Showing posts with label quadrune brain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quadrune brain. Show all posts

Sunday, October 3, 2010

#80. Two Mavericks


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ARCHIVE. For a list of all my published posts: 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

On Father's Day last June my son, Mike, gave me a book about the relationship between C. G. Jung (the most significant psychologist of the 20th century) and Wolfgang Pauli (along with Einstein, one of the most significant scientists of the 20th century).



The book is Deciphering the Cosmic Number, The Strange Friendship of Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung, by Arthur I. Miller (W. W. Norton Co, 2009). It ranks as one of the all-time most fascinating books I've ever read, and it has helped me think through some ideas I've had since I was taking a course on the history of science at Wesleyan University back in the mid-1960s.

The author, Arthur I. Miller, describes himself as a physicist with a special interest in the creative process. He has written several books about the relationship between art and science, including one, Insights of Genius, with the interesting subtitle Imagery and Creativity in Art and Science.

He says that the interaction between the scientist Pauli and the psychologist Jung offers us "a powerful example" of the creative process.

He calls Pauli and Jung "mavericks" because, in their work together, they explored the middle ground between the two fields of psychology and physics. He says that he wants to look into their minds and understand them as persons. I think he has been successful.

It's a fascinating book and I'm grateful to Mike for such a great Father's Day gift.

===

I want to share some thoughts about Deciphering the Cosmic Number not only because it's so interesting in itself but also because it contains significant insights for understanding the relationship between cosmic evolution and religious ritual.

In the series of seven posts (#73 to #79) I've written about "Two Important Books" (Michael Dowd's Thank God for Evolution and Ken Wilber's Marriage of Sense and Soul), the one negative thing I had to say about Dowd's book has to do with his comments about ritual. I said that they're not in any sense wrong or incorrect, but they are inadequate.

I added that "I'm sympathetic" because I've struggled repeatedly to express my own thoughts about the connections between religious ritual and the evolution of the cosmos--and I don't feel that I have been successful.

I've shared my thoughts about ritual in a number of previous posts, including a series starting with #59 (Evolution and Religious Ritual). In the last post of that series, #65 (Ritual's Cosmic Roots), I said that "the cosmic roots of ritual are considerably more difficult to describe than ritual's biological and psychological roots." I added that it may be "impossible to adequately describe ritual's cosmic roots."

I have never felt anywhere near satisfied with what still seems to me an extremely inadequate expression of my understanding of the connection between evolution and ritual. My final thought in post #65 was that "even though I can't put into words what's needed, there's more."

It turns out that Miller's book has helped me to crystallize what I've been trying to say. So in this post and the next I'm going to give it another try-- with thanks to Mike Mackintosh, Arthur I. Miller, C. G. Jung and Wolfgang Pauli.

===

First, some information about these two "mavericks."

Pauli was born in Vienna in 1900. By 1936 he had already formulated the famous Pauli Exclusion Principle (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1945) and he had predicted the existence of a previously unknown sub-atomic particle, the neutrino (which was not discovered until 1956).

The Exclusion Principle is about the arrangement of electrons in atoms. It has to do with the seemingly trivial but immensely important fact that an atom's electron structure can only be adequately described with four, rather than three, quantum numbers.

Those early years of the 20th century were much like the Renaissance period in Italy. They were a time of great discoveries: Sigmund Freud discovered that mind itself can be studied, Neils Bohr produced the first model of the atom, physicist Max Planck formulated his quantum theory about the smallest parts of the atom, and Albert Einstein published his relativity theory which helps us to understand the very largest aspects of the universe (gravity, stars and galaxies).

Miller notes that also at this time philosophical thought was shifting away from Positivism-- what Ken Wilber calls the "flatland" world view which attributes reality only to the bottom rung of the Great Ladder of Beings. The search for reality beyond the appearances-- for the link between mind and matter-- was of interest to the founders of quantum physics such as Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Neils Bohr-- and especially Wolfgang Pauli.

