Chapter 1 from Quantum Organizations
TWO DUELING PARADIGMS: The Essential Categories for Seeing, Thinking, and Behaving
by Ralph H. Kilmann
Contents
THE OLD PARADIGM
Two Dominating Patriarchs
Seven Essential Categories in the Old Paradigm
THE NEW PARADIGM
Discovering the Quantum Nature of Light
Discovering the Absolute Speed of Light
The Realization of a Relativistic Universe
Superstrings as the Substance of Spacetime
Rejecting the Separation of Mind and Matter
Bringing Consciousness into the Cosmos
Journeying into Consciousness
The Evolution of Multiple Universes
The Relevance of Quantum Mechanics
Seven Essential Categories in the New Paradigm
THE CHALLENGE OF TRANSFORMATION
"If we want to transform the structure and leadership of our organizations, we have to address change at the fundamental paradigmatic level. We have to change the thinking behind our thinking. Leaders who want to initiate real change processes must become aware that they have been acting out of a paradigm. They must see the origin and nature of this existing paradigm and its effect on their management. And they must get to a point where they can feel the reality of an alternative paradigm -- or the creative excitement of standing at the edge between paradigms." -- Danah Zohar (1997, page 25)
A paradigm is a coherent, internally consistent approach for making sense of the universe and coping with life: essentially, how one sees, thinks, and behaves. Similar terms that are often used interchangeably with paradigm include archetype, gestalt, worldview, template, schema, mind-set, mental model, and conceptual/theoretical framework. In its basic form, a paradigm is a fairly rigid set of categories that are organically infused within a human mind/brain: If a person does not have a category for seeing something, for all practical purposes it does not exist. Paradigms are deeply entrenched in unstated, untested, and unquestioned assumptions about the fundamental makeup of reality: light, space, time, energy, mass -- and, particularly, the nature of life and human beings (Kuhn, 1962).
Organizational transformation represents a fundamental shift from one paradigm to another, since fundamental change, by definition, necessarily influences how all members of an organization see, think, and behave -- otherwise, a change initiative would be rather superficial and short lived, but not transformational or paradigmatic (Kilmann and Covin, 1988).
For most organizational transformations, fundamental change is not simply an exchange of one paradigm for another. It is more appropriately described as a shift from an old (inflexible, dysfunctional) worldview to a new (more adaptive, functional) worldview. Being adaptive and functional is usually judged relative to meeting the challenges that are posed by the organization's environment: What comprehensive approach is needed by an organization and its members to survive -- and thrive -- as a collective enterprise over an extended duration of time? Alternatively, defective and dysfunctional approaches block the organization from achieving both its individual and its collective goals.
For organizations today, most talk of transformation recognizes that the old ways are no longer working (old paradigm) and an altogether new approach (new paradigm) is required in order to succeed in an energetic, fast-paced, competitive, interconnected, global economy. While a variety of phrases have been used to underscore this old versus new approach, a powerful consensus is developing as to the essence of the transformation that is now required of more and more organizations. I find it most useful to refer to the outdated worldview as the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm and to the new worldview as the Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm.
As noted in the preface, there has been increasing attention devoted to the new science behind the new paradigm. But these discussions have not provided enough depth for illuminating (1) self-aware consciousness as the crucial ingredient for understanding and using the new paradigm and (2) a distinctive methodology for effectively helping people transform themselves and their enterprises into consciousness-generating quantum organizations. In this ambitious chapter, my purpose is to extract the most relevant aspects of the two paradigms in order to understand -- in depth -- their fundamental distinctions. Because transformation is usually moving away from the old paradigm and purposely shifting toward the new one, relatively more discussion will be provided for the Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm than for the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm. Basically, gaining a much deeper understanding of seven diametrically opposed categories that represent the two dueling paradigms will prepare organizational members to see, think, and behave in an adaptive manner and, thereby, transform themselves as well as their systems and processes. Indeed, it is the intentional shift from the old paradigm to the new that characterizes self-aware consciousness and organizational transformation.
THE OLD PARADIGM
The traditional Western view of the universe and life is usually traced to the vigorous ancient Greek civilization circa 400 BCE and thereafter. Euclid and Aristotle are two significant figures who shaped the way we see and think about the universe. Euclid defined space in absolute terms, with an absolute point of origin. He built his elaborate geometry of space onto a perfectly flat surface, where the shortest distance between two points was a straight line -- and two parallel lines could never touch. Aristotle, among his many other contributions, arranged linear time into past, present, and future -- setting the stage for logical thinking and deterministic science. As a result, absolute space and absolute time became the basis for a rational approach to philosophy and science, actualized by an overriding belief in the existence of a linear, logical, and completely understandable universe (Euclid, 1956; Aristotle, 1958).
Leonard Shlain (1991, page 33), a surgeon and scholar, offers a cogent portrait of the impact of Greek culture on the Western mind:
Euclidean space and Aristotelian time have formed the basis of a paradigm that has been remarkably enduring. This worldview has survived virtually unchanged since it was first proposed nearly twenty-five hundred years ago. Almost without exception everyone in Western society uses this ancient system. Euclid's Elements [of Geometry] is probably the second most widely read book in the history of the world. It is nearly impossible to grow up without being inculcated with Euclid's ideas at a very early age. Likewise, a tacit knowledge of Aristotle's logic is a prerequisite for every professional, technological, and literate position in sophisticated society.
Between 200 BCE and 100 BCE, the conquering Romans absorbed much of the Greek culture rather than revolutionizing philosophy (and science) on their own. Following the fall of the Roman Empire, circa CE 400, a long period of sleep, known as the Dark (or Middle) Ages, spread over Europe. The Catholic Church fully controlled the cultural landscape for centuries -- concentrating solely on the disjointed spiritual perspective of space (Earth, heaven, hell) and time (surrounding the birth of Christ, during the life of Christ, achieving eternal life), while espousing the Son of God as the focal point of all worldly matters. During this process, the Church inadvertently stalled the progress of geometry, logic, and science (St. Augustine, 1958).
The period beginning around 1400, which has come to be known as the Renaissance, created revolutionary changes in the Western paradigm. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo acknowledged the sun (rather than Earth) as the orbital center of the solar system and also sensed that the physical expanse of the universe was much larger -- and more complex -- than had ever been thought previously (Motz and Weaver, 1989).
Two Dominating Patriarchs
Then, during the 1600s, came the renowned work of Rene Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton, who, apparently more than any others, articulated and formalized the old paradigm that was to dominate Western civilization for the next several hundred years (Descartes, 1969; Newton, 1934; 1960).
One of the most lingering principles that Descartes articulated was his view of the universe as a mechanical apparatus -- as a large clocklike mechanism. This mechanistic perspective was further encouraged by his rigid split of the conscious mind inside the human body from the nature of the physical universe outside the body, which was termed dualism. The Church would continue to focus on the spiritual side, while philosophers and scientists could now be somewhat free from religious domination in order to examine the physical world. Dualism was a creative solution for this duration of time, when the boundaries between religion and science had to be carefully drawn and publicly respected. However, the rigid and artificial schism between the mind inside (consciousness) and the physical world outside (matter), even if useful in the short term, eventually led to a fragmented view of consciousness and matter.
In 1687, Isaac Newton additionally reinforced this dualistic approach when he published his framework of mathematical principles and laws to explain the motion of all physical objects in the universe -- assuming that an objective reality existed completely independent of the human mind. Newton's theories, laws, and mathematics had no place for people or life. Much like Descartes, Newton portrayed a mechanical, clocklike universe -- consisting of lifeless, inert physical objects -- that conformed to all his laws of motion.
The physical objects that were in Newton's world -- all matter from elementary atoms to solar systems -- were also looked upon in a dualistic manner. All objects were seen as entirely independent of each other and thus could never penetrate one another: There was a hard and inflexible boundary that solidly delineated the mass, density, and identity of every object -- in any space for any duration of time. The motion of all spheres (from atoms to solar systems) was similar to orbiting or colliding billiard balls in a three-dimensional playing field. Action and reaction were thus the only rules of interaction: Billiard balls couldn't combine or transform into anything else. Within Newton's system of motion, there weren't any "categories" for seeing interdependence, integration, or unification among separate physical objects. The whole of the universe was exactly the sum of its independently moving, orbiting, and colliding spheres.
Margaret Wheatley (1992, page 27) underscores how the Newtonian focus on separate pieces and parts has found its way into the structure of today's organizations -- and most other realms of human endeavor:
It is very interesting to note just how Newtonian most organizations are. The machine imagery of the spheres was captured by organizations in an emphasis on structure and parts. Responsibilities have been organized into functions. People have been organized into roles. Page after page of organizational charts depict the workings of the machine: the number of pieces, what fits where, who the big pieces are.... This reduction into parts and the proliferation of separations has characterized not just organizations, but everything in the world during the past three hundred years. Knowledge was broken into disciplines and subjects, engineering became a prized science, and people were fragmented -- counseled to use different "parts" of themselves in different settings.
Seven Essential Categories in the Old Paradigm
The Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm can be summarized by the following seven categories, which have strongly influenced (and continue to guide) how the Western world sees, thinks, and behaves:
- The Dualistic Separation of Consciousness/Matter. The physical world exists completely separate from and is unaffected by human beings (and all other varieties of life). The human mind and consciousness, therefore, have no effect whatsoever on the nature of physical reality. The universe -- and the laws that explain it -- would exist the same way whether there were human beings or not.
