[Exit Menu]
The Pleromatics Project
Part II: The physical nature of reality
Reflections on Reality, Healing and Consciousness
C. D. Bessinger, Jr. MD, MS(Surg), FACS
ABSTRACT
While orthodox medical research adheres to a linear, deterministic physical model, alternative therapists typically postulate that indeterminate nonphysical and nonlinear relationships are significant to outcome and patient satisfaction. The concept of nonlocal reality as nuocontinuum helps resolve the differences in therapeutic approach, and lets us frame a worldview which recognizes the great value of both reductive science and wholistic integration. It helps distinguish the levels of description appropriate to the discussion of each, and helps in examining the relationships among consciousness, nonlocal reality, and healing.
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 1996; 2(2): 40-45.
Prepublication version. The copyrighted text as published is available from the journal.
Introduction , Cosmos , Questions from physics
, Questions from
psychology , Spacetime
dimensionality
The
"extra" dimensions , The dimension of
thought , A
proposal , The
nuocontinuum
Notes-References
Exit menu
This material is incorporated into the subsequent monograph:
Foundations for Noetic Medicine
Introduction
In a recent article discussing the problems of evaluating alternative therapies, Dossey [1] highlighted the stark philosophic division between orthodox and alternative health care models. While orthodox medical research adheres to a linear, deterministic physical model, alternative therapists typically postulate that indeterminate nonphysical and nonlinear relationships are significant to outcome and patient satisfaction. As Dossey summarizes that position, "Everything that counts cannot be counted."
The problems, of course, go beyond the research issues. The respective models bring different attitudes and approaches to the therapeutic encounter. Further, their different philosophic languages limit discussions among practitioners. Rapproachment becomes all the more unlikely when each camp considers the other, "wrong."
I believe it could be helpful if we were to visualize the conflict as deriving from different frames of reference. Our collective task then becomes finding a common frame of reference a "cosmos in common," to echo Heraclitus sufficiently broad and deep to encompass both linear and nonlinear, local and nonlocal therapeutic points of view.
If we are to remain true to science, we must integrate the data which science provides us, and be willing to follow where the process leads. It is increasingly apparent that physics requires us to acknowledge meta considerations, that is, considerations which lie above and beyond physics. Those of us biomedical practitioners who base our work on physics cannot disparage as "merely metaphysics" a meta physics to which physics itself points.
In this article, using Dossey's article as a point of departure, I would like to "frame" in general outline a worldview which recognizes the great value of both reductive science and wholistic integration, and which helps distinguish the levels of description appropriate to the discussion of each. In doing so, I will suggest a new and unweighted ecumenical term for discussing the relationships among consciousness, nonlocal reality, and healing.
Cosmos
Cosmos is the general descriptive term for all-that-is, which we have come to understand as an organic system of interrelated nested subsystems.[2] Yet its most ancient representation in art is a circle. In our ordinary positivist view of things conditioned by science, the term denotes only the material nature of the universe, governed by the laws of physics. In the ordinary local cause-effect world, time-distance relationships apply, and the speed limit is that of light. Actions are mediated through a field, and forces are dissipated over distance.
However, Bell's Theorem in quantum physics [3,4] establishes that "underneath" ordinary spacetime phenomena there lies a deep nonlocal reality in which none of these limitations applies. To diagram cosmos one must find an appropriate way to divide the one circle. We might add an inner concentric circle, but cosmos, as the term is currently used, would identify only the outer material "shell" of our experience of physical things. We have no agreed technical term for that which is "more" than matter, or beyond or outside it, or inside it.
Psyche has scientific validity as a psychological term. It denotes an inner personal dimension representing that aspect of experience which is normally unconscious to us, but which nevertheless influences individual human behavior. However, in ordinary usage, the term psyche (soul, spirit) has no meaning apart from the individual human personality. To speak of the soul or spirit of matter (one hardly dares do so publicly) does not compute. Yet, now physics says there is a nonlocal more to the matter-work of cosmos, and that domain is somehow related to the existence of consciousness.
But there needs to be still another inner concentric circle, or at least a centerpoint. Cosmologists are beginning to speak more openly about a purposeful cosmos. For example, Hawking has asked, "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" [5] If science is to ask "Why" as Hawking does, it must seek the "meaning" of matter. But Meaning ordinarily has no significance in science. To speak of meaning is to speak of a significance or order beyond superficial appearances. To speak of meaning in relation to the cosmos is to speak of metaphysics, the realm of religion and philosophy.