Miller also mentions other areas of human activity where "radically new things" were coming to be at this time in our history. Familiar examples are Pablo Picasso in art, Igor Stravinsky in music, and James Joyce in literature.

This early 20th-century Renaissance was followed, however, by the horrors of the first half of the 20th century: a World War, the Nazi takeover in Germany, a second World War and the use of atom bomb by the United States. It took a long time for those "radically new things" that had been fermenting for many decades to eventually catch on. They didn't finally break out until the great cultural shifts of the 1960s.

Pauli came from a mixed Catholic-Protestant family, but he also had Jewish ancestry which made him a potential Nazi-concentration-camp victim. So he spent much of World War II in the United States, at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton.

From an early age Pauli was indifferent to success and highly unsatisfied with his life. As Miller says, he did research by day and "trawled the bars of Hamburg by night." It was at the age of 31 that he first sought Jung's help. He started as patient and later became a co-worker. Jung at that time-- 1932-- was 57 and already famous.

===

In the early years of the 20th century, at the same time that physicists were learning to understand the nature of matter, Freud and Jung were learning how to understand the nature of the mind-- that it, too, can be studied, understood and healed.

Jung initially worked with Freud, but they eventually parted company. Jung wanted to branch out beyond Freud's study of the personal unconscious and extend his study to the collective unconscious as well.

Jung was concerned with understanding how the human mind works in the largest possible context. His research included the mental patterns that are found in individuals in all the Earth's cultures. He called those patterns of the mind "archetypes" and saw them, no less than the structure of atoms, as expressions of the cosmic process. This is an important idea for an understanding of ritual; I'll come back to it.

Miller says Jung wanted to link cold rationality with the "irrational world of intuition and psyche"-- he wanted to link Thinking with Intuition, to link human consciousness with the psyche of the cosmos.

Miller also mentions that Jung and Pauli were discussing "notions of consciousness" at a time when such notions were "considered by most scientists of the time as sheer nonsense." Science was still in its self-imposed prison at the bottom rung of the Great Ladder!

This is important to see. If many of the great minds of that day had trouble accepting the very notion of mind, we can better understand why even today the idea that mind and matter are linked is not well known or understood.

The fact that the patterns of our mind-- both conscious and unconscious patterns-- are expressions of the cosmic process is still difficult for people to understand and accept. We can see that Jung and Pauli were indeed "mavericks."

===

This is what the relationship between Jung and Pauli is all about, and why it is of such great interest to me: for the first time in the intellectual history of the modern Western world it is the coming together of mind and matter. We can describe these seeming opposites in many ways: body and soul, cosmos and psyche, physics and psychology, the physical and the psychological. But we don't yet have really good words which can be understood easily by everyone for that link.

As I see it, understanding these connections between our minds and the physical universe is of tremendous importance with regard to the convergence of science and religion. We need to keep in mind that for many centuries the Western Judeo-Christian tradition was characterized by the perspectives of religious dualism, where it was taken for granted that matter and mind or body and soul were two separate and alienated realms of reality.

And in that context, spirituality-- religious practice-- was essentially the effort to escape from matter, from the body, from the world. The effects of that centuries-old religious dualism are still with us. It is, for example, the direct cause of the difficulty so many still have in understanding that we humans are responsible for our present ecological problems.

I'm especially interested in being able to express well the connections between mind and matter because it's the basis for our understanding of the connections between religious ritual and the evolution of the cosmos.

===

Jung and Pauli eventually published a book together: The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche. It originally appeared in German in 1952 and was published in English by Pantheon Books, as part of the Bollingen Series, in 1955.

The book contains two separate essays, one by each genius. To greatly oversimplify: Jung's essay deals with mind in the material world; Pauli's deals with our need to move beyond the rational-only view of the mind in order to understand better the structure of matter.

Jung's essay is entitled "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle." Pauli's title is "The Influence of Archetypal Ideas on the Scientific Theories of Kepler."

Not easy reading, to be sure.

