For anyone interested --

Tom, a former member of IPS, has posted an interesting -- and lengthy! -- blog on Integral Life.


Quantum Enlightenment 

Views: 3235

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

He says:

Thinking that says direct knowing is a chimera because all knowing is mediated is Newtonian thing-thinking.... Quantum thinking...reinstates direct knowing as central to the thinking, knowing is unmediated, direct, non-causal.

I'm not buying. This all sounds a lot like Chopra's quantum soup that we explored here and here. Now Tom does make some good points elsewhere in the article with which I agree, and I can talk about those latter.

Yes, I noticed that comment; I decided to post a link to the essay on IPS because I figured that comment may have been intended as a critique of some of the content here (e.g., our former conversations here and/or on Integral Archipelago), and I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss it.  I believe I get what he's saying, and I actually think it's a good point, but to me it actually calls the notion of 'direct' knowing into question at the same time it calls 'mediated' knowing into question, since both 'mediation' and 'direct access' seem to presuppose a 'mode of contact' with the 'thing-itself' (that polarity having been crafted, or enacted, in the same 'space').  If direct is interpreted as 'direct contact with the thing-itself,' then I think that is invalid (and actually still the Newtonian thing-thinking he criticizes).  I expect he doesn't mean that, and is playing with a language of directness as a kind of challenge or counter to an approach which emphasizes mediation (to the extent that such an approach also presupposes a gap between reified 'knower' and 'thing-itself'), since that is a more prevalent view.  So, my sense is that the 'directness' intended is not the metaphysical directness criticized by postmodern, poststructuralist thought (I think Chopra is likely guilty of endorsing that meaning of the term), but I would suggest that the word 'direct' in the context of Tom's discussion is misleading, for the reasons stated above, and maybe another word would be better.



Zeroful Midst-beginning Two-mergence

my 2 cents comes with the recognition that i am a somewhat deficient little green devil! what i'm wondering is whether this kind of argument is where kenny and company get their spiritual darwinism from? love, love, love? 

i have noticed that many cosmologists- tom's essay seems to be coming from cosmology- are some kind of theists, while biologists and chemists, etc.,  are more prone to atheism or skeptical agnosticism? 

zizek mentions that most criticism of religion/spirituality is by its very nature disrespectful? 

good to hear that your still kickin' it tom! well, in my mind atomic physics is a part of cosmology, or the study of the universe.....


you must know that this territory can go to woo-woo pretty quickly! so, i think some of sam harris' advice on the vid that bruce posted today should probably be heeded when one ventures into this kind of discussion . hey, sam has been ripping off my ideas! hehehe


so, teal gets spiritual again? damn i was having so much fun being an atheist!

lol! yes, i've heard that einstein couldn't wrap his head around qm. i think he called it spooky; the whole non-local thing and all. btw., for the record, i kind of dig theoretical physics ala brian greene, and michio kaku and all; flights of imagination , 11 dimensions of hyper-space, etc. very interesting theorizing....


but to say that the universe is being driven by love doesn't really do any thing for me personally. could be, but it sounds more like a religious assertion.....

I appreciate your responses, Tom (and welcome back to the forum).  I am just getting back from a late night at work, so I will wait till tomorrow to read them over more carefully and post a response then.

Hi, Tom, a brief note now, with more to come:  


I follow what you are saying, and see some interesting parallels in Buddhism (Zen, Dzogchen) and TSK.  Regarding the latter, TSK has a somewhat difficult notion called the 'read-out principle,' where 'read-outs' are whole, all-at-once, acausal 'presentations' or 'spontaneous emergences.'  Causal patterns and sequences and relationships can still be traced out, but in each case, such tracing and such identified patterns would be inseparable from a given acausal read-out.  I can return later with some examples of this.  In TSK teaching, the 'read-out principle' is usually introduced (a la Madhyamaka) through a thorough deconstructive causal analysis, a mining into causality that is also an undermining


Re: woo-woo, in TSK, it is in this context -- a causality-transcending-and-including move -- that the word 'magic' is introduced.

Just wondering Tom if your ideas have anything in common with de Quincey in this thread?

I may have shared this with you before, Tom, but if not, here's one essay which may have something to contribute to the line of thought (on light, information, and consciousness) you've developed in your most recent post:

Amplifying Phenomenal Information

Hi Tom

Great to see you back here. I've always loved reading your thoughts on light/consciousness/ biophysics. :-)

"Because each organism produces light of a particular frequency and signature, its biophotonic holograph will be particular to it and, presumably, immediately accessible by it."


Is my underlined part of your statement a recognised scientific fact in the field of biophysics? I am a total non expert in this field and had not considered that something such as a biophotonic holograph even existed, either as a concept or as a "measurable reality". That each organism might have such a (measuarable, provable?) biophotonic integrity seems to have all kinds of (light-based) implications for health and well being.


And as an esoteric aside, do you have any thoughts about how "inner light" experiences such as kundalini might relate to any of your main observations?

But this stuff is really hard to describe, and if I condense any further, my already cryptic language will become absolutely impenetrable.  I haven't found a way around that problem.

Yes, I am having difficulty understanding this, hence my lack of comments so far. I'm giving it some time to settle into my subconsciousness to see what pops out.

Reply to Discussion


What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2024   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service