do not happen, although we may or may not stumble across them.

Christian mystic Meister Eckhardt observes: “When is a man in mere understanding?” I answered, “When he sees one thing separate from another.” “And when is a man above mere understanding?” That I can tell you: “When a man sees All in all, then a man stands beyond mere understanding.”

Lawrence LeShan, The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist (The Viking Press, 1974), 66-85.

Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism, 4th ed. (Methuen & Co., 1912).

 

Lawrence LeShan: Clairvoyant Realty

Lawrence LeShan received a Ph.D. in Human Development from the University of Chicago and taught at Roosevelt University and the New School for Social Research. He conducted parapsychological research in the 1960s and 1970s and in 1974 published How to Meditate. In the 1980s LeShan shifted his focus to psychotherapy for cancer patients. LeShan was one of the first scholars to write about the similar experiences of mediums and mystics. In this book he adds insights from quantum mechanics to his reflections.

LeShan begins by quoting the early twentieth century medium, Mrs. Eileen Garrett, as saying: On clairvoyant levels there exists simultaneity of time, and the clairvoyant message may concern future events and future relationships which today seem impossible, or meaningless to the person to whom they are revealed. Garrett also affirms: What I see in clairvoyance is neither good nor is it right. It is. It is inevitable.

LeShan identifies this extraordinary knowing as the Clairvoyant Reality: “the best way is not the way of the senses. Since everything—including the observers (you and I)—is primarily and fundamentally related to and a part of everything else—then the best way of gaining information about something is to accept this ‘oneness,’ to accept that you and it are the same thing, and then you ‘know’ about it in the same way you ordinarily know about yourself through self-observation.”[1]

LeShan quotes Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941), an English Anglo-Catholic writer on Christian mysticism: “The act of contemplation is for the mystic a psychic gateway: a method of going from one level of consciousness to another. In technical language it is the condition under which he shifts his ‘field of perception’ and obtains his characteristic outlook on the universe.”[2]

In Garrett’s words: there are certain concentrations of consciousness in which awareness is withdrawn as far as possible from the impact of all sensory perceptions. What happens to us at this time is that, as we withdraw from the environing world, we relegate the activities of the five senses to the field of the subconscious, and seek to focus awareness (to the best of our ability) in the field of the superconscious—the timeless, spaceless field of the as-yet-unknown.”[3]

Psychiatrist Kurt Goldstein writes: “I have come to the conclusion that man always lives in two spheres of experience: the sphere in which subject and object are experienced as separate and only secondarily related, and another one in which he experiences oneness with the world.”

 

1 Lawrence LeShan, The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist, 35-39.

2 Ibid., 42-43. Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism, 4th ed. (Methuen & Co., 1912), 49.

3 LeShan, The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist, 57.

 

Lawrence LeShan, The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist: Toward a General Theory of the Paranormal (The Viking Press, 1974).

Jeffrey Long’s NDE research: God as love & light

 The differences that NDE survivors describe are as striking as the similarities. Each experience reflects the personal background of the person, as well as their culture and their exposure (or not) to explicit religious teachings and practices. Many speak of God in ways that reflect an awareness of Christian teaching. Yet, NDEs do not confirm Christian or other monotheistic teachings about God’s judgment or demands for worship. NDE survivors who speak of God do not cite commandments or report any threat of divine punishment for falling short of religious or spiritual teachings.

One NDE survivor reports: The entire encounter was about God, the ultimate power of God, and God’s forgiveness. The message was, “Love is the greatest power in the universe.” {GA, 50}

Another affirms: I’m not afraid of death. Now I know that we are all connected and that each of us is made of light and we are all “God” on earth. I didn’t believe in God and now I accept that we all come from the same light and are part of the light. {GA, 177}

The affirmation that God is Light and the Light is Love is not directly a Christian or monotheistic teaching, nor is the conviction that we are all one with God.

I was one with God, an NDE survivor recalls, or the Collective Soul, Father Sky, a Higher Power, whatever label you wish to attach to it. It was perfect love. {GA, 89}

This kind of experience has led many NDE survivors to feel more spiritual than religious, as the teachings of each religious tradition and community seem to require beliefs in divine attributes and required practices that their near-death experience revealed to them were not only unnecessary but impediments to simply living their faith in Love by being more loving.

I saw my childhood and felt the emotions my actions created in others. I learned that many of the things I thought I did “wrong” were not necessarily wrong. I also learned of opportunities to love others that I passed up. I learned that no matter what has been done to me, there is more to the story than my ego might not see or understand. My life has changed because I take into account more the feelings of others when I act. {EA, 114}

All of the sudden I floated out of my body. I felt free and peaceful, and I had no pain I looked down and they were doing CPR on me. I continued to float up, and a beautiful tunnel appeared with a bright light at the end of it. The light was brighter than the sun, pure and white, but it didn’t hurt my eyes. I feel so many emotions recalling the experience, but nothing can really express those feelings. Everything was “pure”—the brightest colors—like a filter had been removed and I could see the purity of everything. Then I turned and saw what I believe was God. It was pure energy, and you could sense the great wisdom that was within. God told me that we all have to live in love, that I had to take back the message of love. We need to love one another and help one another. Meeting God and his speaking to me was that blanket of love. I use the male pronoun but there was no gender. The feeling of the love being wrapped around me, the brilliant colors, and the connection—now I try to spread God’s message of love. {GA, 74-76}

The notion that we have come from a higher Consciousness and after life on earth will return to this “home” is a very old idea, which is rejected not only by science and secular culture but also by many who are active in religious communities that emphasize a religious calling to work for peace and social justice. Yet, it is a crucial element of the near-death experience, and sustaining for many survivors trying to live their lives on earth “in the Light” until they die and are “back home” again.