But it marks a turning point in human history. It is the first attempt-- by these 20th-century "mavericks"-- to understand how mind and matter, cosmos and psyche, body and soul, are linked.

To oversimplify again: the key to this understanding is that the human mind isn't only rational-- as science had claimed (and most of Western culture accepted) for several centuries. In Pauli's essay he notes that we can't even figure out the arrangement of electrons in atoms using only the Thinking function's reasoning power. We need to make use of our mind's Intuitive ability as well if we are to understand the nature of matter.

===

I said this was a turning point in Western history-- in human self-understanding as well as in our understanding of the material world.

It's almost too big a thought to get a hold of easily, but I think we can describe it in two ways. One is to say that reality isn't limited to the bottom rung of the Great Ladder of Beings. The other is to emphasize that up towards the top of that Ladder are those functions of the conscious mind that Jung names Sensation, Thinking, Feeling and Intuition.

Back in the Middle Ages they were referred to as body, mind, soul and spirit. And in the much earlier animal imagery of the Native American Medicine Wheel these same aspects of the human psyche were given animal names: White Buffalo, Gold Eagle, Green Mouse, and Black Bear.

Long-time readers know that I have referred to these functions of the conscious mind in many previous posts. If these ideas are new to you, you might like to check out earlier posts such as #29 (The Four-fold Mind) and #31 (Integrating the Four Functions). And for a delightfully playful version, based on the quadrune brain, see Michael Dowd's expression of them which I described in the previous post, #79 (A Dowd Sampler).

===

"But," you may be asking, "what does all this have to do with ritual?"

That will have to wait, alas, until my next post. I want to use what space I have left here to say a few words about just what the "cosmic number" means.

For convenience, it's referred to as "137," but in fact it's really the fraction 1/137. And that's just a close approximation. As a decimal, 1/137 is 0.00729927 (that's an approximation, too). You're thinking, "This is not too impressive so far." Right!

But it turns out that 0.00729927 is something like "pi": the value of the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle. You probably remember "pi" from grade school in its approximate fraction form: 22/7. Its decimal form (again, approximately) is 3.14159.

The important point about "pi" is that no matter what units you use to measure the diameter of a circle (inches, miles, kilometers, even light-years), the circumference will always be 3.14159 times as large as that diameter, and in the same units. This is true for any circle anywhere in the universe.

The cosmic number works the same way. It's called the "fine structure constant" and is the result of calculations in theoretical physics involving the speed of light, the force of gravity and the charge on the electron. 

And just like "pi," it has no units (since they all cancel out in the calculations), so that the cosmic number "137" (really 0.00728827) is valid for any measurements involving light, gravity and electrical charge-- anywhere in the universe.

This means that intelligent beings on another planet would recognize 0.00728827 just as readily as they would recognize 3.14159.

But that's not the main reason the cosmic number is so significant.

The main reason is that the measured values for gravitational force, the speed of light and the charge on the electron are naturally occurring physical constants. They never change.

And scientists have calculated that if the speed of light was even slightly different from what it is (3.0 x 1010 cm/sec), or if the charge on the electron was even slightly different from what it is (1.6021765 × 10−19 coulomb), there simply would be no life on Earth. There would in fact be no planets, no stars, no galaxies.

The world we know just would not exist without that cosmic number "137" being what it is.

That's a lot to think about, so I hope you will agree that it makes good sense for me to hold off on "What does all this have to do with ritual?" until next time.


=== +++ ===

Your feedback is welcome.

To send a comment: use either "Click here to send a comment" (below) or click on "Post a Comment" (at the bottom).

If you prefer, send your thoughts, suggestions and questions to my email address (above).

To email a link to this post to a friend, with your own message, click on the little envelope with an arrow (below).

If you would like to be notified when I publish a new post, let me know; I'll put you on the list.

+++

Friday, September 17, 2010

#79. A Dowd Sampler


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ARCHIVE. For a list of all my published posts: 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

In my previous post, I said that Michael Dowd's book, Thank God for Evolution, is so comprehensive that, in trying to describe it, I hardly know where to start.



