This is a four-post dialogue between Joe Voros and me on scientific method and spirituality. Posted with permission of Joe Voros. In order to facilitate reading, Joe's text is blue.
From: "Joseph Voros" <jvoros@ozemail.com.au> Hi all. I am new to this list. I feel I can shed some light on this discussion from the point of view of a practitioner of the "scientific" path. My background is theoretical physics -- I have a PhD. This required mastering two types of practice, both of which, I believe, are contained in KW's description of the three strands of knowing, of which Heron focusses on only one. As I understand it, Heron criticises the Wilber view saying that in Eastern traditions it (the practice of the three strands) amounts simply to "training" rather than "inquiry." From my perspective, perhaps what needs to be seen here is that *initially* this must be so, as it is in Western scientific traditions. At first, it is simply training -- do this (student laboratory) experiment, measure the (well-known) data, compare with what others have found. This persists from first-year university level to graduate level. This is the "learning/training" phase. However, there comes a time when the student has mastered the skills of inquiry (through their training) and is now ready to embark on independent inquiry, using these skills. This is the inquiry phase. The three strands here remain the same -- "I do this (new experiment), I measure this (previously unmeasured) result. What do you find (when you do it)?" I hope the distinction is clear. This shift does not happen immediately -- rather, one day you wake up and discover that it is so. The fact that it does not seem obvious may be why Heron is critical of Wilber, who does not seem to have clearly pointed out this distinction. The three strands of knowing remain the same. The knowledge they reveal depends upon the relationship of those involved. In the training phase, the student is discovering what is already known by the teacher, who has gone before. In the inquiry phase, the student becomes a seeker or co-discoverer with others at the interface of knowledge, and ultimately may become a teacher of this once a community of adequate co-discovers has agreed upon what this new knowledge is. This reveals (at least) three levels of adeptness: (1) student; (2) seeker; (3) teacher. Not every seeker becomes a teacher, but every seeker must have been a student of a teacher. Thus, there must be a training phase; once complete, there can begin an inquiry phase. Cheers, Joe
To: <ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com>
Subject: RE: [theory] SES Ch. 7 (always out of synch . . .)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:05:55 +1100
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:55:34 +0100
To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com
From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@geography.gu.se>
Subject: [theory] Science
Hello Joseph,
and welcome. Thanks for your input to the science issue. I should perhaps tell you that I'm trained in social science (Ph.D. in economic geography), so I guess you and I have a somewhat different enculturation, whatever that might mean.
I feel you put the spotlight on a theme that might lead to the development on some critical questions about Heron's preferred approach to spiritual science, namely the role of training.
>From my perspective, perhaps what needs to be seen here is that *initially*
>this must be so, as it is in Western scientific traditions. At first, it is
>simply training -- do this (student laboratory) experiment, measure the
>(well-known) data, compare with what others have found. This persists from
>first-year university level to graduate level. This is the
>"learning/training" phase.
This is important. In order to become a competent seeker of knowledge (if that is what we want), we need training, whatever approach we choose. There are several layers to this (drawing on Rachel Lauer here):
1. We need to develop a clear and precise understanding of key concepts, we need to learn how to make precise and reliable observations, we need to learn how to communicate those observations in a transparent and stringent way. (Kegan's durable categories)
2. We have to develop our ability to discern stringent skills of analysing cause-and-effect relationships. (Kegan's cross-categorical relationships)
3. We must learn to handle complex interrelationships, where individual phenomena are seen in a larger context of circumstances, constrictions, mutual dependencies, etc. (Kegan's complex systems)
4. We have to develop awareness of how our own positions as observers influence the type of explanations we find plausible, through insight into the nature of our perspective. (Kegan's trans-system structures; Commons' metasystematic, paradigmatic and cross-paradigmatic levels)
All of these levels are important, and sloppiness or lack of training in the first two layers radically reduces the chances of developing knowledge with reasonable levels of validity and reliability.
>However, there comes a time when the student has mastered the skills of
>inquiry (through their training) and is now ready to embark on independent
>inquiry, using these skills. This is the inquiry phase. The three strands
>here remain the same -- "I do this (new experiment), I measure this
>(previously unmeasured) result. What do you find (when you do it)?" I hope
>the distinction is clear.
I think I know what you mean, but I also think we can make it even more clear.