Yet, such meaning is implicit in the anthropic principle of physics, [6] and in the strange attractors by which order emerges from chaotic chemical and nonlinear mathematical systems. Though such meaning is an idea new to modern science, religion and philosophy have variously described it as logos, tao, Way, and Word. Bergson called it the elan vital. It resides too in the "lure" orienting change mentioned by Whitehead, [7] and in the function of the radial energy of which Teilhard spoke. [8]
Now, on scientific grounds alone, we must devise a "cosmogram" of at least three compartments, if it is to encompass the phenomena of the universe. Resolving and explaining these relationships may be quite complex; or it may be surprisingly simple. In any case, there are a number of questions to be answered, and a number of problems in physics and psychology which invite us to frame a unification theory.
Questions From Physics
One of the principle problems in quantum physics is the question of observer effect. What is the role of consciousness in resolving the uncertainties of actions at the quantum level? Before an observation, the question of whether a quantum event has occurred can be resolved only by calculating a probability. The unconscious reality of the event is that it is a mix of the probabilities that it has happened and that it has not. That "wave function" of probabilities is said to "collapse" only at the point of observation, that is, only in the interaction of unconsciousness with consciousness.
Schroedinger [9,10] illustrated the problem by describing a thought experiment involving a cat in a sealed box: If the quantum event happened, the cat would be poisoned; if not, when the box was opened, the cat would be found alive. Until then, we could know the result only as a calculation of probabilities. Under the conditions Schroedinger described, we may think of the cat's condition only mathematically: the cat is both dead and alive, with equal probability. Only by the interaction of event with observer is the "wave function collapsed."
If a tree falls in the forest when there is no one present to hear it, has there been a sound? That question can be resolved by adjusting the definition of sound. In the question of the quantum "event in the box" we are dealing with something much more fundamental. Can creation occur without an observer? Without consciousness? Or without at least the prospect of consciousness emerging from the act of creation? That may be the most basic question which begs resolving.
Another of our unification problems is the virtual particle phenomenon. Some particles appear unpredictably, exist for extremely short periods of time, then disappear. Why does a particle appear in the force field suddenly, without apparent cause? What distinguishes stable particles from the temporary ones? Something in the force field? Something related to the act of observation?
Another major concern of physics is the unification of the elemental physical forces. Study of the "several" forces has progressively merged them. Electricity and magnetism came to be understood as one force, not two. More recently, effects attributed to the weak nuclear force were reconciled with electromagnetism, so that now we recognize one electroweak force. Further, there have been mathematical demonstrations which unify the electroweak and the strong nuclear force.
If it could be demonstrated that the "electronuclear" force and the force of gravity are one superforce (as has been widely expected), energy effects at the largest and the smallest scales of the universe would be explained. That unification process has led to a theory of a multidimensional universe, in which there are at least seven "extra" dimensions which account for the forces and the conservation laws (symmetries) of physics. They are not extra dimensions of spacetime in which one could devise bizarre travel itineraries, but abstract mathematical dimensions which in some sense constitute the nonlocal (nonspacetime) reality within which cosmos resides.
However, the search for a unified theory has led to an apparent impasse, for theories of unification seem also to require a continuing proliferation of particles. A new messenger particle (or class of particles) called the Higgs boson, [11,12] seems to be needed to explain how particles acquire mass, and to avoid having infinity terms (the result of a division by zero) crop up in the formulas which unify the forces. Leon Lederman, experimental physicist and Nobelist, calls it "The God Particle." He writes, "The Higgs field, the standard model, and our picture of how God made the universe depend on finding the Higgs boson." [13]
Still, major questions remain.[14,15] To some others, particle physics has seemed to reach its limit, theoretically as well as experimentally. Oxford physicist Roger Penrose has written,
If there is to be a final theory, it could only be a scheme of a very different nature. Rather than being a physical theory in the ordinary sense, it would have to be a principle a mathematical principle whose implementation might itself involve nonmechanical subtlety. [16]
Perhaps the time has come for us to accept that cosmos has "infinity terms" after all.
