Dualistic Universe 

uality is one of our reality’s principles. What do we mean by “duality”? The constant pairs of complementary opposites or polarities we find in the known and experienced Universe. For example, the complementary pairs day-night, objective-subjective, active-passive or masculine-feminine. As the ancient Hermetic wisdom describes in the 4^th Hermetic Principle (Kybalion, p.10): “everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites”, or as the ancient Chinese philosophy says (Carr & Mahalingam, 1997): “the completeness starts from the basic observation of complementary opposites or polarities as defining a whole. The simplest complementary opposites are yin and yang on mountainsides and riverbanks”. Yin signifies the absence of light, and it is associated with passivity, receptivity, comprehension, hiddeness, and the feminine, whereas yang, the presence of light, it is associated with energy, motion, penetrating power and the masculine. Again Hermetic Philosophy in its 7^th Principle (Kybalion, p.12), describes as yin-yang philosophy does, a duality of Masculine and Feminine energy in the Universe: “gender is in everything; everything has its Masculine and Feminine Principles; Gender manifests on all planes”.

This Dualistic Universe is represented by Chinese Philosophy in the widely known yin-yang symbol, where one force can be found in the other one and one cannot exist with the opposite because they are interdependent. Thus, if we apply this dualistic principle to the understanding of consciousness’ nature, we will find also a pair of interdependent opposites which could be called the masculine and feminine dimensions of consciousness, and require different methodological approaches to be understood.

Social context on consciousness’ understanding

From my point of view, consciousness is a phenomenon in intimate relation with the mystery of life. Consider this simple but complex question as an example: does consciousness survive after death? (Moody, 1975; Ring & Cooper, 1999; Greyson, 2000; Lommel, et. al. 2001). Because we tend to understand and interpret the experience of life and ourselves in the way the culture in which we have being grown up does, we tend to experience our own consciousness and give sense to it in the same way as our environment¹. Consequently, our way of understanding consciousness is influenced and constructed by the environment in which we live (Vaughan, 1999, pp.437-438), thus limited by our own cultural boundaries. Therefore, part of our human nature² is social, so we need to take into account this social influence in order to firstly understand the way we are trying to face the problem of consciousness, and how we could avoid a cultural bias or a hidden ethnocentrism regarding different cultural worldviews (Teo and Febbraro, 2003).

To be human implies to be socialized in a human environment. The known case of the wild child called Victor of Aveyron (Papalia, Wendkos & Duskin, 2001) found in La Caune’s forest in France in 1800, illustrates this. This child was unable to interact in a human way despite the efforts of Jean Itard, the psychiatrist who took care and tried to educate him. As Giddens (1997) describes it: “there is sufficient similarity between this historical case and others that have been recorded to suggest how limited our faculties would be in the absence of an extended period of early socialization”. So he understands socialization process as the process in which “the helpless infant gradually becomes a self-aware, knowledgeable person, skilled in the ways of the culture into which she or he is born”.

The primary way we approach reality is based on our cognitive structure, which holds the constellation of beliefs, ideologies, values and concepts (i.e., our epistemological foundation), as well as our main tool to interact with the environment, the so called “information-processing process” (Eysenck, 2001; Galotti, 2003). Human cognitive structure arising by socialization process, is mainly shared by the culture in which arises (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987; Lehman, et al, 2004), thus, cognitive content and processes are not universal in human groups (Nisbett, et al. 2001). As Henri Tajfel (1978) explains, “human cognition is partly created by social interaction, and in turn it partly creates it. Man’s cognitive functioning is never static. He acts according to the way he understands his environment. But the way he understands his environment, physical and social, is largely determined by the results of his actions upon it as well as by the demands and requirements for action that the environment presents”. Consequently, the understanding of consciousness will be partly limited by the boundaries of this social interaction in a particular culture and time. Therefore, a cultural integrative approach is needed to grasp a wider understanding of this mystery. Moreover, a self-examination process of researchers’ own beliefs (Barušs, 2001) and attitudes is also required in the domain of consciousness studies.