What I was after was the distinction between devising new experiments within the context of an established paradigm, and exploring if the basic premises of the very paradigm really hold (or alternatively, if there are not more interesting questions outside the established paradigm).
You are trained in natural science. Think about the people who are trying, using deduction (theoretical speculation) and empirical methods (microscopes, for example) to gain knowledge about the nature of consciousness by exploring the operation of the brain at the level of quantum physics. They are making up theoretical and practical experiments for discovering how consciousness emerges. There are theories about qualia, quantum leaps, and other (for me) esoteric physical mechanisms. However, as long as the new experiments are made up within the basic assumption that the nature of consciousness is to be sought at the level nano-physics, do you think they will learn something essential about the nature of consciousness? Maybe they will, but very different things from people who looks at consciousness in terms of systems theory or phenomenological investigation.
Maybe I misrepresent what your colleagues are doing (please correct me), but I hope I get my point across. The important distinction is not between carrying out old experiments and devising new experiments, but between doing research which doesn't call the basic perspective in question and research which actively challenges the assumptions on which established knowledge is built.
As I said, Wilber does transcend individual paradigms (see e.g. "An integral theory of consciousness"), but I'm not sure that the majority of the spiritual masters in Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, Vedic traditions, etc. do.
>The three strands of knowing remain the same. The knowledge they reveal
>depends upon the relationship of those involved. In the training phase, the
>student is discovering what is already known by the teacher, who has gone
>before. In the inquiry phase, the student becomes a seeker or co-discoverer
>with others at the interface of knowledge, and ultimately may become a
>teacher of this once a community of adequate co-discovers has agreed upon
>what this new knowledge is.
Again, think about experiments made to test the hypotheses of Newtonian physics. These experiments showed, in something like 99% of the cases that the laws of Newtonian physics hold. However, Einstein and others called the basic assumptions of Newtonian physics into question, and thought out experiments which might test if those assumptions really were valid.
A person trained in Newtonian physics could lead a whole life of successful devising of new experiments, and never ever come into contact with the limits of Newtonian assumptions.
>This reveals (at least) three levels of adeptness: (1) student; (2) seeker;
>(3) teacher. Not every seeker becomes a teacher, but every seeker must have
>been a student of a teacher. Thus, there must be a training phase; once
>complete, there can begin an inquiry phase.
Could we add a fourth level, that of meta-paradigmatical researcher?
But I thoroughly agree with you on the need for training. For those who read Heron's book, I think this will be a point of criticism of his model of cooperative inquiry into the spiritual and the subtle. The people who participate in the experiments have limited training in investigation. I think Heron is sensitive to this, though. The problem is that he is a pioneer with this approach, and there simply is not very much to build on.
Thomas
From: "Joseph Voros" <jvoros@ozemail.com.au>
To: <ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com>
Subject: RE: [theory] Science (long)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:15:46 +1100
Thomas,
thank you for your thoughts and ideas.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Jordan
> Thanks for your input to the science issue. I should perhaps
> tell you that I'm trained in social science (Ph.D. in economic geography),
> so I guess you and I have a somewhat different enculturation,
> whatever that might mean.
As far as I am concerned, there are certain elements of constancy across all disciplines, so although our cultural settings might differ, I am interested in those aspects where we are similar, namely the quest for knowledge, in all its forms. I include spiritual traditions also -- I have been meditating on and off for something like 15 years. To me, it is all part of the same quest. In "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" I feel KW has made a real contribution to showing the similarities between science and spirituality in particular, and all forms of seeking after knowledge.
For myself, science was always spiritual in nature -- looking for the order and beauty in nature/Spirit. That is why I studied physics; I sought higher unities in nature, so I was drawn to work on Einstein's Unified Field Theory. I found that it had been prematurely canned, and that there are interesting consequences to certain interpretations of it. There was a surprising level of resistance to this work; surprising because, I believe, if Einstein had lived two more years, he would have come to the same conclusions (a critical clue came to light shortly after his death). The resistance to the existing order (ie the conventional wisdom) eventually prompted me to leave academia and physics behind altogether. People didn't want to look outside the existing belief system.
I sought ever higher unities and found myself drawn to systems theory, complexity, etc, and to consciousness itself (quantum mechanics is an UR correlate of the illusion of subject-object separation, for example). These days, I view things from a multi-perspective, so discovering Wilber's four quadrant model was like awakening from a dream, or like discovering the words to say what I was unable to articulate before. No doubt, it will be replaced by a higher system (as all theortical models are), but for now it provides an excellent guiding model for a more fully rounded view of the world.