- The Universe as the Motion of Inert Molar Objects. Matter is the building block of the universe. First, atoms consolidate into molecules, which compress into inert molar objects, which then are governed by Newton's laws of motion.
- The Space Between Molar Objects as Flat and Empty. Between all physical objects, space is always flat and empty. While planets have atmospheres, objects in motion still follow Newton's laws of motion for any mass at any speed -- taking into account the effects of not being in a perfect vacuum: heat, humidity, barometric pressure, atmospheric pressure, wind, and so on. But in outer space, a vacuum of nothingness exists, within which the physical laws of motion apply perfectly to all objects.
- The Unique Existence of Only One Absolute Universe. There is only one universe, composed of three dimensions of space (length, width, and depth) and one dimension of time (from past to present into future). Space and time are absolute -- the same for all observers and participants under all conditions. Therefore, the laws of physics are also absolute and eternal.
- The Deterministic Certainty of Inert Molar Objects. Objects are inert and only external forces can move them -- there is no self-motion. Thus objects in the universe are much like billiard balls: Position and momentum can be determined simultaneously and precisely, including the trajectory of any object, given the force and direction of some initial push and the invisible force of gravity. This universal force of gravity imposes an attraction between molar objects, based on their respective masses and the distance between them. But the creation and composition of this invisible force in the universe are entirely unknown.
- The Fundamental Separation of Inert Molar Objects. Inert objects are completely separate and distinct from one another. There is no force or bond between such objects separated in empty space -- except for the invisible pull of gravity -- even if these objects had prior contact or interaction.
- The Eventual Death of the One Absolute Universe. Since the inaugural push on our universe from the "big bang" or God, no other forces (except for gravity) have been acting on solar systems. Since no other pushes by God or anything else can be anticipated, all the galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets will eventually be distributed randomly across the universe (entropy); simultaneously, the temperature of the universe will fall to absolute zero as the sun and stars burn out (thermal equilibrium). These dire predictions are based on Newton's laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics.
The old paradigm, therefore, completely separates people from an outside, objective -- existing on its own -- material universe. All inert objects obey Newton's mathematical laws of motion. Between objects, there is nothing but the invisible force of gravity, which pulls objects together; space itself is flat, cold, and empty. Due to thermodynamics, the cosmic machine will eventually run out of heat, planetary orbits will atrophy, and the universe will become a random distribution of inert objects -- void of heat, life, and movement. The universe, therefore, is doomed.
THE NEW PARADIGM
By 1800, the Cartesian-Newtonian approach to physical reality seemed to explain how virtually everything in the universe -- which at that time did not include fundamental elements (such as atoms) or very large systems (such as galaxies) -- moved. Tangible success with "medium-sized" objects is what endowed Newtonian science and its integral worldview with such an enduring influence on Western seeing, thinking, and behaving.
By the mid-1800s, however, research scientists equipped with better instruments and methodology used Newton's laws to examine the nature of light, heat, and the orbits of obscure planets more meticulously. It was these latter attempts to generalize Newton's laws of motion to the confusing qualities of light and heat that resulted in several puzzling gaps between predicted theories and experimental findings. These flaws in Newtonian- based theories formed troublesome "clouds" over the old paradigm.
By 1900, two distinctive clouds were most disturbing: (1) Why don't all wavelengths of light radiate at all levels of heat, which became known as the ultraviolet catastrophe; (2) Is light a wave or a particle -- since it seems to behave in both ways? Confronting these two loopholes in Newtonian- derived theories led to the inception of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, both of which contradicted several fundamental aspects of the old paradigm. These theories, which were first made public in the early 1900s, are still referred to as the new science.
Discovering the Quantum Nature of Light
In 1900, Max Planck solved the first mystery of light. He recognized that the distribution of energy (radiated by a heat source) takes place not in a continuous manner, as thought previously, but in discrete units known as quanta. Only when a certain quantity of heat energy is generated will the next wavelength of light be radiated. Thus light is created in whole units, which suggests that action by light takes place in whole units as well. The previously continuous, smooth, linear functions that were used to explain the movement of matter and energy in the universe came to be regarded as quantum jumps and quanta of action (Planck, 1936).
Light has typically amazed and confused scientists, especially since light is accorded "first cause" in the creation of the universe and life itself. As proclaimed by God and published in Genesis: "Let there be light: and there was light." Recall that light, or radiant energy, covers the full range of James Maxwell's electromagnetic spectrum -- from radio waves (very long waves) to gamma rays (very short waves). For humans, visible light resides within a rather small segment in the middle of the complete spectrum of radiant energy -- from the color of red (which has the longest wavelength of visible light) to violet (which has the shortest wavelength).
Arthur Young (1976, pages xxvii and 10), a physicist and evolutionist, cogently summarizes why light (comprising the whole spectrum, not just what is visible to human beings) is entirely different from all other forms of matter and energy -- and therefore should be accorded a supernatural essence in the creation of the universe:
Objects can be at rest or move at a variety of speeds. Light, on the other hand, has but one speed (in any given medium) and cannot be at rest. Even space is a meaningless concept for light, since the passage of light through space is accomplished without any loss of energy whatsoever.... Light, itself without mass, can create photons and electrons which have mass. Light has no charge, yet the particles it creates do. Since light is without mass, it is nonphysical, of a different nature than physical particles. In fact, for the photon, a pulse of light, time does not exist: clocks stop at the speed of light. Thus mass and hence energy, as well as time, are born from the photon, from light, which is therefore the first kingdom, the first stage of the process that engenders the universe.
Discovering the Absolute Speed of Light
Before we address the core of Albert Einstein's revolutionary challenges to Newtonian mechanics and hence to the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by a law of nature. Basically, if different observers, who are traveling at different velocities, in different places, and at different times from one another, determine different "laws" to explain the motion of objects, then no general law of nature can actually exist. By definition, a law must generalize across all observers with different frames of reference. Otherwise, one observer's particular experience with nature is a unique experience that offers no beneficial information whatsoever about what another observer might encounter. Only if different observers verify the same experience of nature -- regardless of their different motions, coordinates, or frames of reference -- can a law of nature, by this definition, be said to exist (Motz and Weaver, 1989). Now we return to our story.
Einstein was most puzzled by light, just like all the other scientists and philosophers who came before him. He took special notice, however, that James Maxwell's equations to unify electricity and magnetism within the electromagnetic theory included the speed of light (186,000 miles per second in a vacuum), since electromagnetic waves also travel at the speed of visible light. Einstein realized that if Maxwell's mathematical equations represented a general law of nature, and all previous experiments had in fact validated Maxwell's laws, the motion of observers must be independent of the speed of light. Otherwise, observers could make use of Maxwell's equations to identify their own particular movement -- which would undermine the generalizability and hence the credibility of these mathematical equations as fundamental laws of nature. Using this compelling argument, Einstein appropriately concluded that light speed must be an absolute constant in the universe, no matter what an observer's speed happens to be.
Remarkably, by using the basic definition of what establishes a law of nature, Einstein's spectacular insight spearheaded a fundamental shift from Newtonian mechanics to relativistic mechanics. To appreciate the radical shift in science that resulted from this single insight, let's now contrast the Newtonian with the Einsteinian view of light speed.
Newton assumed that the speed of light, just like the speed of any object, was relative to the speed of an observer. Only if an observer were at absolute rest, with no motion at all, would the speed of light be 186,000 miles per second. If an observer were traveling at an imaginary speed of 100,000 miles per second, the speed of light moving in the same direction would measure only 86,000 miles per second relative to the speed of the observer (derived by subtracting the difference in velocities when the two entities are moving in the same straight line).
In sharp contrast, recall that Einstein concluded that light speed is absolute -- regardless of the speed of the observer. Using this perspective, an observer journeying at 100,000 miles per second would measure light speed at 186,000 miles per second! How can this be? The answer is rather simple, but revolutionary: For Einstein's observer to measure light speed as 186,000 miles per second while he himself is speeding along at 100,000 miles per second in the identical direction, his actual time would have to slow noticeably and his space (distance of travel) would have to shrink dramatically. In the extreme case, as an imaginary observer approaches light speed, time stops completely and space compresses into a very thin line -- so that absolute light speed remains at an everlasting 186,000 miles per second, no matter what. Thus at light speed, both time and space are frozen and compressed into one moment and one dimension -- like a single length of motionless string of infinitesimal width. As a consequence of conducting a variety of such thought experiments, Einstein initiated a revolutionary -- paradigmatic -- shift in the nature of physical reality -- including space, time, energy, mass, and light (Clark, 1971; Pais, 1982).
Recognizing absolute light speed as the speed limit of the universe necessitated that all Newton's laws of motion now had to incorporate this numerical value, indicated as a lowercase c, in all mathematical equations describing nature. These modifications to Newton's famous equations are especially relevant when attempting to predict the dynamics of particles that approach the speed of light -- and to explain the nature of light in the cosmos. Furthermore, since the extension of space and the passage of time are determined by the speed of the observer, space and time are no longer absolute (which Newton had surmised), but are relative to the speed of the observer. Moreover, the manner in which space and time are interrelated with light speed moved Einstein to combine space and time into a fourth dimension of the universe, which Einstein's former mathematics professor Herman Minkowski later termed the spacetime continuum (Lorentz, Einstein, Minkowski, and Weyle, 1952).