Systems of thought in Western and Eastern cultures

As stated by Norenzayan et al (2002) and Nisbett et al (2001), East Asians and Western cultures have different “systems of thoughts”, which affect metaphysical assumptions, tacit epistemology and cognitive processes, three aspects of human behaviour that affect the way particular problems are solved. The authors conclude, in synthesis, that Eastern are more holistic and experiential, and Westerns are more analytic and logical. Consequently, both cultures should approach the problem of Consciousness differently. As Rao (2002, pp. 5) points out, “the relative emphasis on the inward or the outward focus is the starting point of divergence between Eastern and Western traditions”. Rao explains that, as a result of this divergence, the outward focus leads to a Culture that has an overwhelming concern of the physical world, and the outstanding achievements in understanding the physical reality. Whereas, Eastern traditions emphasise the understanding of the inward, which has its own content different from the outward material content. As a result of this, both cultures have developed to my mind, different technologies and knowledge (sciences). West has developed one to control and predict the outside world, and Eastern cultures, a technology to control and predict the inner world, expressed throughout the wide range of Yoga and Meditation techniques we find in those cultures (Wallace, 1999), together with depth psychological knowledge.

Bringing up again the duality principle of complementary opposites, we see that Western society has mainly expressed its masculine aspect rather than the feminine one, and vice versa as the Eastern society is concerned. Thereafter, as a social by-product of Western culture, modern science tends to work mostly in a masculine way, emphasizing principles like positivism, objectivism, reductionism, (Harman, 1993a, 1994), and a mechanical understanding of the Universe and humans’ nature. The roots of this “yang system of thought” can be found mainly in Aristotelian’s empiricism, Newton’s mechanistic view of the universe, and Descartes famous cogito ergo sum, I think; therefore, I am. That implies that the only certain knowledge that an individual has, comes from his mind. The consequence is that Science has emphasized rational thinking and has displaced emotions and intuition as a way to know the world. So in my opinion, science has perceived and developed a partial view of reality and thus, a partial view of consciousness. As Barušs (2001) points out, “materialism is still the baseline worldview accepted by many scientists”. Nevertheless, the discovering of new quantum mechanics throughout the XX century is producing a “crisis of modern science” (Tarnas, 1991) and a “scientific revolution” (Kuhn, 1970), within the “yang-materialism paradigm” towards a new “yin-holistic” way of understanding ultimate reality³, and hence the relationships between matter, consciousness, the Universe and Life (Bohm, 1980; Wilber, 1982; Rubik, 1993, 1994; Grof, 1998, 2000). 

As I have tried to explain until now, we will tend to experience our own consciousness and give sense to it in a similar way as our environment does. As Lehman et al (2004, pp. 704) affirms: “nothing transpires in a cultural vacuum”. Therefore, it is very important to consider this cultural influence in order to reduce the cultural bias implicit in the way we try to solve a problem like consciousness (which mainly has a subjective nature), and go beyond those cultural boundaries to achieve a wider view of consciousness, reality and life.    

Consciousness dualism: masculine and feminine dimensions

As St. Augustine of Hippo would say, I know what time is until someone asks me to explain it. Consciousness has the same paradox, we usually grasp what it is, but it is difficult to explain it. That leads us to consider consciousness as something related to “the experience of being”, which takes us to the hard question defined by Chalmers (1995): “why certain organisms are subjects of experience?” Taking on account what I have been discussing about cultural influence and problem solving, we need to consider western researchers’ tendency to think in a masculine-outward way, and how this cognitive style might bias their research. In other words, we tend to focus our attention on the consciousness aspects with which we are used to think and experience, in this case the masculine dimension of consciousness, and logically we will consider it as the whole nature of consciousness, which is obviously wrong, leaving apart those aspects of consciousness that do not fit within the masculine paradigm. 

