Reductionism
Descartes founded a method which is called reductionism today. His suggestion is that if an object is complicated enough one can take it apart in order to be able to examine it better. The fragmented product is taken apart until you reach a level which is undividable. In antiquity the undividable was called atom. Nonetheless, the people have begun to split the atom and thus put themselves above nature’s laws. The result is sick and dangerous. Science has created a further problem by this process. Often it is not able to keep the overview about the entirety.
Thus, you reach specialization. One is under the impression that this specialization is exaggerated so far, until the scientific specialists know less and less about more and more, until one day they will know everything about the Nothing.
Superficially regarded, you gain the impression that Descartes, by this fragmentation method, told us exactly how we can understand the secrets of all life and things.
In the 19th century scientists discovered that not all runs according to Newtonian laws in a determined, causal and definite way, but that one sometimes has to think whether probability plays a role. Through these deliberations the calculus of probability is introduced into mathematics which also helps in physics to further develop certain methods. Thus, a totally new way of thinking developed which led to totally new predictions.
But the general question is relevant: Where does such an idea come from? Why is this idea available to a specific point in time, and interesting enough not only in one mind but often at the same time in several people worldwide? The basic thought, that perhaps everything is present and has only to be recalled, has been lost to most scientists. So they are inclined to reinvent the old. Thus, the following question arises:
Who is the human and who invented him?
The evolutionary theory by Darwin is unsatisfactory for me. Scientific literature has a book with the subtitle “The invention of the human”. The main title of the book is “Shakespeare” and had been written by the end of the 16th century, beginning of the 17th century. This book allows us to regard the human not only as one being which is inseparably organized in a collective unit, meaning a community, but also to be discovered as an individual with its own feeling- and dream-world.
But this is exactly contrary to our present day industrialized society. They want the profitable mass marketing. Though they speak of an individual personal development, in reality they carry on slavery on a high level. Because, if you do not drive a certain car, do not dress in a certain way, or do not allow yourself a certain holiday location you become a pitiable outsider.
This already begins in school. There they teach systematic classification and quantitative, logical, rational and reproducible things. At school you are not allowed to follow individual dreams. Also, in later life, when you begin your career as a small employee, dreaming is not desirable. But without dreams no ideas come. And without ideas and dreams the person does not become happier. Also, the satisfied consumer does not become happy in the long run. This one should notice at the latest after the fifth car in the garage!
Even with the progress of the last 400 years, which we want to consider here, people have not become happier.
Despite wealth there is more than enough dissatisfaction, and one has to ask oneself where it comes from. Maybe people miss the beautiful side of life beside the seemingly necessary things. There has to be a different part of reality which is outside the discovered scientific laws.
For example, you find hints in E.T.A. Hoffmann’s tales. Here you can discover the romantic who thinks and acts against the pre-determined Newtonian laws. Thus, a totally different life situation develops. Always the romantics rejected that they were served by such an industry which degrades them to consuming objects at this moment. Because actually we are subjects and as such we have a free will. Always, when we allow ourselves to be robbed of this free will, we will become unhappy. The human being as subject is not suitable to become objectified by medicine and the pharmaceutical industry.
The thought of romanticism spread exactly with the increasing industrialization. It allows us to lead a life which is not as clearly structured as the industrial society would like it to be. In contrast, I can freely live my life in romanticism. Doing so, I can reach contrary decisions of course. Sometimes I can get into situations where I don’t know exactly what I really want. Then I cannot ask any law to explain this to me. Suddenly, instead, I am in the strange situation where I have to recognize that I live in two worlds.
One is a material world full of causalities, and the other is a world of the spirit where free decisions can lead to contradictions. But, if you have romantic thoughts despite the contradictions you always have the feeling of something beautiful.
The eternal economic growth cannot be the goal of humanity, for we only have this one earth which we destroy with this kind of thinking.
Thus, to someone, who represents innovation and growth without blushing, this thinking becomes a suicide attack. The logical consequence from this is: We should never look for new thoughts from the outside, but always within ourselves.
How does such an inside appear and can one examine this process with scientists who became famous? Let us research once again the history of science.
Johannes Kepler discovered the planetary laws between 1600 and 1620. These findings brought him into “holy ravings”, as he described it himself. In a certain way he had the feeling that God revealed these laws to him, which naturally made him so happy that he could not sleep for days. He was so deeply moved that he knew for certain that his postulated laws were absolutely correct. Afterwards he thought about from where he got the certainty. He concluded as follows:
“To recognize means: You bring together the perceived with the inner ideas and you judge their congruence.”
Sometimes we feel something which we then later know. We only have to gather the knowledge into ourselves. Naturally, this thinking reminds us of Plato, who thinks that cognition is always recognition. I have a perception and try to connect that which I have seen with the sensual impression of an idea which was given to me.