Space and time were not the only previously independent qualities of reality that were interrelated by Einstein into a higher dimension. Mass and energy, which were similarly considered by Newton to be completely separate and distinct, were also combined by Einstein through his famous equation E = mc2 (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light). Consequently, the characteristics of mass and energy are interchangeable through absolute light speed.
Einstein's insights and reformulations of the laws of mechanics into relativistic mechanics were published in 1905 as his special theory of relativity. The term relativity, in this scientific context, means that the experience of spacetime (the shape of objects and the passage of time) is relative to the speed of the observer -- whereas Newton had described space and time as absolute and thus independent of the observer. The term special is added since this theory of relativity is strictly limited: its laws apply only across
observers who are moving at constant velocities in a straight line, referred to as inertial observers. In his special theory, therefore, Einstein's revisions to Newton's laws apply only to such inertial observers. Now recall that a true law of nature must be general across all observers, regardless of their type of motion -- not just for a special class of moving observers. To correct this limitation, Einstein sought to extend his special theory into a general theory of relativity by establishing the laws of physical reality so they not only are relative to uniformly moving observers but also are relative to accelerating observers (Einstein, 1961; 1979; 1983; 1988; Mook and Vargish, 1987).
The Realization of a Relativistic Universe
Before we can appreciate another clear-cut but revolutionary insight that led Einstein to generalize his theory of nature across all types of moving observers, it is important to highlight another key distinction between the special and the general theories of relativity. Even with the addition of a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, Einstein's special theory included the long-standing convention of assuming space to be flat, homogeneous, and empty (just as Newton's laws had) and automatically used Euclidean geometry in the theory's mathematical expressions.
For his general theory, however, Einstein entertained new thought experiments about the spacetime continuum, which evidenced that space was not always flat and empty but could also be curved and compressed. Basically, Einstein mathematically demonstrated that spacetime becomes curved and compressed by the presence of an object. He was thus able to see that the larger and denser an object, the more curved and compressed
the spacetime surrounding the object; further, the greater the speed of an object, the more the nearby spacetime becomes curved and compressed. Thus a high-velocity, highly dense object severely distorts the surrounding space and dramatically slows the passage of time. However, a slow, small object would enjoy a relatively flat spacetime in its immediate vicinity. Not surprisingly, Euclidean geometry is still appropriate for Einstein's general theory when spacetime remains flat. However, a non-Euclidean -- curved -- geometry is needed (Riemannian geometry) for accurately describing spacetime when a mass is traveling at or near light speed (Wheeler, 1990).
Most important, it is the curved and compressed spacetime around a large, moving mass, such as Earth, that then presses neighboring objects (including people) against its surface -- as the spacetime continuum tries to revert back to an uncompressed, tensionless, flat state. This pressure, or force of gravity as Newton called it, is invisible, because we human beings cannot see four-dimensional spacetime, even if mathematics can describe it in great detail. It would seem that our minds/brains evolved so that we could survive on our planet; apparently, having the mental categories for experiencing three dimensions of conventional space (length, width, and depth) and one dimension of linear time (from past to present into future) was sufficient for us to endure our environmental challenges -- at least up to this point in our human evolution.
Einstein's next great insight led to a revision of Newton's theory of gravity. Einstein imagined that the force keeping a person firmly planted on Earth's surface -- as if it were pulling him down to the planet's center at 32.2 feet per second per second -- would feel identical if that same person, instead, were traveling in a ship in outer space (away from a sizable mass) and the acceleration of the spaceship was the same 32.2 feet per second per second. Indeed, if the spaceship were either (1) sitting still on the surface of Earth or (2) traveling at this rate of acceleration in outer space -- and if a person couldn't tell if he were situated on Earth or traveling in space -- these two experiences would be exactly equivalent. Or said differently: In our conventional three-dimensional space, the Newtonian force of gravity (which was previously understood as pulling observers toward the center of Earth) is entirely an illusion created by three-dimensional beings who cannot see a four-dimensional universe. But in the abstract mathematics of four-dimensional spacetime, the hypothetical pull of gravity is actually the push of acceleration -- due to the compression of spacetime geometry around Earth.
The equivalence of acceleration and gravity is precisely what enabled Einstein, in 1915, to reformulate and strengthen his special theory into his general theory of relativity. Recall: As long as neither a uniform-moving observer nor an accelerating observer can discover the prime causes of his own movement while applying a proposed theory in a particular circumstance, the proposed law does indeed generalize across different movements and coordinates of observers and, therefore, their different frames of reference. The proposed law thus becomes a general law of nature. It should be evident that all it really takes to prevent someone from discovering the nature of his own movement is to keep him in suspense with at least two alternative explanations. An observer being unable to tell whether a force is caused by (1) gravity on Earth or (2) acceleration in space -- is sufficient to establish a general law of nature.
In sum, through Einstein's revolutionary insights about light, space, time, mass, and energy, he was able to substantiate (1) the absolute speed of light and thus the relative nature of space and time; (2) the coupling of space and time within the four-dimensional spacetime continuum; (3) the interchange between mass and energy via the absolute speed of light; (4) the curved and compressed geometry of spacetime that is determined by the mass and speed of an object or an observer; and (5) the equivalence of gravity on Earth and acceleration in space for generalizing the theories of relativity. Such was the reflective power of Einstein's thought experiments concerning what is absolute, what is relative, and what is a general law of nature (Einstein, 1988; Mook and Vargish, 1987).
Appreciating the important criteria of scientific value and practical significance, it should be noted that many of Einstein's counterintuitive predictions about physical reality have been subsequently proved correct (sometimes, decades later) using sophisticated research technologies and new methodologies. Stephen Hawking (1996, pages 31-34), a cosmological physicist, cogently summarizes just a sample of Einstein's many successful predictions:
The mass of the sun curves spacetime in such a way that although the earth follows a straight path in four-dimensional spacetime, it appears to us to move along a circular orbit in three-dimensional space. In fact, the orbits of the planets predicted by general relativity are almost exactly the same as those predicted by the Newtonian theory of gravity. However, in the case of Mercury, which, being the nearest planet to the sun, feels the strongest gravitational effects, and has a rather elongated orbit, general relativity predicts that the long axis of the ellipse should rotate about the sun at a rate of about one degree in ten thousand years. Small though this effect is, it had been noticed before 1915 and served as one of the first confirmations of Einstein's theory. In recent years the even smaller deviations of the orbits of the other planets from the Newtonian predictions have been measured by radar and found to agree with the predictions of general relativity....
Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a massive body like the earth.... This prediction was tested in 1962 using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with general relativity. The difference in the speed of clocks at different heights above the earth is now of considerable practical importance, with the advent of very accurate navigation systems based on signals from satellites. If one ignored the predictions of general relativity, the position that one calculated would be wrong by several miles!
Superstrings as the Substance of Spacetime
There is still disagreement among physicists, however, regarding whether the pressure of compressed spacetime is composed of something physical and detectable. Even though Einstein's equations can successfully predict many effects of spacetime compression to a high degree of precision, what exactly is the substance of this invisible force?
One theory, which is gaining scientific interest, considers spacetime as being composed of dark matter that cannot be seen or measured as yet, which is why space itself (versus the materialization of matter/energy that resides within space) still appears to be vacuous (Genz, 1999). At the most fundamental structure of nature, however, this dark matter of spacetime might consist of infinitesimal stringlike particles that can spin, rotate, and vibrate. These enterprising strings could be as tiny as 10-33 centimeter for any known dimension but can form a multitude of open strands as well as closed loops -- just as a flexible rubber band, either as an open strand or a closed loop, can become a number of different shapes (Greene, 1999; Gribbin, 1998; Peat, 1988). It should be noted that the infinitesimal size of these elementary strings is several orders of magnitude smaller than any apparatus or instrument can now detect -- or will be able to detect in the foreseeable future. To put these very tiny strings into proper perspective, consider that the size of a person relative to an atom is about the size of an atom compared to a string.
String theory, or superstring theory, as it is now called, creates a dynamic portrayal of spacetime: spinning, rotating, and vibrating multidimensional strings. This spirited depiction of spacetime is thus radically different from the traditional view of empty space containing passive, zero-dimensional points. The creation and dynamics of the matter/energy in the universe, for example, might be fully explained by the breaking apart and joining together of elementary strings into distinctive configurations -- including their various spins, twists, rotations, and vibrations (Peat, 1988).
Davies and Brown (1988, page 69) capture the immense excitement and challenge of superstring theory for explaining not only the substance of spacetime itself but all the various particles and forces that exist within the spacetime continuum:
There is no doubt that string theory is extraordinarily compelling. Theorists speak eloquently of the incredible beauty and richness of the theory. But clearly another incentive for studying the subject derives from the fact that if superstring theory does eventually provide a quantitative explanation for all the particles and forces of nature, it will represent one of the greatest scientific triumphs in the history of mankind. Indeed, one might claim that it would be the culmination of reductionist science, because we would at last have identified the smallest entities from which the world is built and elucidated the fundamental principles on which the universe runs.