Wendy writes: When I went through the light all my dead relatives were there. I knew everyone even though I hadn’t met them before. They were so happy to see me and welcomed me home. {GA, 74}

And another NDE survivor remembers: I saw a bright light that was a thousand times brighter than the sun and felt that the rays shining down on me were made of peace, love, and serenity. I was safe, I was home, and I belonged. Yes, God was the light I saw. {GA, 85}

{GA} - Jeffrey Long, God and the Afterlife: The Groundbreaking New Evidence for God and Near-Death Experience (2016).

{EA} – Jeffrey Long, Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences (2010)

NDEs affirm God's power and may threaten hell

Jeffrey Long in his book God and the Afterlife: The Groundbreaking New Evidence for God and Near-Death Experience (2016) reports on research conducted by the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF).

Hell

“Hellish NDEs are dramatically different from the overwhelming majority of NDEs. They are also completely outside the life experience of nearly all people. However, frightening and even hellish NDEs do exist.” {GA, 157}

Frances’ experience after she had taken narcotic medication to kill herself: As they were taking me to the hospital, my heart stopped and from outside of my body I watched them do CPR on me. As we arrived at the hospital, I began to descend into darkness. I was falling down a very dark tunnel. Demons appeared around me, and even though I was spirit—my body had stayed at the hospital—they were going through the motions of ripping my flesh off. It was intensely painful. As I went deeper and deeper into Hell, I saw many historical figures, and last, my father. My father welcomed me to Hell, and I thought, “This is it for me. My life on earth is over, and I’ve ended up in Hell.” I didn’t think getting out of Hell would be a possibility, but suddenly I started to go back up the tunnel toward my body. But I didn’t return completely. I stayed apart from my body and watched the doctors work on it. As my vital signs returned, I was pulled toward my body and then into it. {GA, 166-167}

“Frances described her life after her attempted suicide as one of regaining her zeal for life and adding newly found compassion.” Before this experience I did not care about anyone. I was a nurse with no compassion (except when caring for people in hospice). Nowadays I care much about others and try to help whenever possible. {GA, 167}

Long comments that these frightening experiences, as with Frances, “can lead to the same level of positive transformation as those NDEs that might be described as pleasant.”  And he adds, “I never read an NDE describing God casting the NDEr into an irredeemable hellish realm.” {GA, 171}

Power

Long reminds us that: “Many traditional religious stories emphasize the deity’s overwhelming power—whether it is Zeus sending storms of the biblical God destroying Sodom. But in reviewing the near-death experiences that discuss encountering God,” Long says, there are “almost no descriptions of God dramatically demonstrating destructive power.” Long says he cannot recall, “any descriptions in the NDEs of God using power to harm any being. However, descriptions of the power of God are unmistakable when reading near-death experiences.” {GA, 173}

I realized I had entered a new dimension of consciousness. I suddenly realized that I was in the control of some being so powerful it was overwhelming. It was the God that I tried so hard to believe in on earth. {GA, 174}

I became aware of a presence vast and unimaginable, everywhere and everything, the beginning and the end, and he was Love. I came to know that Love is a power to rival all powers—real and perceived—in the universe. {GA, 174}

I wanted to know what to call this light form. It was a pure form of energy. It began to tell me some of the many names for God that our world cultures use. I said that “God” worked for me, even though in my life I didn’t know whether I believed in God. I recognized that many of the people I knew would have called it God. We began to communicate. Where was I? Home, familiar place, somewhere I had been many times before. The light wanted to know what I was doing there; I wanted to know too. {GA, 176}

The Goldenness was all-knowing wisdom, whereas the sheer clarity of the Brilliant Light was what one may call “God.” However, it seems to me that we are incorrect to name such Sacred Holiness and power. I can only say that I have witnessed the ultimate of all that is, was, and ever shall be; yet I can’t name that which can’t be described. {GA, 177}

Cynthia’s NDE at age twelve: The being was God. I asked Him whether only people of one religion will make it into heaven. He said everyone who believes and has faith, even those who don’t think they do, will make it. It depends on what’s in their hearts. {GA, 181}

“It is important to note that near-death experiencers in the God Study come from every walk of life. Among these NDErs are physicians, scientists, nurses, teachers, business executives, homemakers, children, pastors, and others. From these varied backgrounds comes a collection of similar experiences of God and the divine. As a scientist,” Long reports, “I find this not only statistically remarkable, but also hopeful. It suggests that life is not random. And the NDErs agree. Here are just a few NDErs’ thoughts on their renewed sense of life and meaning after their near-death experience.” {GA, 194}

All we need on earth is our belief and faith in God to love, forgive, and accept one another. God loves all creatures. {GA, 195}

We can learn and grow, ultimately learning the power we have within us to create our lives if we honor our calling, our divine purpose. {GA, 195}

I came to understand that life is an opportunity for us to express and experience love. {GA, 195}

“Confounding description even more is the all-inclusive nature of the love these NDE explorers felt. They describe this love as being the very essence of God. Hence, it is the very essence of all reality, the cosmos, life, all things. It is our essence. The light, or energy, behind all creation is or consists of love.” {GA, 195}

Long concludes that: “in the investigation of the largest collection of near-death experiences to date, we see overwhelming evidence of God. This opens a door for science, for humanity, and for religion. Near-death experiences reveal that death is not an end, but an opening to a wonderful afterlife. I believe this is profoundly good news for all of us.” {GA, 196}

{GA} - Jeffrey Long, God and the Afterlife: The Groundbreaking New Evidence for God and Near-Death Experience (2016).