In order to explain what I mean by masculine and feminine dimensions of consciousness, I will bring up Bohm’s work (1980) on the implicate and explicate order of the holographic paradigm together with the notions of the conscious and unconscious dimensions of the Self. Taking on account quantum theory and the hidden variables, Bohm explains that we are living in an unbroken wholeness universe, in which manifested reality is explained as the explicate order, unfolded from an enfolded or implicate order or reality which is not manifested for us. So we can associate the manifested with the conscious and thus with the masculine-outward aspect of consciousness, and the implicated with the unconscious, which I associate with the feminine-inward dimension of consciousness. As we infer from this distinction, it seems to exist a wider consciousness containing the ordinary conscious (the one which is able to report about its content through language) and the unconscious, both being part of a totality called the Self (Jung, 1959, p.275). Nevertheless, Bohm’s explanation goes beyond the notion of “known” unconscious (1980, p.210), in his words: “the easily accessible explicit content of consciousness is included within a much greater implicit (or implicate) background”, contained itself in a “greater background of unknown (and indeed ultimately unknowable) depths of inwardness that may be analogous to the ‘sea’ of energy that fills the sensibly perceived ‘empty’ space” […] That is to say, it may be sensed as an emptiness, a nothingness, within which the usual content of consciousness is only a vanishingly small set of facets”. 

To my mind, masculine dimension of consciousness has to do first with the intentional aspect of it; with the dimension of consciousness which is expressed throughout our behaviour, and enables us to “do things”. Secondly, with the content, the information we are aware of, and it’s cognitive processing and style. Thirdly, with structures and functions. For example, the correlation between brain activity found in cognitive neurosciences with moments of awareness (Dehaene & Naccache, 2001), or neural synchrony in the binding problem (Revonsuo, 1999; Singer & Engel, 2001). Regarding functions, those aspects summarized in the “easy problems” identified by Chalmers (1995) could serve as an example.

However, the feminine dimension deals with a very different content, with “the thing” that enables us to have the experience of “doing something” or “just being. Present in experiences like “pure consciousness event” defined by Foreman (1998, p.58) “as a wakeful but contenless (nonintentional) experience”, or as Wallace (1999, p.444) describes, a “meditative quiescence, ‘empty’ of substance, with an exceptional degree of attentional clarity”. As we see, this feminine aspect is characterized as being passive, receptive and a comprehensive dimension, being invisible for the third person perspective, only experienced inwardly and usually displaced and misunderstood for this reason. Also regards the question of who is the “I” having the experience. Furthermore, the feminine dimension deals with the experience of the inner-journey towards wisdom, compassionate and love, passing through the unknown, the “dark night of the soul”, integrating the “shadow”, and experiencing the implicate order beneath the explicate one. I presume, the feminine is connected by “the informational field” (Lazlo, 2004, p. 26) to the “collective unconscious” (Jung, 1959), the “whole unbroken universe” of Bohm, and has to do with the experiences of Cosmic Consciousness, Mystical ones among others in altered states of consciousness (Grof, 1998, 2000).

Scientific boundaries in consciousness’ understanding

The problem arises when scientists try to explain this feminine dimension from a masculine perspective. For example, Baars (1980, 1997), Gazzanica (et al, 2002) or Crick (1994, p.xii) who reduce the understanding of ourselves, and therefore of consciousness, to how nerve cells behave and interact. Or the hope of Dehaene and Naccache (2001, p.31) that “once a detailed cognitive and neural theory of the various aspects of consciousness is available, the vacuity of this question will become obvious”. Approaching the feminine dimension with masculine’s methodology reduces world religions and spirituality, mysticism and wisdom traditions for the last 5.000 years, together with modern consciousness’ research (Grof, 1998, 2000) to a human illusion or mirage. Something must be wrong: or science’s masculine approach to understand the wholeness of consciousness’ nature or the world wisdom traditions and new research. As Grof (1998, p.252) points out, “it would be difficult to explain how the founders of religions like Buddha or Jesus had produced a profound impact on millions of people over the centuries, if their visionary experiences were nothing more than products of brain pathology”. At this point it becomes clear why I think that science discipline should accept the contributions of other approaches to understand better consciousness’ nature.