To get a sense of how string theory can provide a radically different depiction of spacetime itself, imagine for a moment how sound at various frequencies is carried through the atmosphere via invisible -- vibrating -- waves. Imagine what would occur if a large object were positioned in the immediate path of these vibrating sound waves. The shape and direction of the original waves would be modified due to the object's material and surface qualities via deflection or absorption. Or envision the traditional scientific demonstration that shows how iron filings scattered on a piece of paper quickly become organized into a wave pattern in the presence of an invisible electromagnetic field. However, introducing a noticeable mass within such a field (particularly if it has magnetic properties) would also change the geometry of the initial wave pattern. Another way to envision the dynamic nature of string theory is to remember what happens when a large, round object is dropped into a still pool of water: We see curved, rippling waves spreading across the surface of the water -- strongest at the initial point of impact and then dissipating in space and time.
Now try to imagine the same type of effects on spacetime itself, due to the presence of a massive spherical object such as a planet: it displaces, compresses, and reshapes the geometry of vibrating strings surrounding its surface -- resulting in a curved, non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime. Actually, the spherical mass in spacetime can be expected to generate a resonating pressure in the vicinity of its surface by compressing the vibrating strings that surround it. And most significant to our purposes here, perhaps this resonating pressure surrounding the mass can only be eliminated when the strings expand back into their former, larger, volume -- thereby returning to a Euclidean geometry of flat spacetime. As long as the spherical mass remains in this spacetime region, the compacted strings will continue to press against its surface -- thus requiring a non-Euclidean, Riemannian geometry to capture the movement of mass, energy, and light through curved spacetime.
On the surface of our planet Earth, the resonating pressure from the compressed strings of spacetime seems to be 32.2 feet per second squared. On a ship in space that is accelerating at this same rate, the surrounding spacetime strings would be compressed by an equivalent amount via the mass and speed of the spaceship. But to an observer, equivalent amounts of compressed strings and the resonating pressures that are generated by these vibrating strings (whether on Earth or in outer space) should appear exactly the same: thus gravity equals acceleration and superstring theory continues to evolve (Greene, 1999).
Rejecting the Separation of Mind and Matter
With the acceptance of Einstein's principles of relativity, the observer, whose conscious mind was previously identified as completely separate from the material universe, became an integral member of the physical world. Not too long after this historic blurring of the mind/matter distinction, it was recognized that the conscious mind of an observer actually plays an even more fundamental role in the cosmos than merely ensuring that different frames of reference do not result in different laws of nature. Maybe even more challenging to the old paradigm than Einstein's theories of relativity was the discovery that an observer significantly affects what physical nature reveals. Through further study of the wave and particle aspects of light, the long-standing Cartesian schism between mind and matter was not just blurred but rejected: The relatively passive observer in Einstein's universe became the absolutely active participant in the quantum universe (Schroedinger, 1969; Wolf, 1981; Herbert, 1987; Zuckav, 1979).
Peat (1987, page 4) recalls the comments of a noted physicist, John Wheeler, who colorfully described the significant transition that occurred when the passive observer became an active participant:
We had this old idea, that there was a universe out there, and here is man, the observer, safely protected from the universe by a six-inch slab of plate glass. Now we learn from the quantum world that even to observe so minuscule an object as an electron we have to shatter that plate glass; we have to reach in there.... So the old word observer simply has to be crossed off the books, and we must put in the new word participator. In this way we've come to realize that the universe is a participatory universe.
Incredible as it may seem, if a person -- an active participant -- sets up an experiment to measure the wave properties of light, a beam of light will cooperate and accurately reveal its wave properties. Alternatively, if a person sets up another experiment to measure the particle aspects of light, a beam of light will once again cooperate -- this time representing itself as particles. Furthermore, if a light beam is not observed by anyone, it exists only in a wavelike form. Only when a light beam is observed specifically for its particle nature does its wave function collapse, so to speak, into a particle form, termed photons. Between these particle observations, a light beam apparently exists only as a wave of potentia (potential particles and possible locations). What accounts for these findings?
The identical quantum phenomenon (and perplexing question) also takes place for matter (and not only for light, which has no mass) during experiments with electrons (which do have mass). Specifically, an electron in orbit around an atom exists as a wave when there is no observation or between observations, but materializes into a distinctive electron particle in a particular location when it is observed by an active participant in the universe. Following the observation, if the electron is still intact its wave function is once again restored -- instantly.
Now consider that the wave form, relative to the size of an electron particle, is spread out over immense distances. Yet at the exact moment of observation, this relatively huge wave collapses instantly into a very small particle. Because of the relative size of the wave compared to the particle, the collapse of the former into the latter must be occurring at a speed that is greater than light speed. How can this be? Nothing, especially matter, is supposed to be able to transcend this universal speed limit, according to Einstein's theories of relativity. What is going on here? Is there something that does not obey Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's speed limit of the spacetime continuum? Conceivably, there is an additional dimension to the universe beyond the three dimensions of traditional space, the one dimension of continuous time, the fourth-dimensional curved spacetime, or even the higher dimensions of curled-up spacetime -- which, all together, could total eleven dimensions of physical space and time (Greene, 1999).
Nick Herbert (1993, pages 155-157), a physicist scholar, recounts how one of the outstanding mathematicians of the twentieth century, John von Neumann, resolved the "quantum measurement paradox" that couldn't be explained by anything in the physical world:
In his magisterial tome The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Physics, regarded by many scientists as "the bible of quantum theory," von Neumann exposed and boldly attacked the formidable quantum measurement problem, which most physicists had been too complacent or intimidated to confront.... To resolve the measurement problem in von Neumann's all-quantum world, something new must be added to "collapse the wave function," something that is capable of turning fuzzy quantum possibilities into definite actualities. But since von Neumann is forced to describe the entire physical world as possibilities, the process that turns some of these maybes into actual facts cannot be a physical process. To collapse the wave function, some new (actual not possible) process must enter the world from outside physics. Searching his mind for an appropriate actually existing nonphysical entity that could collapse the wave function, von Neumann reluctantly concluded that the only known entity fit for this task was consciousness. In von Neumann's interpretation, the world remains everywhere in a state of pure possibility except where some conscious mind decides to promote a portion of the world from its usual state of indefiniteness into a condition of actual existence.
Bringing Consciousness into the Cosmos
It is important to recognize that the old paradigm has always considered matter as the building block of the universe out there (outside the human mind). But the quantum worldview explicitly incorporates the additional dimension of consciousness: the completion of a process of measurement by a self-aware human being as the basis for whatever specific particles and objects are experienced in the material world. Although Newton had no place in his laws of motion for the human being, let alone life itself, the quantum view explicitly considers that the world would not be there in material
form were it not for a conscious mind to observe it (Goswami, 1993; Herbert, 1987; Penrose, 1989; Zohar, 1990).
This quantum interpretation is strikingly contrary to the established Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm to which we, in the Western world, have grown accustomed, if not indoctrinated. Even though quantum mechanics has been actively debated in the scientific community for more than half a century, most people are heavily steeped in the mind-set that matter is first, matter is all, and matter is independent of human consciousness. It is extremely difficult for most people to consider that if we humans did not exist to disseminate consciousness into the universe, the "actual" physical world "out there" would only be waves of potentia for particle and object locations -- not separate material substances that exist exclusively on their own (Heisenberg, 1958; Schroedinger, 1969).
If this consciousness-reveals-matter interpretation were not radical enough, quantum mechanics goes even further beyond the materialistic assumptions of the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm. When an electron (a mass) is first observed as a particle in orbit around an atom, it is possible that the next observation will demonstrate that the electron has somehow jumped to another orbit surrounding the same atom -- but has not traveled through space to get there. Instead, it has simply reappeared -- instantly -- in another orbit. How is this possible? As before: Is there another dimension in the universe through which the electron proceeds that is beyond space, time, and the many spacetime dimensions?
Even more revolutionary, consider the case in which two electrons are correlated with one another -- when their respective spins are in accord, hence "bonded" following their interaction. These correlated electrons are then separated in space by a monumental distance (relative to the size of an electron particle). But at the particular moment that the spin of one of these electrons is changed and observed, the other electron's spin, observed at the same moment, has already changed its spin to maintain its correlated relationship with its partner. Because of the tremendous distance in space between these two electrons, some information or indication between them must have been transmitted (or somehow felt) -- at a speed that would be far greater than light speed. This phenomenon is referred to as action at a distance or nonlocal effects, because it couldn't take place within the local spacetime continuum. As Einstein determined, nothing can travel through spacetime faster than the speed of light.
One reasonable answer to these paradigm-breaking experiments is that two electrons, once correlated, are forever bonded in a transcendent dimension of consciousness that does not exist, as such, within Newton's three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, or even Einstein's spacetime continuum. Furthermore, when an electron instantly appears in another orbit around the same atom, it has also in some form "traveled" through this higher dimension of consciousness. This does not reinforce either Newton's laws or Einstein's theories. Even the instant collapse of a sprawling wave packet into an infinitesimal electron particle at the instant of conscious observation appears to occur at a speed that is much beyond the theoretical limits of spacetime. These experiments confirm "action at a distance" -- nonlocality -- in the quantum world (Bohr, 1958).
