Presentation at the 2001 Symposium on
Humanity and the Cosmos
Brock University, Ontario, Canada, on 21-23 June 2001.

 

SPIRITUALITY AND COMPLEX SYSTEMS

by Bruce Buchanan

Ladies and gentlemen,

I approach this audience and this presentation with some trepidation. My friends tell me that 4 out of 5 philosophers surveyed think 1 out of 5 philosophers is an idiot - saying things like: Reality is not what it seems to be, nor is it otherwise. Since I am only one person I may be at a disadvantage here.

Our theme is human nature, concerning which we have much folk wisdom. For instance, the view that there is some good in everyone may be, it is said, the result of not meeting enough people. Then there is the adage that it is always darkest just before all the lights go out completely.

But let me I will push out into deeper waters, hoping to stay afloat long enough to make the effort interesting.

The central idea which underlies my presentation today is this: The human mind, with its limitations and uncertainties, imposes conditions and constraints on any conception we may have of the universe or cosmos. This may lead to metaphysical insight and a realization that there is a kind of identity here: human thoughts and capacities and the knowable universe are reflections of each other. Such ideas are not original - they go back thousands of years - but are not as widely understood as they need to be. Moreover we need a kind of language which clarifies rather than obscures the mutuality of this relationship, and systems concepts may be an advance on traditional terms. Let me try to unpack this thesis.

1. Introduction:

What in the world have the aspirations of spirituality and the concepts of systems sciences and complexity to do with each other? They may have more in common than appears at first glance, and I offer this personal view for your consideration.

Let us begin with the question of methods, of how we know and what we can know, of epistemology. The common rationale for belief in science or any particular religion come down to the fact that this is the way one was brought up, a way that has been validated by personal experience. Yet we have to suspect that many different systems of this type, while self-validating, are seriously flawed, and not likely to make for peace and understanding in the global village.

It seems clear that the observer has a role to play in the formulation of what is observed, and our understanding is improved as this is taken into account. From the perspectives of systems science, this leads us to what is known as second order cybernetics, which points to a constructivist view of knowledge.

To assume that reality exists only at one level, that of your or my perception, blocks further inquiry. A point of view provides one entry level, but there are many levels to explore.

As Gregory Bateson, one of the fathers of cybernetics, pointed out, what we notice are "differences that make a difference". We look for signs and indications that have a bearing on our goals and help us make choices. What we notice depends upon our expectations as well as what is there. The views we take of human nature and potential reflect our aims and values.

2. Human Nature:

No topics are more important than those of the nature and values of humankind. As Nietzsche pointed out, in the classical era notions of good and bad originally expressed little more than the views of aristocrats. And elites in all times have had similar tendencies as they attempt in the pursuit of power to choose the defining realities for others.

But times are changing. We no longer accept absolutes from science or religion, we find social darwinism an excuse for exploiting others, and are reluctant passively to accept supposed inevitabilities as prescribed for us by political and economic leaders. We find much human frailty in high places, and we want to be responsible in helping to shape a better world, even to the seventh generation.

In talking about abstractions and levels of complexity, we require a map with reference points to keep us from losing our way. Northrop Frye as well as Stafford Beer have pointed to the difficulties of using language to talk about language. Our choice is of models, not "what is". We cannot compare our models with "reality". We can only compare our models with other models as to coherence, consistency and usefulness, and choose what suits our purposes. To do this adequately we must be conscious of our methods, and for the most part seek operational criteria. Freedom has to do eith real choices - freedom to travel requires the necessary resources, knowledge and planning. Values sinvolve decision criteria, choices and results.

3. Systems

A system is essentially a collection of elements organised to serve a common purpose. All organisations, of whatever kinds, require information as well as criteria or values for making decisions, including feedback concerning results, which makes possible the correction of aim and the stabilisation of the system.

While observation reveals that all the processes of nature and life are subject to such principles of organisation, the notion of system is primarily a conceptual tool. A system is a consciously selective abstraction chosen for possible usefulness.