Transformative Spiral as an integrative approach

Transformation is evolution, and only begins when both complementary opposites are put together (Hart, 2000, p.158). As I have explained before, concerning consciousness, we tend to understand and give sense to it in the same way as we experience it. If our experience of consciousness remains in the masculine aspect, and we have not experienced the feminine one in some way, we will not be able to see neither to understand how the feminine dimension could exist. In order to go further in consciousness research and do not only remain in intellectual discussions and get polarized within research frameworks, we need to put together intellectual and experiential knowledge to produce a transformational shift in its comprehension. “Apart from our first-hand experience, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness, so if it were not for the subjective evidence provided by introspection, there would be no discipline of consciousness studies” (Wallace,  1999, p. 441). Therefore, the only place to put both dimensions of consciousness is in us as researchers, and let⁴ the experience of the feminine dimension help to produce an inner transformation towards a wider understanding of consciousness⁵. Likewise, the masculine aspect will also be transformed (e.g., a wider worldview), followed by the feminine through the spiral process (e.g., represented in the above diagram), and so on.

This transformative spiral experience within ourselves will take us towards a less dualistic and more holistic view of consciousness, and as a consequence, wisdom will be developed within us (Bassett, 2005). Experiencing the feminine we develop “a deep intuitive ‘inner knowing’” (Harman, 1994, p. 377) about the fundamental realm, which will help us to approach the understanding of consciousness and the hard problem from a different perspective. A balance between masculine and feminine is the result of the transformational experience of bringing the unconscious into consciousness. As Hart (2000, p. 163) puts it, “an expanded awareness recognizes opposites as aspects of the same wave – an undivided unity – transformation is engendered by holding and engaging the tension of the dialectic between masculine and feminine”.

Finally, in order to help this transformation to succeed, science needs to accept the contributions of other disciplines and review its methodology and epistemology (Harman, 1993ab, 1994). Firstly, Transpersonal Psychology would be one of the main approaches to help this change to happen, because this discipline is mainly focused in the scientific study of the feminine dimension of consciousness. Secondly, take seriously the inner ‘technology’ developed by Eastern traditions in self-knowledge and transformation. As Rao (2002) deeply explores, we should consider the Indian Yoga disciples together with Advaita Indian Philosophy, and Buddhist psychology of Consciousness and their Meditation techniques. Thirdly, to take on account alternative medicines like Flower Essences (Bach’s ones among others), Homeopathy (Hahnemann, 1982), Sintergetica Medicine (Carvajal, 2005), Vibrational Medicines (Gerber, 2001), Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic Medicine, because in order to heal, they work within a “non-yang-materialistic paradigm”, and therefore there is something to be learned about human nature and consciousness. Finally, it is worth considering Quantum Physics together with Parapsychology to better understand consciousness properties within the implicate order.  

“One cannot solve a problem with the same

kind of thinking that gave rise to the problem”.

Albert Einstein

Continuation... 

Notes:

1- In my opinion, theories and models scientists create with their minds about consciousness (and further about reality), are usually the way they experience and understand themselves. Their intellectual work could be interpreted like an unconscious projection of their own view. So the unconscious plays an important role in scientists’ theories and models (Harman, 1993b, p.139). It is difficult to put so much mental energy (creating books, lectures, articles, etc.) in something that is not connected in a deep level with us. I must honestly say that this article is in some sense the way I give sense to my life, I experience it, and I understand myself. Explaining life and consciousness only in a monist-materialistic sense will unconsciously generate in me, in some way, what Festinger (1957) called “cognitive dissonance”. And I infer the same happens to those who understand and experience themselves only in a materialistic sense with those holistic and spiritual frameworks. Ç   