These perplexing findings and mystical-seeming interpretations are exactly what makes quantum physics so hard to accept -- especially when one has been conditioned to recognize only objective and physical truths, presumably not affected by subjective and intangible minds. Apparently, these incredulous explanations are what keeps the Newtonian worldview so deeply entrenched in our modern society.
Most people are truly uncomfortable with (if not frightened by) the possibility that a higher dimension of consciousness creates their physical world. It is also hard to entertain, let alone accept, that this transcendent dimension enables matter to disappear and reappear in other locations -- without journeying through any physical space. And it may be even more difficult to accept that once two pieces of matter have interacted in some manner (just like two correlated electrons), they will forever be connected within a transcendent dimension of consciousness -- a dimension beyond the conventional laws of physical motion.
You may ask: If a person's conscious observation of a wave function causes it to collapse into a particle, why then is there so much agreement about the physical world (the position and movement of objects) -- given the existence of so many very different people, who may all be disseminating consciousness into the same universe?
Goswami (1993), a physicist and mystic, offers a poignant answer to this provocative question. He convincingly proposes that there is just one universal consciousness that is shared among all human beings. It is interesting to note that this growing view among physicists is entirely consistent with the philosopher William James' (1902) discussion of the continuum of cosmic consciousness; psychologist C. G. Jung's (1960) well-developed hypothesis of the collective unconscious; and theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's (1965) idea of a noosphere (noos from the Greek word for mind): a meta-mind that embraces our planet (and the universe) as an "atmosphere" of awareness that surrounds the globe (in addition to air). Essentially, this one cosmic, collective mind incorporates all of the universe that ever was, is now, and perhaps will be -- what David Bohm (1980) has designated wholeness and the implicate order. Moreover, every human mind allows holographic access to this universal consciousness (Jung and Pauli, 1955; Grof, 1993; Talbot, 1991; Peat, 1987; Sheldrake, 1981; 1988). Indeed, the memory of this universal mind continues to evolve as living systems (from superstrings to supergalaxies) dynamically interact with one another via positive -- recurring -- feedback loops (Schwartz and Russek, 1999).
Yet it is important to realize that the usual variations that different people see and report (variations from what would be the one universal consciousness) are attributed to each person's development. The divergent experiences that a person encounters in life create different psychological filters and thus somewhat different mental categories for seeing, thinking, and behaving. Consequently, there are individual differences in how this one universal consciousness affects -- and is affected by -- human beings.
Journeying into Consciousness
There are several reasons why most people remain extremely skeptical of the role of consciousness in materializing the physical world -- including the transcendent dimension of consciousness itself. For one, much of their experience in living out the dualistic split between mind and matter takes place in an unconscious manner. Most people are not aware that the division between their inside mind and outside matter is a social construction (by Rene Descartes) and therefore merely an illusion. Nor would many people be consciously aware of universal consciousness, let alone be consciously aware of the processes by which their individual minds interlace with the universal mind (Jung, 1961; Singer, 1972).
For nearly all human beings, conscious life is enacting conditioned responses to external stimuli with a rather restricted amount of time and attention devoted to the "I," or "self," that is doing the seeing, thinking, and behaving. In familiar surroundings, people usually spend the majority of their conscious lives on "autopilot" as they continually perform their daily routines or, in some cases, make their life choices in a virtual "mental fog" without self-awareness or self-reflection. Declarations of the "self" such as "I think therefore I am" (Rene Descartes) -- and the more recent versions: "I feel therefore I am, I choose therefore I am, I know that I know, I am aware that I am aware" -- represent ordinary states of consciousness. But there is much more to consciousness than being locked on autopilot while occasionally acknowledging one's self-identity (Talbot, 1991; Herbert, 1993; Tart, 1975).
When people contemplate the experiences and functioning of their minds apart from the immediate moment, they often journey to the most traditional domain of self-awareness: the recall of biographical events as far away as the age of two or three years (which, for many people, is the time of their first vivid memory). Various forms of meditation (including spirituality and prayer) and schools of psychotherapy (including dreams and hypnosis) have been used to further elaborate a person's developing acceptance of self, refinement of the "I," and understanding (and working through) of significant historical events that have shaped the "I." Generally speaking, the focus of these approaches does not journey much past the biographical period. Yet even in this realm, the conscious mind can easily move back and forth from one location to another (space) and from one period to another (time) at a velocity that would be far greater than light speed -- if the equivalent physical motion occurred within the spacetime continuum.
It is possible, however, to journey beyond the biographical mode of self-awareness and consciousness. Stanislav Grof (1993), a psychiatrist and mystic, has intently explored three nonordinary states of consciousness: (1) the postnatal state (after birth and into adulthood), which corresponds to the biographical recall of life events, (2) the perinatal state (just before, during, and after birth), which concentrates on the birth trauma (Rank, 1929), and (3) the transpersonal state, which encompasses out-of-body experiences, experiences within other people's lives, and experiences through animals, plants, substances, spirits, archetypes, and God -- past, present, and indeed the hereafter (Jung and Pauli, 1955; Peat, 1987; Talbot, 1991; Ornstein, 1968; Wilber, 1979; 1980).
Apparently, the perinatal and transpersonal states of consciousness are the most challenging to our everyday experience. This is because they are concealed in the Western world, often denied or labeled as psychotic, and subject to considerable skepticism, if not ridicule. Grof (1993, page 18) summarizes the transpersonal territory and its revolutionary challenge to the entrenched principles of the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm:
On occasion, we can reach far back in time and witness sequences from the lives of our human and animal ancestors, as well as events that involved people from other historical periods and cultures with whom we have no genetic connection whatsoever. Through our consciousness, we can transcend time and space, cross boundaries separating us from various animal species, experience processes in the botanical kingdom and in the inorganic world, and even explore mythological and other realities that we previously did not know existed. We might discover that experiences of this kind will profoundly influence our life philosophy and worldview. We will very likely find it increasingly difficult to share the belief system dominating the industrial cultures and the philosophical assumptions of traditional Western science.
What sets Grof's approach apart from many other examinations of nonordinary states of consciousness is that he has also introduced a very engaging and effective methodology for journeying through the universal consciousness -- which includes the use of rhythmic breathing, evocative music, body work, and symbolic expression. Holotropic Breathwork, as it is called, allows people to journey into nonordinary states of consciousness without having to wait for a meaningful, near-death experience or to take psychedelic or psychoactive drugs. In these safe, expert-guided journeys, most participants experience their consciousness bringing them to spaces and times that they themselves have never previously seen or imagined (which is beyond biographical recall). Again we see how consciousness can instantly crisscross space and time in a way that is impossible within the physical dimensions of the universe. Perhaps Einstein's famous "thought experiments" became so unbelievably deep and intense that they enabled him to visit the inherent qualities of light, space, time, mass, and energy -- through nonordinary states of consciousness.
Such transpersonal journeys demonstrate, rather convincingly, that there must be a transcendent dimension of universal consciousness which interconnects all matter and minds that ever existed. Only in those cases when experiences of nonordinary states of consciousness are deliberated strictly from within the archaic Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm are people able to rapidly -- and thus defensively -- dismiss the reports of thousands, if not millions, of people who have already experienced the perinatal and transpersonal areas of universal consciousness. Many quantum physicists have acknowledged the fundamental role played by consciousness in the universe, as discussed previously. But most people who are not quantum physicists have not yet scrutinized their Cartesian-Newtonian worldview. Perhaps this is so because they still haven't been exposed to its limitations and inconsistencies.
To enable more people to see the underlying deficiencies in the old paradigm, Grof (1993, page 17) highlights the great irony behind the many "objective" principles of the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm:
The paradox is that Rene Descartes' Discourse on Method, the book that reformed the entire structure of Western knowledge and that provided the foundations for modern science, came to its author in three visionary dreams and a dream within a dream, which provided the key for interpreting the larger dream. What an irony it is that the entire edifice of rational reductionist, positivist science, which today rejects "subjective knowledge," was originally inspired by a revelation in a nonordinary state of consciousness!
The Evolution of Multiple Universes
What do journeys and experiences through transpersonal consciousness tell us about the origin and nature of the universe? Such accounts might provide relevant ideas for transforming people and their organizations. At the very least, a new paradigm that sees the interplay of mind and matter as explicitly involving consciousness is going to view transformation very differently than a paradigm that explains the origin of the universe as an initial push (or big bang) of material objects by some external force (God, for example) that, eventually -- exactly like a mechanical clock -- will wear down, stop working, and have all of its pieces randomly distributed across a flat, cold, empty space.
One abridged example of a transpersonal journey into the nature of the cosmos, by an experienced "consciousness traveler," is reproduced in Grof (1993, pages 165-166):
The experience then changed into an extremely powerful and moving experience of the Cosmic Tree. The unified field of cosmic energy that I had experienced before now became a massive tree of radiant energy suspended in space. Larger than the largest galaxy, it was composed entirely of light.... I was taken around the tree and shown how to move from one person's experience to another and it was ridiculously easy. Different lives around the globe were simply different experiences the tree was having....
I was now actually experiencing the seamless flow of consciousness into crystallizations of embodiment. I was experiencing how consciousness manifests itself in separate forms while remaining unified. I knew that fundamentally there was only One Consciousness in the universe. From this perspective my individual identity and everybody else's appeared temporary and almost trivial. To experience my true identity filled me with a profound sense of numinous encounter....