The most basic thought about Dowd's work I'd like to share with readers is simple enough; it's that he has taken the new cosmology to heart. He offers countless practical thoughts for an understanding of our creative participation in the evolution of the universe. As far as I'm aware, nothing else comparable-- in terms of his many down-to-earth suggestions-- is available.

And because of his background as an evangelical minister, he is able to sympathetically address the concerns of many religious people. As a reader commented recently, "Michael Dowd’s book fills the niche we have been waiting for. It reinterprets mysteries of the Christian faith in light of the evolutionary story. [It] is an inspiring and unique insight into what the Great Story means for each of us in our daily lives."

But Dowd is surprisingly good at addressing the concerns of non-religious people as well. And his broad inter-religious perspective is an excellent model of how our planet's traditional religions can respectfully relate to one another.

---

For the record, I want to say that when I first heard of his work I mistrusted him. "Even if it's the new cosmology he's fanatical about," I thought to myself, "who needs another fanatical preacher?"

It wasn't until I heard him speak and got to shake his hand that I could see that his style and personality had nothing about them of the righteousness and rigidity or fanaticism we see in so many religious leaders.

Dowd is just the opposite. As the reader quoted above says, "Throughout his book he speaks as a pastor, with compassion and understanding of human frailties."

In this post I want to offer three samples of Dowd's practical ideas. I hope to keep them brief, to provide readers with just enough information for you to decide if you want to do any follow-up reading. If you prefer web sites to old-fashioned books, you can do your reading on-line. I'll provide some web links at the end this post.

===

Sample #1. One of Michael Dowd's most practical thoughts with regard to the connections between science and religion is that religious people don't need to be afraid to make changes in their traditional religious views. In fact, they need to make some changes if our religions are to regain their power for good in the world.

Dowd quotes the early-20th-century English mathematician and evolution-friendly philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, who says, "Religion will not gain its old power until it faces change as science does."

Science is constantly updating itself-- continually refining its understanding of the world at every level from stars and atoms to life on Earth and the workings of the nervous system and brain. Religion needs to do no less.

In our day it's apparent that some aspects of the Earth's religions are getting in the way of their own best traditions. Dowd says they need to let go of some of the mythological aspects of our religious traditions. 

He's talking about things like the New Testament story of Jesus walking on water and the Taoist story of Lao Tzu, the author of the Tao Te Ching, who was at his birth already 98 years old!

The cosmologies of the pre-Modern religions are filled with such attention-getting and often delightful stories. But we don't need to be afraid to recognize them precisely as stories.

Dowd gives an excellent example on page 362 where he lists no fewer than twenty-seven religious traditions which honor a virgin-mother. 

Some of the more familiar names of individuals with virgin-mothers include Heracles, Plato, Perseus, Krishna, Tammuz, Horus, Hermes, the emperor Augustus, Alexander the Great, Dionysus, and Romulus and Remus.

Dowd's list also provides another example of a mythological feature that's commonly found in pre-modern religions: at least five of these figures were not only born of a virgin-mother but were also born at the winter solstice. On the old calendars, that was December 25.

In our day, religions need to give up their insistence on the literalness of such mythological features.

Ken Wilber offers a similar point in his Marriage of Sense and Soul, where he notes that it's not an issue if participants in a specific tradition want to believe things like the virginity of the founder's mother. It only becomes an issue if believers insist that everybody else has to believe it, or if non-believers insist that no one should believe it.

In Christianity, for example, the virginity of the Virgin Mary is a time-honored belief, and there's no reason for not accepting it if you want to-- or for not accepting it if you don't want to. The basics of the Christian tradition don't depend on it.

Over the last several decades, a comment that has increasingly been heard from young people is, "I'm spiritual but not religious." To a great extent it's their way of saying that they want to hold on to basics but don't feel any need to accept mythological features.