2- There is a deeper dimension within us that goes beyond social boundaries. This dimension is the feminine and is connected to a wider consciousness, nevertheless for our daily awareness it is usually unconscious. Take for example Jung’s Self dimensions, the conscious and the unconscious, and the Collective Unconscious. Or as Assagioli stated in his Psychosynthesis Theory, within the Self we find also the Higher Self. And this part goes beyond the social dimension of the person. Ç

3- Is interesting to observe the properties of complementary opposites. As Ancient Chinese Philosophy says, each opposite can be found in the other one. And we can observe how within the “yang-materialistic-view”, is emerging a “yin-spiritual-approach”. To my mind, this happened when the first one got totally polarized through materialistic-reductionism methodology. The extremes get connected. Trying to find the bricks on which reality is build up, science, and in particular, quantum mechanics, has found the quantum vacuum. Beyond atoms, reality’s face changes towards a mystery. Suddenly, a switch happens and everything appears connected by non-locality when before it was fragmented and disconnected (macro level), and where space and time does not matter anymore (micro level).  Ç  

4- I put the word “let” in cursive in order to emphasize the verb let as the action of letting go or surrender to the feminine dimension of consciousness (or of life). Torbin Hart (2000, p. 159) brilliantly explains it in this way: “seeing before believing is the credo of a rational-empirical orientation; however, at times it appears necessary to believe before we can see. More precisely, this means surrendering the rational attitude of disbelief and letting go of preconceived assumptions as to what would satisfy the demand of expectation for evidence or for whatever is to see. This surrender builds a bridge between the known and the unknown, which allows us to cross into the not already known. Such a crossing is carried by faith, but a faith that does not involve the acceptance of some dogma. Instead, it involves a willingness to go past the limits of our knowing and enter the mystery”. Ç  

5- Science methodology is based on empiricism, and therefore needs to measure the object of their investigation with instruments. Therefore, what is not possible to be measured falls outside of science’s research. Consciousness is mainly subjective, and consequently, there are no instruments to measure it, that is the reason why there is no scientific evidence of consciousness (as Wallace pointed out). Nevertheless, because we are the “owners” of consciousness, we are the more appropriate instruments to investigate within it. Ç

References:

Baars, B.J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press. pp. 360-366.

Baars, B.J. (1997). In the theater of consciousness: the workspace of the Mind. Oxford University Press.  pp. 6-7.

Barušs, I. (2001). The Art of Science: Science of the Future in Light of Alterations of Consciousness. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 57–68.

Bassett, C. (2005). Emergent Wisdom: living a Life in Widening Circles. ReVision: Journal of Consciousness and Transformation. Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 6-11

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. RKP

Carr, B. & Mahalingam, I. (1997). The origins of Chinese Philosophy, Chung-ying Cheng. In Companion Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy. London: Routledge. pp. 503-506.

Carvajal, J.P. (2005). Hacia una medicina con Alma: el horizonte de la síntesis. Colombia: Todograficas.

Chalmers, D.J. (1995), Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 2. No. 3, 200-219.

Crick, F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: the scientific search for the soul. Simon & Schuster.

Dehaene, S., & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition, Vol. 79, pp. 1-37

Grof, S. (1998). The Cosmic Game: Explorations of the Frontiers of Human Consciousness. New York: State University of New York Press. 

Grof, S. (2000). Psychology of the future: lessons from modern consciousness research. Suny.

Engel, A.K. & Singer, W. (2001). Temporal binding and the neural correlates of sensory awareness. Trends in Cognitive Science, Vol. 5. No. 1, 16-25

Eysenck, M.W. (2001). Principles of cognitive psychology. Psychology Press. pp. 1-3.

Festinger, L. (1957). Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.   

Forman, R.K. (1998). What Can Mysticism Teach Us About Consciousness?, In Hameroff, S.R., Kaszniak, A.W, & Scott A.C. Towards a science of Consciousness II. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 53-70

Galotti, K. M. (2003). Cognitive psychology in and out of the laboratory. London: Wadsworth. pp. 2-3.