It deserves special notice that it is feedback that enables the functions of parts to be coordinated with the purposes of the whole. As a result of feedback, the relation of parts to the whole is made clear and precise, and makes possible changes of the parts in response to the demands of the environment of the whole.

In speaking of "complex systems" I wish here to draw attention to those kinds of system which, in the form of concepts or models, are incomplete in terms of essential content, and which require reference and continuing feedback from the real world or environment. Simple systems can often be fully described in diagrammatic form. By comparison, the complex systems of the real world cannot be captured in their entirety by conceptual thought. A surgeon who conducted every operation by the book, regardless of findings in progress, would not be competent. In general, systems of thought not open to new experiences are doomed to decay.

4. Science and Reality

It is the conventional view of many practising scientists, and for some heretical to doubt it, that there is a real world "out there" which can be known, and known only by science. This is essentially the view, as I understand it, of the proponents of Sociobiology.

The appeal and hopes for such an approach are evident. Yet the view of truth which it presents is limited. Science presents us with various highly selective abstract versions of how some things work, not with reality "as it exists". Theory may be very useful in many ways, but it puts the cart before the horse to suppose it can be the role of abstract theory to plumb the origins of human experience. A theory is an abstraction from events, a selective, reduced set where one idea stands for many things, where even systems of ideas cannot adequately map the variety of the world.

Thoughts and ideas have their origins in the existential challenges of life. And what often make a decisive difference for survival are contributions of personal character - existential factors such as integrity of purpose, resourcefulness in the face of uncertainty, and the vitality and courage needed to manage and overcome anxiety. Theories about brain function are of limited use in relation to such realities.

Science is the product of human inquiries, far from a knowledge of ultimate realities.

5. Radical Constructivism

Let us consider more explicitly the case for a radical constructivisy view. This approach recognises that human observers play an active part in selecting and interpreting what they observe. We look for changes that make a difference, changes that mean something to us.

A constructivist view sees science as a creative human accomplishment, subject to all the conditions and limitations of human thought, perception and language. As Maturana has said,"Everything that is said is said by somebody"

A "radical constructivist" approach begins with phenomena as they appear to personal consciousness. Such experiences are subject to sharing, given common life, language and daily cooperative living and loving.

6. Spirituality

How do such considerations of complexity and constructivism relate to spirituality?

One spiritual teaching is that behind the world of concrete events there is an unseen world which underlies the visible particulars. From the point of view of systems sciences we may say that the world is sustained by complex relationships of which we understand relatively little. Human attention span is limited, memories short and fallible. It is far beyond our capacities, even with computer assistance, to fathom all the relationships and interactions which support existence. What we can do is to point in the direction of what Karl Jaspers called "the Encompassing" - a direction of search and of unbounded possibilities. But the immediate realities for us, as finite beings, are those of quest and process.

Some believe that spiritual experiences point to the existence of some kind of transcendent spiritual realm apart from this world. A major difficulty of this view is that it fails to recognize and integrate our concepts about the world in which we live with the informing influences of Spirit. Another difficulty is that highly privileged personal beliefs really cannot be shared with those who have not had the same revelation.

Moreover we do need to abandon divisive concepts and categories of thought, viz. the Cartesian split between mind and matter. Not only in principle but also in observation, life and the world are a unity. We are part of our environment, and it is part of us - both in terms of the ideas we entertain and the materials which compose us. In a similar way, we are part of and also include the cosmos. We originate in star dust, our evolution has since been shaped by cosmic particles from beyond our galaxy. What we do with our lives will inevitably make a difference in ways which are beyond our powers to grasp.

These various dimensions of experience point us to a larger and more inclusive whole - a cosmos - a reality which is infinite and ultimately unknowable to us, yet somehow a mirror of those who observe it, albeit refracted through local culture and society. A personal realisation (the "making real") of this perspective in daily life is perhaps one expression of spirituality. It involves a quest beyond the personal for that guiding spirit which is not an object but an informing and illuminating process. Such a process is necessarily reciprocal as well as constructivist, and in almost every respect meets the requirements for definitions of love, that is, a reciprocal cooperation at every level of being, not confined or limited in any way.