===

Sample #2. Another thing that young people mean when they say "I'm spiritual but not religious" has to do with the attitudes of religious institutions toward different kinds of people.

In a widely publicized article which appeared recently on Facebook and in the national media, Anne Rice, the writer of popular Vampire stories, publicly disowned the institutional form of Christianity to which she had earlier been a convert. Her point is that in our day the institutional forms of religion seem to be mostly negative.

She views institutional Christianity as anti-gay, anti-women, anti-Moslem, anti-sinners, anti-nonbelievers, "anti-" just about everything and everyone. "Anti-life," she says.

Michael Dowd is especially good at making clear that these "anti-" attitudes are not part of the basic Western religious tradition. He says that the Judeo-Christian tradition is by its very essence inclusive of everyone, that we can see-- more clearly than ever from the evolutionary perspective-- that that's what the tradition is all about.

Justice, peace, and equality have been the basics of Western religious tradition from the time of the Hebrew prophets, long before Jesus' own preaching about God's "kingdom"-- the "reign of God"-- as welcoming and promoting the welfare of all.

The Dali Lama says "Compassion is my religion." It's hard to imagine anyone who takes the Western religious tradition seriously wanting to say less.

===

Sample #3. As I see it, respect for persons--and for personal freedom-- comes first of all from our respect for ourselves. Science has been making a major contribution along those lines with its findings in the area of brain and nervous system studies for the last fifty years.

As the reader I quoted above notes, Dowd speaks with "compassion and understanding of our human frailties." They are, as he says, "part of our deep ancestral heritage." When we know something about our ancestral heritage we can see that there's no possible place for the righteousness and rigidity of religious fundamentalists or for the exclusionary attitudes of many religious institutions.

Dowd does an especially good job in presenting an easy-to-understand summary of the evolutionary development of the brain, the biological source of our frailties. He calls it the "brain's creation story." In terms of living out the New Cosmology in everyday life, this sacred story of our brain allows us to trust that we are called, with all our frailties, to be co-creative participants in the world's evolutionary development.

---

It is likely that you are familiar with the term "triune brain" from the popular media. It's the insight, developed by scientist Paul MacLean about a half-century ago, that the human brain has several layers, each of which comes from a different level of our evolutionary past.

A good example of science updating itself is that a fourth area of the brain has recently been recognized, so that Dowd can refer now to the "quadrune brain." The basic idea is that we share the deepest of these four layers with reptiles, and the next two more recently evolved layers with mammals and primates. There is also, of course, a uniquely human layer to our brain.

Dowd gives these four layers of the brain cute easy-to-remember names: "Lizard Legacy," "Furry Li'l Mammal," "Monkey Mind" and "Higher Porpoise." He says, "Children and teens, especially, delight in these playful ways of talking about our brain." (I do, and you probably will, too.) He makes use of these ideas frequently in his book, so I'm going to offer a few brief thoughts about each of them in this "sample #3" of my Dowd Sampler.

---

"Lizard Legacy." This is innermost part of the brain, the earliest layer in terms of biological evolution; we share it with reptiles. It includes the brain stem and what scientists call the cerebellum. It's that part of the brain that keeps us breathing and allows us to physically move our muscles without having to consciously think about it. Without our Lizard Legacy we couldn't drive a car, play a musical instrument or type on a computer keyboard.

It's also the seat of those instinctual urges, not much under conscious control, which Dowd calls our "inherited proclivities." These are our basic biological drives for food, sex and shelter which are biological essentials for individual and species survival.

Dowd points out that our Lizard Legacy, which itself developed from the nervous system of even earlier creatures who lived in the sea, is also the basic source of our addictions. As an example of its power, Dowd mentions that scientists have found that even creatures like nematode worms, who have almost no brain at all, can get addicted to nicotine. 

So our inclinations toward excess in terms of food, sex and "feel-good substances" are part of our evolutionary heritage. They are deeply rooted in our reptilian brain and we don't need to feel guilty about them.