Questions From Psychology
Psychology is conventionally defined as the study of behavior, but for our purposes, it must be returned to the meaning implied in the roots of the word: the study of soul and spirit. Of course, the most obvious phenomenon of psychology is the emergence of consciousness. In the light of the anthropic principle of physics, we now must ask, as a distinctively psychological question, what purpose for the cosmos does consciousness serve?
Another question: Jung [17] has presented the evidence for an archetypal collective unconscious which, on the basis of current understandings, must certainly be inherited as the base-content of human nature. Archetypal genetics has yet to be defined. Symbol processing certainly does have its "local" physical aspect, in the function of the brain and the whole-body physiology which supports it. Nonetheless, that there is a nonlocal reality undergirding psyche is readily evident.
The reality of the dream experience is nonlocal, unconfined by rules of time and space and normal effect. Further, it is nonlocal in that the reality extends beyond the individual, consistently following patterns evident throughout the recorded history of dream and myth. The psyche functions as though the brain, or at least its mechanisms of consciousness, is "observer" for the dream "event in the box" of an unconscious nonlocal collective reality. The archetypal unconscious suggests that there is a psychological substrate from which consciousness and its content have emerged.
In the emergence of consciousness primally, and in the extension of consciousness in modern people through the dreaming process, the collective unconscious (self) seems to serve a nonlocal integrating function, yielding images which the conscious (ego) must differentiate from its "local" observations of the external spacetime world. Thus is consciousness extended.
In that process, however, the ego must self-reflectively also "keep in mind" that our perception of the external physical world is not the reality of the physical world, but an interpretation of it; nor is the external phenomenal world the only reality. To keep our interpretations of the physical world "honest," we must subject observation to tests of consistency and reason, but the calculus of consciousness is the calculus of whole process, both differential and integral. Consciousness cannot be extended, but is diminished, when it denies the reality of the unconscious.
Jung has also pointed to certain meaningful associations between events in psyche and events in the physical world, but which are not related causally. He called such an association a synchronicitiy, which he defines as "an acausal connecting principle." [18] These simultaneous or closely associated occurrences are not connected physically, in any ordinary cause-effect way. However, they are connected meaningfully, that is, psychically. They may have very powerful impact on a person's psychic state and on the subsequent unfolding of personality. Jung studied them with Wolfgang Pauli, a quantum physicist in whose life such phenomena were frequent. [19]
A synchronicity seems to suggest that a nonlocal psychological reality either communicates with or is indentical to the nonlocal reality known in physics. Since it is inconceivable to have two nonlocal realitites coexisting separately from one another, we can confidently assert that there is indeed, only one nonlocal reality.
Another set of phenomena inviting consideration is that which includes group hysteria and mob action. A classic example is that of a high school band on a bus trip, on which all members get "food poisoning" simultaneously before a big game. After exhaustive epidemiological work, no evidence of infection or toxins is found, and the "cause" is attributed to stress and the power of suggestion. The mechanisms are entirely unconscious to the band members; it is as though their psyches have "communicated" in a way that makes them act together. Similarly, in mob action, though the members may be conscious of the anger which moves them, generally the event seems to be loaded with an unconscious dynamic within the group which prepares the way for the event itself.
Spacetime Dimensionality
Physicist Paul Davies has written that one of the basic problems is constructing an adequate definition of dimensionality. [20] The ordinary dictionary definition describes a dimension in terms of magnitude or direction (height, depth, width), and we ordinarily think of the dimensions as perpendicular to each other. But that works only for the familiar spatial dimensions and the actions of ordinary objects. Imagine compressing all of three-dimensional space toward a single point; as it comes close to a point, the concept of being perpendicular loses all meaning. Another problem is that it does not really make sense to think of time (which is a dimension, too) as perpendicular to anything.
A dimension is one of the domains of action permitted to or on an object. By domain I mean something like a field of influence or action. Verticality is not a thing which acts on an object, but is rather that which permits and influences a movement in space, and which influences our description of the movement. For example, verticality is one particular aspect of abstract reality which determines the behavior of an object. But the abstract is real! Take verticality away from three-dimensional space, and an object is permitted to move only in a way that we can analyze as a mix of horizontal and forward-backward motions. Take the horizontal away, and the object may move only along a straight line (one-dimensional space).