Though these experiences were amazing in their own right, the most poignant aspect of today's session for me was not the discovered dimensions of the universe themselves, but what my seeing and understanding them meant to the Consciousness I was with. It was so happy to have someone to show its work to. I felt that it had been waiting for billions of years for embodied consciousness to evolve to the point that someone could at last see, understand, and appreciate what it had accomplished.
Lee Smolin (1997), a physicist who is working to integrate quantum mechanics with relativity theory, provides a provocative -- and plausible -- rationale of the appearance and evolution of our own universe, including the evolution of the laws of physics themselves. His cosmological theory is totally consistent with what others have experienced on transpersonal journeys into the nature of the universe (Grof, 1993).
Using Charles Darwin's (1986) theory of natural selection applied to cosmology, called cosmological natural selection, Smolin provides convincing arguments and evidence that our universe (including its life forms) exists because it has descended from many preceding universes through a long evolutionary chain. Furthermore, the parameters for elementary particles (and the invisible forces acting on these particles) have evolved to enable the formation of stable atoms (particularly those that are essential for life, including hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon), supernovas, and black holes (Hawking, 1996; Taylor, 1973; Thorne, 1994).
Let's consider a supernova: first, a very large star burns out its nuclear fuel, then it collapses into a near-infinite dense mass by the monumental compression of spacetime strings, and finally it explodes from the intense pressure and heat. If there is a critical amount of mass remaining after the explosion, a black hole forms: an area of space where the density of mass is so extreme that even light can't escape from its surface (due to solidly compressed strings). Inside the hypothetical event horizon of this black hole, another explosion of astronomical proportions occurs, stemming from the immeasurable pressure and heat of the remaining, completely compacted, mass/energy/spacetime. Given these near-infinite scales of density, heat, and pressure, this mysterious explosion inside a black hole could possibly launch the beginning of a new universe within a new spacetime continuum (Frolov, Markov, and Mukhanov, 1989). Perhaps such a massive explosion within a black hole is the very same "big bang" that is believed to have created our universe about 15 billion years ago (Hawking, 1996).
Smolin (1997, page 88) conjectures what could unfold following this big-bang explosion and the creation of a new spacetime continuum:
The expanding region may then develop much like our own universe. It may first of all go through a period of inflation and become very big. If conditions develop suitably, galaxies and stars may form, so that in time this new "universe" may become a copy of our world. Long after this, intelligent beings may evolve who, looking back, might be tempted to believe that they lived in a universe that was born in an infinitely dense singularity, before which there was no time. But in reality they would be living in a new region of space and time created by an explosion following the collapse of a star to a black hole in our part of the universe.
This newly created universe, however, would likely exhibit a slightly different construction of nature than its parent universe -- due to normal random variation in the creation of waves, particles, and forces. If, at some later time, a supernova occurs in this new universe that also results in a new black hole and a subsequent big-bang explosion, another offspring universe will be created. As with the process of natural selection, however, only those universes that produce supernovas, black holes, and offspring will continue to survive and pass along their slightly modified parameters for nature. But as with life forms on this planet, if a particular universe is born whose parameters are not conducive to supernovas and black holes, it will not produce offspring (new universes): Its particular construction of nature, therefore, will not survive beyond its life cycle (Kauffman, 1993).
Let's take a look at our cosmic evolution in reverse -- from what our universe is now to what it might have been, even preceding the big bang. Consider that our universe, by direct experience of its own existence, has likely survived a very large number of evolutionary cycles in the creation of new universes. It would seem, therefore, that the distinctive elementary particles we consciously observe and the universal forces that keep them together as stable atoms are, de facto, the most proficient arrangement of nature to sustain life in general and human life in particular. And just as universes evolve, so do the theories and equations that best describe the creation, motion, and self-transformation of all matter/energy/spacetime. Thus even theories in physics must evolve along with the waves, particles, and forces they attempt to explain.
In contrast to Newton's mechanical clocklike universe, Smolin thus describes a new view of our cosmos as a self-organizing, nonequilibrium system -- a universe that transforms itself. Basically, energy/matter-filled space oscillating throughout the universe has evolved so that heat transfers and exchanges can take place at all levels of analysis -- known as fractals -- from fundamental particles to atoms to stars to galaxies to clusters of galaxies up to supergalaxies (Briggs and Peat; 1984; 1989). Space is not cold and empty. Space is filled with energy and heat -- with temperatures maintained, via various feedback processes, well above absolute zero. Space is also filled with matter: approximately 90% of all matter in the universe consists of dark -- invisible -- matter in space, which does not appear as large masses such as planets (Genz, 1999). Solar winds, molecular clouds, carbon dust, and a variety of chemical and nuclear processes all regulate the life cycles of galaxies -- so they continue to procreate supernovas, black holes, and new universes (Jantsch, 1980; Kauffman, 1993; Thorne, 1994; Wolf, 1988).
It is absolutely essential to stress that in order for galactic systems to continue evolving while maintaining the necessary conditions to support life, they must remain in a state of thermal nonequilibrium. As Smolin (1997, page 125) explains, the fact that our universe regulates itself to maintain a state of thermal nonequilibrium is entirely at odds with the old paradigm:
The image of the warm living Earth in the depth of cold empty space is thus not only misleading... it is simply wrong. Most of the volume of the galactic disk is taken up by a medium which, although it is incredibly dilute, is hot, much hotter than it is here on Earth! To appreciate this, and the processes that heat the medium and govern its properties, is to begin to glimpse the huge system of the galaxy that we live inside of.
Such "aliveness" in the cosmos is best illustrated by our own planet, Earth, which, for some time now, has been viewed as a living system in its own right -- the Gaia Theory, which is named after Mother Earth (Lovelock, 1979; 1988). Many agree that the planet Earth (along with its atmosphere) regulates the spread of temperature on the planet, the amount of oxygen in the air, the amount of salt in the oceans, and other chemical-biological processes via the coevolution of living beings -- despite steadily decreasing heat energy from our sun. Certainly, the clever control of such complex functions using a composite of regulatory-feedback and information-management processes convincingly demonstrates the existence of life and intelligence on a planetary scale (Bateson, 1979).
Grof (1993, page 110) documents a transpersonal journey that lends support to the growing appreciation that the Earth -- as a whole -- is both alive and intelligent:
While the objective evidence for the Gaia Theory might not be sufficient to convince hardcore scientists, it is certainly supported by the existence of transpersonal experiences that are fully congruent with it. For example, in one of our five-day workshops in Holotropic Breastwork, a young German woman had a persuasive experience of becoming the archetypal Great Mother Goddess. Then the experience developed further and she felt herself becoming planet Earth (Mother Earth). She reported that she felt no question at all that she had merged with and had become the consciousness of the Earth. She experienced herself as the Earth, as a living, breathing organism with an intelligence, an organism that was evolving toward a still higher level of awareness.
As the Earth consciousness she felt that the metals and minerals that were a part of her constituted her skeleton. Similarly, the biosphere, all forms of life, was her flesh. She experienced within herself the circulation of water from the oceans to the clouds, from there into creeks and rivers and finally to the great seas. The water system was her blood and the meteorological changes, such as evaporation, air currents, and rainfall, ensured its circulation, the transport of nourishment, and cleansing. The communication between all living things, large and small, constituted her nervous system and brain.
While it remains to be seen whether other sections in the universe contain living forms that also regulate their biospheres in the accentuated manner represented by this account of Earth's consciousness, it should be apparent that our universe is fundamentally different from anything that can be formulated from the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm. Our universe is not heading toward the random distribution of matter and an eventual heat death. On the contrary, our universe is apparently able to maintain, transform, and reorganize itself. As such, it can also become much better at creating and spreading life forms throughout its galaxies (Davies, 1999).
With this invigorated, more magnificent image of our universe, it is important to keep in mind the radical findings from quantum mechanics: Without self-aware conscious entities, universes will not exist in material form to manifest their scintillating display of sophisticated organizational structures -- and life forms -- arranging spacetime and matter/energy from superstrings to supergalaxies (Gell-Mann, 1994; Greene, 1999).
The Relevance of Quantum Mechanics
When medium-sized objects -- from molecules to moons -- are the focus of interest, their bigger-than-quantum size may lead one to conclude that Newtonian science is adequate for explaining and predicting movement. Of course, various aspects of Newtonian mechanics have been revised by Einstein's relativistic mechanics to take into account the effects of absolute light speed, the curved geometry of spacetime, and the interrelationships among mass, energy, space, and time. Some people, however, still dismiss the relevance of quantum mechanics for anything but nuclear particles.
The typical reason for applying quantum mechanics only to nuclear particles is based on the premise that molar objects are always there: they don't revert back to wave functions if no human being is watching them. When you look away from the moon and then look back, it appears to be in the same location as before. Presumably it didn't evaporate through a transcendent dimension of consciousness and then suddenly reappear in an altogether different location. Actually, the mathematical equations for quantum mechanics simplify to Newtonian equations for masses that are equal to or greater than atoms (Bohr, 1958). Although big objects (such as the moon) do have a wave function, it is infinitesimal (Kaufman and Rock, 1982). Between conscious measurements, however, the wave function of a photon or an electron spreads out over a vast space relative to the size of the particle form. Consequently, from one observation to another (even in a very short instant of time), a photon's or electron's position can change dramatically.
