of the scientific world view. I am not even sure that most of my professors were aware of their preconceived notions, as these notions are part and parcel of the traditional, unspoken outlook. Rigorous impartiality on their part was taken for granted, and assumptions dating back centuries were left unexamined and untaught.
It is curious, but some scientific biases have a distinctly Western quality, and their origins can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. For example, Chaos, the Goddess of Emptiness and Confusion, arises from Greek mythology; no self-respecting Taoist would embrace such a concept. Democritus is credited with introducing the interplay between chance and necessity, a concept that survives largely unchanged to this day. And Aristotle discussed “potentia,” or potential, paving the way for the still- continuing debate about the possible versus the actual.
Despite what some scientists may claim, the scientific method is not even capable of dealing with many fundamental issues that must be addressed in any comprehensive understanding of nature. As you read through this book, I expect that you will come away with the realization that a lot, an awful lot, of what passes for “fact” in the world view of the scientist is nothing more than unsupported and unsupportable assumption.
Given the nature of recent advances in physics, the kind of “craziness” that I am proposing is perhaps exactly what physicists, following the line of argument of Niels Bohr, should be expecting. Shortly before his death in 1962, Bohr is reported to have said the following about a new proposal: “We seem to all agree that the theory is crazy. The question is, is it crazy enough to have a chance of being right? My own feeling is that it is not quite that crazy” (emphasis his). There is much more than an element of humor here, as anyone familiar with the history of science knows. Regarding my own views, I contend that what I have to say is “crazy enough” to be right and also provides exactly the kind of weird simplicity that might have been anticipated. Although nature is under no obligation to have in place laws that we should find acceptable, I think you will agree that in the world view that I set forth, she can be viewed as entirely reasonable and extraordinarily coherent. We may not like the picture I am painting, but we cannot say that it is illogical or irrational.
3. A Certain World Beyond Science
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