> > [student moves on to do independent experiments]
I absolutely agree. I did not make this distinction clear because to me it so clearly what must happen that it is self-evident. My supervisor told me very early on in my training that there were two kinds of scientists -- (1) those who looked within the established system, and (2) those who looked at the edges and beyond and sought to expand that edge. He told me "Unfortunately, you are of the second kind." He meant that to mean not that he dis-approved, but that it would mean great difficulty for me in dealing with the scientific establishment. He was correct.
Thus, the inquiry phase leads to new experiments which can be directed either (1) to fill out areas of the existing system, or (2) push the edges outward into new areas, or develop new systems. Both are valid forms of seeking, and both kinds of seeking are needed. The problem arises when there is a belief by either group that they alone are doing "real" seeking. We need to both fill in our knowledge *and* to find new frameworks of knowledge.
> You are trained in natural science. Think about the people who are trying,
> [to figure out consciousness from nano-level view, and compare with systems view]
It is important that all avenues be explored. Since there are correlates in each quadrant, there needs to be an effort to examine the nature of consciousness from both UR and LR perspectives. These, in turn, may lead to ideas about LH aspects. Similarly, work based in the UL and LL may lead to insights about the RH aspects. It's all part of the same unity.
> The important distinction is not
> between carrying out old experiments and devising new experiments, but
> between doing research which doesn't call the basic perspective in question
> and research which actively challenges the assumptions on which
> established knowledge is built.
I utterly agree; see above.
> As I said, Wilber does transcend individual paradigms (see e.g. "An
> integral theory of consciousness"), but I'm not sure that the majority of
> the spiritual masters in Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, Vedic traditions, etc. do.
The reason I have so much time for Wilber is his trans-perspective view -- ie vision-logic. I have never, from a very early age, understood how people can hold limited perspectives with such certainty in such an infinite universe.
> > ["3 levels" model of student, seeker, teacher]
Certainly. To me, though, such a researcher is simply one type of seeker within the discipline. If I extrapolate your idea correctly, this suggests that there is an even higher unity extending beyond even the discipline in which the training occurred so that a "higher-level" researcher looks beyond the discipline in which they trained and seeks for higher unity *across* disciplines. Hmmm.
On reflection, I'm not happy with the levels model above, though. A teacher is not necessarily more adept than a seeker; it is simply another path at the same level. But I do believe there is a higher level of seeking beyond paradigms within a discipline; an even higher level of seeking beyond the discipline; and perhaps higher levels still. I wish I could draw a diagram here to show what I mean!
Cheers,
Joe
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:45:02 +0100
To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com
From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@geography.gu.se>
Subject: For Sukin, Danny, Joe, Lisa [excerpt]
Hello Joe,
You certainly have an interesting background, thanks for telling us about it.
>> > [student moves on to do independent experiments]In the context of Heron's critique of ancient Eastern spiritual traditions, I think it is maybe not self-evident. It might well be that a person with your attitude would get thrown out of some spiritual communities for the same reason you couldn't find a place in the academic community. Same pre-vision-logic attitude. Even if the Zen or Vajrayana people are adepts of non-dual awareness in meditative experience, it is not self-evident that they accept heretical inquiry.
>It is important that all avenues be explored. Since there are correlates in
>each quadrant, there needs to be an effort to examine the nature of
>consciousness from both UR and LR perspectives. These, in turn, may lead to
>ideas about LH aspects. Similarly, work based in the UL and LL may lead to
>insights about the RH aspects. It's all part of the same unity.
I agree, I didn't want to discredit the path of the microscope, just point at the limits of finding the truth within one particular perspective.
>Certainly. To me, though, such a researcher is simply one type of seeker
>within the discipline. If I extrapolate your idea correctly, this suggests
>that there is an even higher unity extending beyond even the discipline in
>which the training occurred so that a "higher-level" researcher looks beyond
>the discipline in which they trained and seeks for higher unity *across*
>disciplines. Hmmm.
Yes, perhaps. But perhaps more likely adopts a mature post-modernist attitude: all discourses are necessarily biased and limited, we have to live with impermanence and absence of all-encompassing understanding.
Thomas