A core question to address: Why should we concern ourselves with applying quantum-based principles to medium-sized objects -- including people and organizations? Why not simply use the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm for the particular objects that we can see using our own eyes -- rather than wondering what really happens to submicroscopic electrons and photons or supermacroscopic stars and galaxies? The main question: When does it make the most sense to use the Newtonian or the quantum approach -- especially for organizations and their transformations?
Regarding the Self-Motion of Particles and People. One easy way to discover which paradigm is best for which problem makes use of Young's (1976) pivotal distinction of inert molar objects versus self-motion monads. The movement of inert objects is determined solely by external forces and therefore is thoroughly explained by Newtonian mechanics -- particularly for molar objects that are neither composed of exceptionally large mass nor traveling near light speed. But entities that are capable of self-motion are better explained by quantum mechanics. The term monad designates a spark of life: an entity that decides for itself what it is, when and how it will move, and why.
Young (1976, page 7) simplifies the fundamental distinction between inert molar objects and self-motion monads -- a distinction that relates to the question of when it is best to apply which of the two paradigms:
In science we discover that the evolution of matter itself is a "fall." By fall we mean loss of freedom, increase of constraint. This occurs in steps: first the condensing of the original energy of the photon into mass to form a charged particle, then the joining of opposite charges to constitute a neutral atom, then of atoms to form molecules, and finally the compaction of molecules into inert objects. In this declension the original freedom is lost: the free motion of one particle is canceled by the free motion of another, so that where billions of particles are compacted, there results an inert object, which, having no self motion, responds to exact laws....
The world of fundamental particles is quite different from that of predictable billiard balls. From the point of view of predictability, it is like that of human beings. Its creatures have a life of their own.
Both nuclear particles and human beings are monads, because they choose their direction and motion all by themselves: they do not require external forces to move them. Similar to human beings, nuclear particles seem to have the freedom of going here and there and even transforming themselves into a variety of other forms and meanings -- which generates uncertainty (Heisenberg, 1958; 1971). Further, nuclear particles appear to be aware, as discussed earlier, of whether they are being observed by another conscious being and, as a result, these monads can change back and forth between a wave function and an actual particle. Perhaps nuclear particles are not as self-aware as human beings, but they do seem to crisscross the transcendent dimension of consciousness, since they stay connected with correlated partners across huge distances.
Young's insightful distinction of inert molar objects (appropriate for Newtonian mechanics) and self-motion monads (appropriate for quantum mechanics) makes the main point that size or mass itself is not what determines whether to make use of the Newtonian versus the quantum worldview. Photons and people are of vastly different sizes, but both are proficient at self-motion. Molecules and moons are of enormously different scales, too, yet both are inert in their own way. Consequently, when observing and facilitating the potentia of self-motion people in organizations, we must make use of the modern Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm -- regardless of the molar size of people. Instead, if we use the old Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm for self-motion people, we will surely perpetuate the behavior of human beings as inert objects. Moreover, since the universe is a self-organizing, nonequilibrium, self-motion system in its own right, the structure of the universe itself (as a whole) might provide significant insights for people-based collectives on Earth that also have great potential for self-motion, self-organization, and self-transformation (Jantsch, 1980; Peat, 1991; Prigogine and Stenger, 1984). Hence, the quantum worldview has relevance for organizational life.
Regarding the Quantum Brain and Self-Aware Mind. Another angle to the current question of when to use Newtonian versus quantum mechanics concerns the nature of the human brain. Recall that Newton's mathematical principles to explain motion in the external physical world had no interest in people, let alone their brains. Since Newton's time (the 1600s), however, much has been discovered about the coevolution of life (Darwin, 1986; Kauffman, 1993); during this past century, much has been learned about the dynamic functioning of the human brain (Eccles, 1966; Hooper and Teresi, 1986; Searle, 1984; Chopra, 1989; Horgan, 1999).
Herbert (1993, pages 93-94) provides a fascinating description of the dynamic functioning of our mental organ yet also acknowledges that we still have much more to learn about the brain's role in self-awareness and consciousness:
The human brain has been described as the most complex object in the universe. Certainly a lot goes on in this warm fist-sized ball of meat. Various exotic fluids pour, soak, and trickle through its channels and crevices. A veritable drugstore of chemical substances is synthesized there, put to strange uses, then broken down and recycled for future use. Legions of brain cells are born (in the early months of life), connect up to other cells, and carry out their mysterious cellular tasks in various neural communities before they die. Trillions of electric signals travel through the brain's wet electrical networks, each impulse inducing a weak electrical and magnetic field that races across the cranium at the speed of light. Torrents of electrically charged ions escape through suddenly opened cellular gates only to be captured one by one and sequestered again inside a brain cell. In addition, if the [mystics] are right, certain special brain processes act in unknown ways to send and receive messages from the spirit world. With so much activity going on all at once, it is difficult to tell which brain functions are important, which irrelevant, for producing the phenomenon known as ordinary awareness.
MacLean (1985), a neuroscientist, anatomizes our human brain into three functional layers, termed the triune brain, that follow the evolution of brains for all species. As summarized by the surgeon philosopher Leonard Shlain (1991), the oldest, deepest, most primitive layer in the human brain, the reptilian brain, is only capable of instinctual responses that derive from genetic transmission and alterations. No choices are accessible, except See! Act! The next layer, the paleomammalian brain, is primarily capable of strong emotions and stimulus/response learning -- which can be modified after birth through experiences in adapting to the external environment. A few choices are possible with multiple stimuli that provide several alternative responses. The most recent addition to the human brain, the cerebral cortex, lying right on top of the earlier limbic system -- enables human beings to be both imaginative and intelligent, to create both art and physics. Many more choices are possible with a cerebral cortex -- including free will and the self-aware capability to override behavioral conditioning and atavistic instincts (Carter, 1998).
The cerebral cortex is subdivided into two halves, known simply as the left and right hemispheres (or left brain and right brain), which are joined together by way of the corpus callosum (Hooper and Teresi, 1986). It is now well documented that the left brain's functioning incorporates a person's conscious, serial mental processes that are applied to language, logic, and mathematics (one-at-a-time sequences via neural tracks). The right brain's functioning, in contrast, subsumes a person's unconscious, parallel mental processes that are necessary for recognizing whole images -- as used in art and music -- including patterns and rhythms (all-at-once experiences via neural networks).
Of particular interest, Zohar (1997), a physicist, equates the left brain with the particle aspects of physical nature (addressed one at a time in a linear fashion), while the right brain represents the wave aspects (treated as one holistic experience). Zohar speculates that rapid oscillations across the corpus callosum integrate the left and right brain functions. She labels this quantum thinking. In this context, quantum thinking is apparent when a person is faced with a fairly intense, unexpected, unfamiliar experience. Attempting to make sense out of such an experience immediately causes the rapid, chaotic firing of neurons across a person's left and right brains. These cross-hemisphere-firing neurons serve to integrate the particle (left brain) and wave (right brain) aspects of reality into a new -- holographic -- understanding.
Quantum thinking, according to Zohar (1997, page 21), is expected to be the foundatinsary creativity, paradigm shifts, and organizational transformation:
The essence of quantum thinking is that it is the thinking that precedes categories, structures, and accepted patterns of thought, or mind-sets. It is with quantum thinking that we create our categories, change our structures, and transform our patterns of thought. Quantum thinking is vital to creative thinking and leadership in organizations. It is the key to any genuine organizational transformation. It is the key to shifting our paradigm. Quantum thinking is the link between the brain's creativity, organizational transformation and leadership, and the ideas found in the new science.
Further considering the quantum functioning of the brain, there is increasing speculation that (1) a wave function across the whole brain is capable of rapidly collapsing into a single thought or idea -- much like the immediate collapse of a sprawling wave in spacetime into an infinitesimal electron; (2) neural firings jump from one section of the brain to the other without a trace -- analogous to an electron jumping from one orbit in an atom to another without journeying through spacetime; and (3) complex neural patterns materialize from correlated, firing neurons that somehow know how to respond to one another when replaying an old memory or forming a new one -- consistent with correlated electrons that continue to influence one another at extreme distances within the higher dimension of universal consciousness (Eccles, 1989; Wigner, 1967; Herbert, 1993).
In particular, rapid oscillations of firing neurons across the integral mind/brain (via the neural pathways in the corpus callosum) apparently propagate a strange attractor, or a chaotic attractor (Briggs and Peat, 1984; 1989; Gleick, 1987). Basically, a strange attractor is a rhythmic wave pattern that emerges from recurring particle locations -- equivalent to a diagram of the quantum dance of a honeybee (Frank, 1997). Especially relevant, a strange attractor that emanates in the mind/brain is a multidimensional image of a meaningful thought, category, or paradigm (Barton, 1994; Horgan, 1994). After the formation of a strange attractor, new neural tracks and networks are "hard wired" into the organic structures of the brain to store the wave pattern (and what it represents) for later use. The next time an analogous situation is apparent, the familiar wave pattern will first be remembered, retrieved from storage, then compared and contrasted, and subsequently stored again -- but always in some evolved form, depending on what was experienced (Levy, 1994).