Kepler goes so far as to express, that all scientific findings I already have within me, meaning that I have them as Potentia in me, which will produce pictures to the outside if I allow this. That means you can receive outer pictures through perceptions and measures – but that also pictures from within me can appear.
These inner pictures have to come from somewhere and the most logical explanation is the morphogenetic fields.
Having such recognition processes you have the feeling as if the soul would be illuminated from within.
Albert Einstein says about this state: “I am content. Suddenly I have the absolute feeling of peace.” And this has nothing to do with rationality but with emotionality. You get the feeling of certainty within yourself and not the pushing for proof of certainty. This feeling of certainty comes from the belly and gives me the certainty to know myself.
Also the French Enric Berksan stated in his work, which was published in 1908: “You should regard the world around you as an object of a film camera. The whole should be regarded and judged as a movie. You record a movie of your own life in its own environment. Parallel to this you record a second inner movie which reflects the emotionality as well. Both films you bring into congruence afterwards. When this happens then I know for sure.”
Also, Kepler identifies his inner pictures and notices that these are structured. These structures correspond to certain laws, and for this reason he calls them archetypical pictures. They are able to rise to consciousness and lead to cognitive processes.
Archetypical also means archaic, or primordial, that means preset, with which we try to approach a situation. In biology one uses the term archetype to understand the building principles of organisms. One puts this term on one level with a kind of a primordial building plan for plants or animals. The molecular genetics also approaches this term. The philosophers understand this archetype as the primordial picture of the real, of the essence.
The psychologist Carl Gustav Jung is of the opinion that all people have an unconscious, where all necessary knowledge is anchored.
On the other hand, I cannot imagine that each one of us carries all existing knowledge unconsciously within himself. I assume that we are connected to a so-called morphogenetic field which is a giant data field. If we want to we can consciously recall certain information from this field. Via this morphogenetic field we are connected to all other living beings and could communicate with one another without using technical means. On the other hand, Carl Gustav Jung calls this the collective unconscious, which among others could cause mass hysteria.
This collective unconscious naturally needs clear structures and rules, such as a net work in the computers. If I recognize something about the collective unconscious I have an archetypical way of recognizing, and thus also archetypical pictures, which can appear in many people simultaneously. Unfortunately, it is also possible – if you know the underlying laws – to manipulate the collective unconscious negatively.
The physicist and Nobel Prize winner Wolfgang Pauli, who was born in Vienna in 1900 and who died in Zurich in 1958, was only known for doing wonderful theoretical physics. He discovered the spin as something strange, which had to be added to the atomic building blocks in order to understand the basics of chemical bounds at all.
Also, Pauli’s indications of the existence of new particles in physics are very interesting. Since 1990 it is known that Pauli dreamed very intensely about his work. The psychologist Carl Gustav Jung helped him to evaluate these dreams.
The scientific world view of Wolfgang Pauli was based on these dreams.
Pauli was a convinced follower of the idea of Kepler, that there are archetypical basic patterns which show themselves in this process of recognition. For this reason he was totally against the method and thinking of Karl Popper in the fifties. The following statement of Wolfgang Pauli originates in the year 1957: “I hope that nobody is of the opinion that theories can be deduced from forcefully logical conclusions from minute books. This is an opinion which was still very much fashionable in my student days… Theories develop through and by an understanding which is an empirically and materially inspired understanding, which is to be understood as coming to congruence with Plato’s inner pictures with outer objects and its attitude.” Pauli further says: “And again the possibility of understanding shows the existence of regulating and typical arrangements which the inner as well as the outer world of a person is subject to.”
From this position Pauli risks something grandiose which, in my opinion, was not followed up exactly enough. He actually wants to reach that, which everyone looks for: namely, the holistic view of the world.
…to be continued.
Taken from Paracelsus “Health & Healing”, IX/1 November 2011
Contact Address:
Prof. E.H. Iwailo Schmidt BGU
Healing Practitioner and Lecturer for Naturopathy
Dora-Stock-Str. 1
01217 Dresden
Tel.+49(0)3514-71 75 68
info@naturheilpraxis-i-schmidt.de
www.naturheilpraxis-i-schmidt.de
Literature:
Iwailo Schmidt, The Subtle Naturopathy (Die feinstoffliche Naturheilkunde), Private Publishing House, Dresden 2007
Iwailo Schmidt, Textbook of Bio-Energetics (Lehrbuch der Bioenergetik), Private Publishing House, Dresden 2006
Iwailo Schmidt, Textbook of Ideational Realization (Lehrbuch der Bewusstwerdung), Private Publishing House, Dresden 2007
Comments are closed.