The `Extra' Dimensions
The Kaluza-Klein "string" theories, [21] which approach a "Grand Unification" of all of the physical forces, posit dimensions beyond the four of spacetime. There is no theoretical limit to the number of dimensions, for external to spacetime there is no concept of "container" or limit. [Note A]
Since all of the nonspacetime dimensions, by definition, are not extended in space or time, we must conceive of them as represented by points. Since they act together on spacetime, they must "intersect" or somehow communicate with the primal spacetime point. For that reason (and because in the absence of spacetime no point can be offset from another), we must imagine the dimensions as many points superimposed into one. Let's call it the superpoint. We may in fact imagine as many superimposed points (dimensions) as past and future experiments might require to explain the phenomena of creation.
The initial conditions of our spacetime universe are defined in that one superpoint; the Big Bang represents the explosive expansion of four of those dimensions, spacetime. The creation-energy (superforce) responsible for that expansion is concentrated in and at the multi-dimensional superpoint. Yet we must also think of other changes at the superpoint, for as energy levels dissipate immediately after the Big Bang, the superforce quickly "evolves" into the four physical forces conventionally known.
We have said that only the spacetime dimensions are expanding, because the force dimensions ("contained" in the superpoint) are not spatial. By definition, we may not imagine nonspacetime points as extended in space. However, all points in expanding spacetime must still "communicate" with the force dimensions (and the symmetry dimensions, but we are neglecting them for the moment). All points in spacetime must intersect the force dimensions.
It is as if the force dimensions too have been expanded to the size of spacetime, for they are acting on each particle of energy/matter in the universe. One might imagine that one point has been stretched as a featureless elastic sheet, a continuum in which the point is everywhere the same.
However, quantum theory deals with these forces as discrete waves/particles. For example, the force of gravity is communicated by gravitons; the strong nuclear force by gluons; the electomagnetic force by photons. If we conceive the stretched points of the dimensions as "sheets," the sheets must have waves in them. It is these "stretched sheets" which constitute the field in which energy interacts with particles to sustain (and indeed, to continue the creation of) the universe. As I have expressed it in a poem, [22] it is the field "where the forces play pinball / with gravitons and gluons / and modulate / the all."
The Dimension of Thought
Let us imagine again that spacetime (four dimensions) is compressed toward a point. It is futile to ask what is outside that small pellet of spacetime, for the concept of "outsideness" has no meaning except within spacetime. As the pellet becomes smaller still, it shrinks toward nothingness, for a point is an abstract concept of zero dimensions, not extended in space or time, and thus it cannot "contain" anything. At that point, nothing exists except the thinker who is trying to imagine nothingness.
If we could model thought as only an epiphenomenon of matter, reached at a certain degree of complexity, it has no fundamental reality of its own. In that case, our thought experiment to shrink the cosmos reaches a point at which thought is extinguished, and the experiment must stop, if it is to follow the "rules" that it is modeling. However, by accepting that thought might have a reality of its own, and by considering the problem from a whole-system perspective, we were able to continue the thought experiment to the point at which only the thought remains. The epiphenomenon idea is not an adequate model of reality, since we can indeed continue the experiment under the conditions outlined.
This "negative proof" is indirect, serving only to eliminate the epiphenomenon model. It does not prove that there is an independent and fundamental reality beyond spacetime and matter; the experiments supporting Bell's Theorem do that. This line of thinking, however, does lead us to suggest that thought is a primary aspect of reality. It seems that cosmos itself is saying with Descartes, "I think, therefore I am."
Because of this inescapable "relativistic" connection between cosmos and thought, I cannot imagine creation ex nihilo (from nothing), for the concept of nothing always collides with the existence of the one who is the thinker. Nothing has no meaning apart from something. The dimension of thinking is required to imagine zero-dimensional spacetime.
The epiphenomenon model posits that nothing is defined as the absence of matter. If that is so, thought is nothing; but if it were nothing, I could not be thinking that thought, so thought must be a something. There can be no nothingness, for even if all which exists is reduced to nothingness, a dimension of reality remains. Reality requires at least one dimension in addition to spacetime and that reality seems inseparable from the dimension of thought.
A Proposal
What is missing from our existing scheme of dimensions is a description of that dimension which we could not eliminate by playing the videotape of creation in reverse: that reality at the superpoint from which the dimension of thought cannot be separated. That leads to a rather extravagant and intuitive proposal, following Anaxagoras: Thought is the missing particle, the missing dimension.
