by Malcolm Hollick

Physicists are on a quest to discover the eternal Reality that underlies what we experience through our senses and minds; to reveal existence as it really is, and the source of that existence. The Holy Grail they seek is a grand unified Theory of Everything (ToE). In the words of theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin:

In science we aim for a picture of nature as it really is, unencumbered by any philosophical or theological prejudice. Some see the search for scientific truth as a search for an unchanging reality behind the ever-changing spectacle we observe with our senses. The ultimate prize in that search would be to grasp a law of nature – a part of a transcendent reality that governs all change, but itself never changes.

(Never Say Always New Scientist, 23 Sept 2006, pp.31-35)

This might almost be a statement of the aims of mysticism, except that the mystic is not concerned with philosophy, theology or science, but only with direct perception of the Mystery, the One; with union with Spirit, God, Brahman, Allah, Buddha Nature, the Tao, or whatever else we choose to call it.

At this point, let’s pause and ask a heretical question: Is there actually a single eternal Reality to be discovered or encountered? Are the various mystical insights, scientific theories, myths, philosophies and theologies simply different perceptions of the same Reality, like the light reflected from different facets of a jewel, or might they actually represent different realities? The worlds of classical, relativity and quantum physics are quite different to each other, and we tend to think of them as a progression towards the final revelation of the ToE. But is there, in fact, such a thing to discover?

In the field of philosophy and religion, the idea that there is a common perennial philosophy [1]  underlying all faith traditions has gained a wide following. But is it correct? Many others, including the Dalai Lama, recognise that the goals of the various spiritual traditions are actually different. Many distinct peak states of consciousness have been identified by The Institute for the Study of Peak States [2], only some of which correspond to traditional spiritual goals. The kind of enlightenment we seek, or perhaps achieve, depends on the path we choose.

Even more radically, Jorge Ferrer has argued [3] that Spirit itself does not have an eternal form and qualities, but assumes different guises in different contexts. From this perspective, Spirit is co-creating itself in cooperation with its creation in order to explore its full potential and achieve full self-awareness. Hence, as I put it in The Science of Oneness “we are not embarked on exploration into God, but on co-creation of God.” (p.349)

Mind-blowing thoughts! From our twenty-first century perspective, wedded to the idea of fundamental Laws of Nature and/or an eternal God or Spirit, it is hard to conceive that there might not be one true Reality. Let’s explore a little further what this might mean in practice, and see what support there is for it.

We each make sense of the world by comparing information from our senses with mental ‘models’ of reality learned from our culture and constructed from personal experience. For those of us who believe in a spiritual realm, this process also includes inspiration by Spirit. So in this sense we co-create our reality. (See The Science of Oneness [4] for a fuller discussion.) The beliefs of Australian Aborigines provide a good example of this process. The world revealed by their Dreamtime myths IS reality for them. And they literally co-create and maintain that world through their rituals as this quote makes clear:

We start with nothing – a total emptiness – a void. Then we have some singing and dancing. We start by forming – the singing creates the sound and the vibration forms a shape, and the dancing helps solidify it. The dancing is making the form stand out as a tree, a bird, as land. The process, the Dreaming itself, becomes a reality, something we can work with and see.

(David Maybury-Lewis Millenium Viking, 1992)

The Aborigines’ worldview “makes little sense to modern western minds, and is of scant use to us in interpreting our experiences, or in deciding how to live our lives. European colonists saw it as a failure because Aborigines had never ‘progressed’ beyond hunting and gathering. But western scientific theories are of similarly little use to traditional Aborigines. Their Dreaming myths provided shared, coherent, logical images of the material world which were consistent with experience, and formed a reliable basis for action within their culture and environment. These myths enabled them to survive for 100,000 years in a very harsh and changing environment, and to develop a way of life with more time for relaxation, art and ritual than most modern westerners enjoy. By contrast, many European explorers died in country regularly inhabited by Aborigines, despite their scientific knowledge and modern equipment. And European travelers continue to die in the outback when their technology fails. So which is the more reliable view of reality? Given the longevity of their way of life, it can be argued that the Aboriginal worldview works better. After all, our much-vaunted scientific culture is in danger of destroying human civilization after a mere few hundred years.” (The Science of Oneness, p.48)

In a similar way, every culture co-creates its own reality through its interactions with its environment and its myths, theology, philosophy and science. In each age and place, these stories, these mental models (to use a more modern phrase) ARE reality. They mould our actions, and the world responds accordingly. Newtonian physics was reality for classical scientists and enabled the industrial revolution. And quantum physics is reality to those who understand and use it in modern technologies. In some ways, we can say that quantum physics is an advance on Newtonian physics that provides a more accurate model of reality; that we have made progress towards a grand unified ToE. And yet Newtonian physics works fine in the macro world, and the quest for a ToE seems to have stalled.

Is it possible that there is an infinity of possible realities through which we wander as through a pathless wood? Perhaps each worldview emerges from its cultural, environmental and historical context to suit the mood and needs of the age. And through complex feedback loops, our stories, our myths and theories, also shape the culture and environment that give them birth. Perhaps reality evolves as culture evolves? Perhaps each new worldview is no closer to a final answer, a final Reality, Truth or ToE, but rather is a step in an endless, unpredictable and open-ended process of evolution similar to the evolution of cosmos and life. And perhaps, as Jorge Ferrer suggests, not only is our theology and spirituality evolving, but Spirit or God itself is evolving too.

If this is so, how we can choose amongst the smorgasbord of worldviews, of different realities, currently arrayed before us? Which is the most appropriate for our emerging global civilization? It all depends on our objectives, our values, our criteria for success, which in turn are influenced by our current worldview. Are we mainly concerned with the scientific criterion of accurate prediction of material events? Or with the economic imperative of growth? Or might we want to live in harmony with each other and nature? Or to achieve some form of spiritual enlightenment?

To some this may appear as a threatening vision of anarchy. But it can also be seen as offering us true freedom and creative choice; as revealing a potential that is unlimited by any current worldview. It gives us the option to trade in the materialist reality of a mechanistic, deterministic, meaningless universe for a spiritual reality full of life, love, meaning and purpose; or to replace the bigotry and intolerance of fundamentalist religions with a world based on the universal values of love, compassion, justice and wisdom; or to encounter not a dictatorial, angry and vengeful Creator, but a Spirit that is the instigator and sustainer of an experimental creative process in which there is genuine freedom.

These musings, of course, arise from a mind created by our current culture and the emerging worldview. They are not ultimate Truth about reality. But hopefully they will contribute to the evolution of a more appropriate worldview for the needs of the twenty-first century.

So much for cultural, philosophical and spiritual perspectives. In the next entry, I’ll explore some contributions of science to these ideas.

Malcolm Hollick is the author of The Science of Oneness: A worldview for the twenty first century which was joint winner of the Scientific and Medical Network book prize for 2006. For more info and to read the rest of his musings on reality go to malcolmhollick.zaadz.com/blog [5]