---

"Furry Li'l Mammal." This is Dowd's name for the middle part of the brain, which we share with our mammalian relatives (those animals who have hair or fur on their bodies, give birth to live young and have milk glands to feed them). Scientists refer to this old mammalian brain as the limbic system; it is the seat of our memory and emotions.

The limbic system transforms the earlier reptilian drives for food and sex into powerful emotional-charged cravings. It's responsible for the fact that we can respond emotionally to music and that we can be violently repelled by the odor of rotten food.

Reptiles don't have a limbic system and don't care for their young after they hatch; mammals do. The Furry Li'l Mammal is the source of the deep drives we experience for relationships, to be bonded with others, and to acquire some recognition in our social groups. It's also the basis for close friendship and warmth in human relationships.

---

"Monkey Mind." Scientists call this newer part of the mammalian brain the neocortex. We share it with our primate relatives. It's also called the "Chatterbox Mind" because it is incessantly talking to itself. It's the source of language, of sequential thinking, and it's what allows us to learn by reasoning as well as by experience.

The neocortex lets us choose between our competing reptilian (Lizard Legacy) instincts and our more social (Furry Li'l Mammal) urges. It also allows us to look ahead: "If I do this, then that might happen." But it also causes us to constantly fret about the past and worry about the future. It's hard to turn off the Monkey Mind.

Addictions to watching TV, playing computer games and surfing the web are consequences of our "chatterbox" neocortex. It endlessly takes us from one thought to another and keeps us from being in the present moment. The term "Monkey Mind" comes from Buddhism, where exercises such as meditation, drumming and chanting have been used for many centuries to quiet down this part of the mind that just wants to keep on spinning and spinning.

---

"Higher Porpoise." This is the most recently evolved part of our brain and unique to humans. It's called the "executive brain" because it lets us not only choose between competing drives from the older parts of the brain but also enables us to do so with strength and conviction. Scientists refer to it as the frontal lobes or pre-frontal cortex.

This part of our brain is what accounts for our sense of the future and our vision of what might be. Dowd gives some down-to-earth examples of how it works. It's what allows a teenage boy, for example, to get up early to practice for a swim meet or to avoid drug use so he won't get thrown off the football team. It's thanks to our brain's "Higher Porpoise" that we can envision and plan for a future, and work to accomplish our goals.

The pre-frontal cortex is especially significant because it is what makes each of us not just a living being or a mammal or a primate but a person. It is the home of our personal consciousness and freedom-- of the mystery which we experience ourselves to be.

===

It's this sense of personal freedom that's the very essence of Modern and Post-modern worldview, and being better informed about the brain's Sacred Story gives us an understanding of human freedom that people in earlier centuries did not have. I quoted Ken Wilber in post #76 with regard to Modernity's Gains: "Slavery existed in every pre-modern society and none of the world's pre-modern religions offered these rights and dignities on any large scale."

The point is that knowing the brain's creation story "allows us," as Dowd says, "to trust our shadow side." And it's only when we trust ourselves that we can be willing to let go of things like the mythological features of our religious traditions, and that we are able to trust, rather than fear or exclude, other persons. We all have a Lizard Legacy as well as a Furry Li'l Mammal and a Monkey Mind; but we also all have a Higher Porpoise.

===

I hope my "Dowd Sampler" will encourage you to learn more of what Dowd has to say. If you're interested in using electronic media, these two web sites may be of special interest:

One is a link to an on-going discussion he's been having with the head of a major Baptist seminary (look for "Is Biblical Christianity Bankrupt?"):

The other is a list of some of the world's top science and religion leaders, including a number of Nobel Prize winners, who support his work:

=== +++ ===

Your feedback is welcome.

To send a comment: use either "Click here to send a comment" (below) or click on "Post a Comment" (at the bottom).

If you prefer, send your thoughts, suggestions and questions to my email address (above).

To email a link to this post to a friend, with your own message, click on the little envelope with an arrow (below).

If you would like to be notified when I publish a new post, let me know; I'll put you on the list.

+++