Quantum physics already acknowledges the importance of consciousness as "observer." Consciousness is the substrate of thought. Thought is consciousness dimensionally extended, whether in time or some other dimension. Thought is process. Any unification of the laws of physics must necessarily take into account the thought/consciousness dimension, and thus must unify physics with psyche as well.
In his book The Self-Aware Universe, Amit Goswami [23] uses the term consciousness to mean a transcendent consciousness, which forms (or is) the nonlocal reality. Other physicists seem to define the term less carefully, and one often wonders whether a given text about observer effect is referring to ordinary individual awareness, or to some more general property of psyche.
As a clinician, I would prefer another term, for it is useful to preserve the important distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness. Psychologically, ordinary human consciousness is the realm of ego and the cognitive functions called mind; and neurologically it refers to a patient's observed state of awareness. The clinical unconscious is the realm of psyche, with both personal and collective aspects. Perhaps a better language will come along in time. Until then, let me suggest an interim language for discussing, and perhaps a framework for someday testing, the relationship between matter and psyche.
I propose that there is a unit [Note B] of psyche, which I designate the nuon, from the Greek word nous, for mind. Nuons represent the dimensions of thought which exist in (at, as) the superpoint defining the initial conditions of the Big Bang. As the domain of the force dimensions, those nuons must be imagined to expand as a field or continuum (the nuocontinuum) as the spacetime continuum expands, a "stretched sheet" with "waves" which are also nuons. The nuons of the superpoint are extended in spacetime in a way conceptually analogous to the action of the forces.
Yet nuons must also be construed as the domain of the symmetries, such as the principle of conservation of energy, which are nonlocal. That is, they are everywhere in effect, without being constrained by the speed-limit of light. The nuocontinuum thus represents a multidimensional bridge between forces, symmetries, and spacetime. Nuons collectively contain all potentialities, but the collective (nuocontinuum) is the unit, itself the symmetry which unifies the forces and symmetries. The nuon is the "infinity particle" which solves the formulas.
Does the nuocontinuum represent a fractal (fractional dimension) such as those which give the mathematical order to the "chaos" images? Does it provide the prime tone of which the symmetries and the forces are harmonics? Whether construed mathematically or poetically, the nuocontinuum contains all the information necessary to create a universe, but a universe which is organically creating itself.
Human awareness, which occurs at a level of extraordinary complexity in the organization of spacetime particles, would involve, not a "creation" of consciousness as an epiphenomenon, but a sensing of a quality which is already there, as the reality- dimension of the cosmos. The observer effect at the quantum level (and the health of Schr”dinger's cat) is then to be understood as an interaction, not with a particle of concrete matter, but with the reality substrate from which matter arises.
If we construe the whole nuocontinuum (rather than the experimenter) to be the "observer" of the quantum event in the box, we avoid much of the confusion and exasperation which Schroedinger's thought experiment evokes. Hawking wrote, "When I hear of Schroedinger's cat I reach for my gun!" [24] Even Einstein was repelled by quantum uncertainty. DeBroglie especially held out for an interpretation of quantum physics which supported concreteness. We rebel against the idea of a universe based on uncertainty, and we seek to assure ourselves that what we experience is a concrete reality.
However, if the nuocontinuum is the observer which resolves the quantum uncertainty, our own individual sense of uncertainty is also resolved. The collapse of the particle wave function (the coming into being of the particle at a particular point in spacetime) would be a function of the nuocontinuum acting as a whole, rather than as a local observer. The nuocontinuum is the observer who actualized creation the cosmic event in the box prior to the development of human consciousness. It is that cosmic observer who unifies the quantum effects of the electronuclear forces and the cosmic effects of gravity.
The Nuocontinuum
The Nuocontinuum, then, designates an unlimited, infinite connecting principle which binds all that is. Because it accounts for the material characteristics of the cosmos, it is "Creator." Because it presents itself through the agency of human consciousness, it may be sensed as Person and named Holy Spirit or Great Mystery. It is the source of that compelling "passion" of which Teilhard spoke, "to become one with the world which envelops us." [25] Thus, though well beyond the scope of this article, the concept has implications for depth psychology and for theology. It has potential to help humans globally recapture a sense of meaning to human life, and to understand the experiences of those whose terminologies differ. Unless we do so, or at least a critical mass of us do, we remain at great risk for destroying ourselves.