Gazzaniga, M.S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G.R. (2002). Cognitive Neuroscience, The biology of the mind. 2^nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 680-681

Gerber, R. (2001). Vibrational Medicine, Handbook of subtile-energy therapies. Vermont: Bear & Company.

Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 24-26.

Greyson, B. (2000). Near-Death-Experiences. In Cardeña, E., Lynn, S.J., & Krippner, S. Varieties of Anomalous Experience: examining the scientific evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hahnemann, S. (1982). Organon of medicine: the first integral English translation of the definitive sixth edition of the original work on homoeopathic medicine. Washington: Cooper Publishing

Harman, W. W. (1993a). Does Further Progress in Consciousness Research Await a Reassessment of the Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science? In Rao, K.R. Cultivating consciousness: enhancing human potential, wellness, and healing. Praeger. pp. 11-23

Harman, W.W. (1993b). Towards an adequate epistemology for the scientific exploration of consciousness. Journal of Scientific Exploration. Vol. 7. No. 2, pp. 133-143,

Harman, W.W. (1994). Toward a ‘Science of Wholeness’. In New metaphysical foundations of science, by Harman, W.W. & Clark, J. California: Institute of Noetic Sciences. pp. 375-392

Hart, T. (2000). Transformation as process and paradox. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 2000, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 157-164

Jung. C.G. (1959). The archetypes and the collective unconscious. London: The Collected Works of C.G. Jung.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. 2^nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lazlo, E. (2004). Cosmic Connectivity: Toward a Scientific Foundation for Transpersonal Consciousness. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, Vol. 23. pp. 21-31

Lommel, P.V., Wees R.V., Meyers V., & Elfferich I. (2001). Near-death experience in survivors of    cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands. The Lancet, Vol. 358. pp. 2039–45

Lehman, D.R.; Chiu, Chi-yue; Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and Culture. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol 55. pp. 689-714

Nisbett, R.E. Peng, K., Choi, I. & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review. Vol 108. No 2, pp.291-310

Moody, R. (1975). Life after life. Atlanta: Mockingbird Books

Ring, K. & Cooper, S. (1999). Mindsight: near-death and out-of-bod experiences in the blind. California: William James Center for Consciousness Studies at the ITP.

Rubik, B. (1993). Embracing the subtle: the emerging paradigm in relation to the subtle realms. In Rao K.R. Cultivating consciousness: enhancing human potential, wellness and healing. Praeger. pp. 101-110.

Rubik, B. (1994). The perennial challenge of anomalies at the frontiers of Science. British Homoeopathic Journal. Vol. 83, pp. 155-166

Tajfel, H. (1978). Chapter 12: The Structure of our Views about Society. In Tajfel, H. & Fraser, C. Introducing social psychology. England: Penguin Books. pp. 303

Tarnas, R. (1991). Chapter: The crisis of modern science. In The passion of the western mind. Pimlico. pp. 355-365

Teo, T., & Febbraro, A. (2003), Ethnocentrism as a form of intuition in psychology, Theory and Psychology, Vol. 13, No.5, pp.673-94

Three Initiates, (2006). The Kybalion: A Study of Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece. Cosimo Inc.

Papalia, D., Wendkos, A. & Duskin, R. (2001). Human development. McGraw-Hill

Rao, K. R. (2002). Consciousness studies: cross-cultural perspectives. McFarland & Co.

Revonsuo, A. (1999). Binding and the Phenomenal Unity of Consciousness. Consciousness and cognition, Vol. 8, 173-185

Vaughan, F. (1999). Chapter 25: Essential Dimensions of Consciousness: Objective, Subjective, and Intersubjective. In Hameroff, S.R., Kaszniak, A.W, & Chalmers, J. Towards a science of Consciousness III: the third Tucson Discussion and Debates. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. pp. 429-439

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological procesesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (J.S. Bruner, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.

Wilber, K. (1982). The Holographic Paradigm and other paradoxes: exploring the leading edge of Science. New Science Library.

Subir al inicio.