An objective characterisation of spirituality must always be elusive, but surely includes a movement of heart and intellect dancing to the harmonies of a whole.

7. Implications

The implications of such a view have always been, and still are, considerable.

Customary values are often based upon an unreasoned basic faith, including faith in science. A constructivist approach hews more closely to the criterion of "By their fruits ye shall know them". We should attend to due process, including anticipation and efforts to ensure results, as we make and try to maximize the choices available to us.

A radical constructivist view provides a context for a reexamination and reformulation of all kinds of real world problems. Such a process can help to clarify assumptions and resolve confusions seen as problems. Differing views of human nature underlie many conflicts between individuals and groups - the Mideast is a hotbed of examples.

A constructivist systems approach can help lay the groundwork for the necessary radical redirection of social policy towards sustainable development. Current trends are profligate and point to disaster unless technological capabilities are brought into more sustainable relationship to population pressures and consumption levels. Conventional science requires the insights of systems studies if we would sustain human civilization.

Economic models make assumptions about human nature - the role of fear and greed, of rational man - which often simply serve ideological purposes, that is, they help to rationalise the status quo in the interests of the powers that be. Superficial assessments of human needs and motivations must be deepened and clarified as part of a more adequate economics.

Salvation means many things to many people, but a key may lie in the feelings of assurance of the validity of the values by which we live, and the potential for support by powers beyond our knowledge or control.

8. Conclusion

What may we conclude from such considerations?

Although seldom aware of it, we exist only in virtue of vital reciprocities at many levels, such as reciprocated love and family relationships, the various enterprises of science, civil society, and of government, as well as the practical agreements possible in an open society.

Despite differences in language and philosophies, there is common ground here on which mutual understanding may be possible if we can maintain a steady aim.

Foremost among spiritual teachings are several principles which accord with insights from systems sciences. These include: (1) unceasing attention and reference to the patterns which connect with the whole; (2) exhortations to wakefulness, to avoid sleep or withdrawal and denial of perhaps uncomfortable realities; (3) to shoulder responsibility, to commit to the values and goals of life, to set a target or mark worthy of attainment; (4) to be prepared to admit error, and in repenting to to learn, to correct one's aim and reform behaviour.

We know that closed systems are doomed to entropic decay, that any human institution which claims absolute truth is doomed to errors which cannot be recognised within its system and are therefore beyond hope of remedy.

We know that choices matter, and some consequences are irretrievable, so that among other values those of circumspection and humility are very real.

We know that faith without works is dead; good intentions alone are not enough. We know the vital importance of feedback, of using evaluative information to correct our aims and methods. But our aims must be high. It is not enough to respect and revere only the lives we know and touch in the present. Under the eye of the eternal it is necessary for us to be as open as possible to all the needs for the future health of the whole - spaceship earth and more, those unborn to the seventh generation, and the cosmos.

It has been said that the modern world is fractured intellectually and in need of new ideas which may enable it to break through its current abstractions (Whitehead). Of course, not everyone who strays off the traditional reservations will discover something worthwhile, but without the spirit that sustains such ventures there can be no hope for the future of civilisation.

Selected References:

Bateson, Gregory. Steps To An Ecology Of Mind. Ballantine (1972)
Beer, Stafford. Platform for Change. John Wiley & Sons (1994)
Bronowski, Jacob. the Origins of Knowledge and Imagination. Yale U.(1978)
Damasio, Antonio R. Descartes' Error. Grosset/Putnam. (1994)
Frye, Northrop. The Double Vision. U. of Toronto Press (1991)
Jaspers, Karl. General Psychopathology. Univ. of Chicago Press (1963)
Margenau, Henry. The Miracle of Existence, New Science Lib. (1987)
Saul, John Ralston. the Unconscious Civilization. Anansi (1995)
Tillich, Paul. The Courage To Be. Yale University Press (1952)
Underhill, Evelyn. Mysticism. New American Lib. Meridian (1955)
Watts, Alan. The Supreme Identity. Vintage (1972)
Wilson, E.O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Knopf (1998)

---

Integrity Links         Buchanan Index           Genre