But its implications for the healing arts are also profound, for it makes us look at familiar concepts in quite a different light. In its affirmation of meaningful order in the cosmos as a whole, the nuocontinuum concept gives further definition and import to homeostasis as a healing, balancing principle which has more than physiological significance. When we invoke the term "placebo effect" we (usually unwittingly) are invoking a principle of connectedness between an intervention and an effect, which now can be named and conceptualized. "Spontaneous remissions" of disease would be seen as something less than miracles but clearly more than merely chemical. After all, if physics can reach a limit to its powers of description, so too must psychoneuroimmunology.
If as practitioners, we can become aware of the connectedness principle, we will become more aware that our own attitudes and approaches are significant to treatment outcomes and patient satisfaction. We will then realize that even though an experiment may be "doubly-blind" to some experimenters and to some persons being tested, [Note C] there may be other influences outside the cause-effect "loop" and connections of which other persons may not be unconscious. Further, we will better understand that there are different levels of connectivity at work in every action, which require different levels of description to explain. And we might become more sensitive to patient's hopes and expectations which so often are stated in religious terms.
At this point in our harvest of knowledge, this synthesis is quite intuitive and speculative. However, even highly abstract drawings are often helpful in organizing thought. I hope that through some such synthesis as this, couched in whatever language, we will be given that courage to which Dossey alludes, to enter the "doorway through which we may encounter a radically new understanding of the physical world and our place in it." [1] And, one hopes, assure the continued development of our abilities, together, to offer help to all in need of healing.
NOTES
A. One of the theories which seeks to explain the "quantum reality" invokes a concept of "many worlds," that is, many universes existing simultaneously. That would require our scheme to provide for many more dimensions. For simplicity's sake, we will discuss our one visible universe in relationship to the reality-dimensions which nurture it; that reality may include other universes.
B. That is, a unit of thought (an abstract concept), described from a spacetime point of view. Language fails, when one tries to speak of "units" in a realm which knows no boundary. To an observer in the nuocontinuum, all points in spacetime would be seen as one; the life of the universe would have no history or beginning, but would be experienced as a steady state. The creative "thought" or process of the universe extends its logic in a nontemporal realm (cf. Whitehead [7] ).
C. We commonly refer to persons being tested as subjects, but conceptually treat them as objects. Yet the nuocontinuum concept helps to understand that these "objects" of research really are subjects, who experience the test and experimenter subjectively.
REFERENCES
1. Dossey L. How should alternative therapies be evaluated? Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 1995 (May); 1:6-10, 79-85
2. Bertalanffy L. General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: Braziler, 1968
3. Herbert N. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. Garden City NY: Anchor/ Doubleday, 1985
4. Barrow JD and Tipler FJ. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1986:463
5. Hawking SW. A Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam, 1988:174
6. Barrow and Tipler, op. cit.
7. Whitehead AN. Process and Reality. New York: Macmillan, 1929
8. Teilhard de Chardin, P. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper/Colophon, 1975
9. Barrow and Tipler, op. cit., pp 465-466
10. Goswami A with Reed RE and Goswami M. The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World, New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1993:78-97
11. Lederman, L with Teresi D. The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? New York, Bantam Doubleday/Delta, 1994
12. Veltman, MJG. The Higgs Boson. Scientific American 1986 (Nov); 76-84
13. Lederman, op. cit. p. 376
14. Penrose R. The Emperor's New Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989
15. Barrow JD. Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation, New York: Oxford/Clarendon Press, 1991
16. Penrose R. Quoted by Horgan J. Particle Metaphysics. Scientific American 1994 (Feb); 270(2):96-106
17. Jung CG. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton U. Press/ Bollingen, 1968; Collected Works 9(1)
18. Jung CG. Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. Princeton U. Press/ Bollingen, 1969; Collected Works 8:816-997
19. Peat FD. Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind. New York: Bantam, 1987.
20. Davies, P. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985:152 ff.
21. ibid., pp 159-162
22. Bessinger, D. Ekklesia (18), in Milk of Dreams: Cosmic Hymn, Quest, Ekklesia. Orchard Park Press, 1992.
23. Goswami et al., op. cit.
24. Hawking SW quoted by Barrow & Tipler, op. cit., p 458
25. Teilhard de Chardin, P. Christianity and Evolution. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974:57
[TOP]
Foundations for Noetic Medicine
The Pleromatics Project [Index]