It should not be surprising to learn that neural firings oscillate at a particular frequency, approximately 40 cycles each second (Horgan, 1994), which might resonate at the same frequency with the vibrating strings of spacetime. These elementary strings constitute the spacetime that lies in between the much larger cells in the brain. Indeed, these vibrating strings of spacetime might be the mysterious medium that allows firing neurons to propagate strange attractors inside the mind/brain -- which we call seeing, thinking, and behaving.
Goswami (1993, page 132) reviews a highly intriguing research study that strongly supports the quantum nature of the human mind/brain by explicitly demonstrating that nonlocal behavior takes place among people as well as electrons and photons:
A recent experiment by the Mexican neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum and his collaborators directly supports the idea of nonlocality in human brain/minds.... Two subjects are instructed to interact for a period of
thirty or forty minutes until they start feeling a "direct communication." They then enter separate Faraday cages (metallic enclosures that block all electromagnetic signals). Unknown to his or her partner, one of the subjects is now shown a flickering light signal that produces an evoked potential (an electrophysiological response produced by a sensory stimulus and measured by an eeg) in the light-stimulated brain. But amazingly, as long as the partners in the experiment maintain their direct communication, the unstimulated brain also shows an electrophysiological activity, called a transfer potential, quite similar in shape and strength to the evoked potential of the stimulated brain. (In contrast, control subjects do not show any transfer potential.) The straightforward explanation is quantum nonlocality: The two brain/minds act as a nonlocally correlated system -- the correlation established and maintained through nonlocal consciousness -- by virtue of the quantum nature of the brains.
Self-aware consciousness and quantum functioning are now known qualities of the human mind/brain. But where in the human brain is this self-aware consciousness located and how does it go about its quantum functioning? Or asked a bit differently, how does the electrochemical soup of energy/matter in the brain encourage a self-aware mind to say to itself: "I know that I know; I am aware that I am aware"? Briefly considered, the new paradigm would presuppose quantum waves of consciousness to be spread across a person's brain. However, a specific perception, thought, or behavior (particle) would only be revealed to the "self" when a completed observation by the "self" collapsed one or more wave functions. But how does this happen?
My own best guess about "where consciousness is located" takes us back to the intriguing split of the brain into two mini-brains. Specifically, I wonder if an observation of the "self" by the "self" is a performance that necessarily requires the two hemispheres of the brain. Perhaps the human experience of self-awareness and consciousness is nothing more than one hemisphere of the brain consciously observing its counterpart -- thereby collapsing the wave of potentia into the particle state: "The subject is me (via the left brain conducting the observation) and I know it (via the right brain receiving the observation)." Maybe the evolution of the human brain into two separate functioning hemispheres (correlated, originally, via the corpus callosum), may be exactly the process that enables human beings to recognize their self-aware consciousness. Instead of the "consciousness mechanism" being located inside a particular organic region in the brain, the consciousness experience may be a participative process whereby the two separately functioning halves of the human brain engage in an ongoing dialogue with each other. If this guess turns out to be the case, it should be apparent that without two mini-brains existing within the whole human brain, and without the two hemispheres being integrated through the transcendent dimension of consciousness, there would be no self-awareness and thus no capacity for knowing or engaging the one universal consciousness.
Seven Essential Categories in the New Paradigm
The main reasons for using the Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm for other than nuclear particles should now be transparent: When people and their organizations are the subject of study, the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm simply cannot handle the uncertainty of movement to their next position or state of being -- including each person's next perception, thought, and behavior. Therefore, human evolution and organizational transformation involve much more than a single push from an external source of energy. Besides being self-motion monads with a mind of their own, people can know several nonordinary states of consciousness; self-aware people can assimilate and disseminate the accumulated knowledge contained within the one universal consciousness. As people become even more self-aware and conscious, both hemispheres of their mental organ will play an increasingly crucial role in self-motion, self-development, and thus quantum thinking. Understanding human behavior in organizations (and elsewhere) is thus radically different from predicting the motion of billiard balls.
The new Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm can be seen through seven essential categories -- which are diametrically different from the similarly numbered categories in the old paradigm. But it is these categories in the new paradigm that explain -- much more realistically -- how self-motion monads see, think, and behave:
- The Monistic Unification of Consciousness with Matter. The physical world exists via the active participation of self-aware, conscious people. The physical world and the laws that describe it are thus intimately intertwined with life -- especially human beings.
- Universes as Materialized by Conscious Participation. Consciousness is the ultimate building block of our entire universe. Self-aware, conscious participation causes the collapse of quantum waves into materialized particles -- commencing from the vibrating strings of spacetime to supergalaxies of matter/energy. Integrating relativity theory and quantum mechanics with cosmological natural selection and consciousness into superstring theory will, hopefully, be able to explain the creation and evolution of all universes.
- Spacetime as Curved and Filled with Matter/Energy. The geometry of spacetime is curved or warped if mass and energy are nearby; otherwise it is flat. But space is never empty (even if no mass or energy exists); instead, spacetime is composed of oscillating string-potential waves and vibrating string-loop particles. The mass and speed of an object compress fundamental waves and particles;
consequently, an object warps its surrounding spacetime geometry. Both mass and speed thus interact with space and time. Actually, in the spacetime continuum, mass, energy, time, space, and light are all interactive and interchangeable. Moreover, the higher dimension of universal consciousness is far beyond Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's theories of relativity -- and is not constrained by the speed limit of light. Consciousness obeys its own holographic geometry.
- The Natural Selection of Many Relativistic Universes. There may be many potential universes, each comprising numerous dimensions, including three dimensions of conventional space, one dimension of linear time, the added dimensions of spacetime, and the transcendent dimension of universal consciousness. Very likely, our universe has evolved from a long evolutionary chain that has procreated self-organizing, nonequilibrium, complex systems. These systems are capable of reproducing offspring universes with slightly modified waves, particles, and forces. As these universes evolve, the laws of physics evolve as well: there are no absolute theories. Space and time are not absolute, either, but are relative to the speed of an observer. In the physical cosmos, only light speed is absolute for all observers (regardless of their particular movement) and defines the upper speed limit of the spacetime continuum.
- The Probabilistic Uncertainty of Self-Motion Monads. Nuclear particles and human beings are self-motion monads. There is always uncertainty while trying to pinpoint both the position and movement of these quantum phenomena: They move by their own intentions as well as being affected by external forces -- the curved geometry and string compression of spacetime. Consciousness itself may be assimilated and disseminated by forces that simply do not exist in the spacetime continuum -- but can be explored via various transpersonal journeys into nonordinary domains of consciousness. To actualize the self-motion of human beings through ordinary and nonordinary aspects of consciousness (including quantum thinking and self-observation) requires that we examine the mind/brain and how the right/left hemispheres interact via the corpus callosum.
- The Eternal Connections Among Self-Motion Monads. Once nuclear particles -- or human beings -- have bonded, they are forever connected in the unity of universal consciousness. Affecting any of these correlated, self-motion monads immediately affects all others -- without any delay due to time or space. The transcendent dimension of universal consciousness threads the cosmos into one intertwined fabric of harmonious string-based waves and particles.
- The Eternal Self-Organization of Relativistic Universes. The cosmos itself is a quantum system in that it embodies universal consciousness and perpetually self-organizes its diversity of forms -- from superstrings to supergalaxies. In lieu of assuming an eventual heat death due to the Newtonian-based laws of increasing entropy and thermal equilibrium, the universe will regularly transform itself at every level of structure and will create new universes.
Recall that the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm was entirely based on the insular development of Western philosophy and science, initiated during the ancient Greek civilization, from about 400 BCE to 100 BCE. But hundreds of years earlier, between 1000 BCE and 500 BCE, several ancient civilizations throughout Asia were already developing a different paradigm of nature, life, and the universe. This old Eastern worldview, however, has typically seemed strange to Westerners, if not primitive or backward -- particularly when judged according to the Newtonian-derived assessments of material production and economic wealth. In retrospect, however, we can now see that ancient Eastern philosophies had recognized the quantum principles of self-awareness and universal consciousness several thousands of years ago -- whereas they were not effectively introduced into the Western worldview until the twentieth century.
Capra (1991, pages 23-24) offers a glimpse into the ancient paradigm developed in the Eastern world (further discussed in Chapter 6) -- which is remarkably compatible with the Quantum-Relativistic Paradigm:
Although the various schools of Eastern mysticism differ in many details, they all emphasize the basic unity of the universe which is the central feature of their teachings. The highest aim of their followers -- whether they are Hindus, Buddhists or Taoists -- is to become aware of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things, to transcend the notion of an isolated individual self and to identify themselves with the ultimate reality. The emergence of this awareness -- known as "enlightenment" -- is not only an intellectual act but is an experience which involves the whole person and is religious in its ultimate nature.... In the Eastern view, then, the division of nature into separate objects is not fundamental and any such objects have a fluid and ever-changing character. The Eastern world view is therefore intrinsically dynamic and contains time and change as essential features. The cosmos is seen as one inseparable reality -- forever in motion, alive, organic; spiritual and material at the same time.
THE CHALLENGE OF TRANSFORMATION
It should be rather clear by now that the differences between the old and new paradigms are like night and day, death and life. The old paradigm is derived from the dualistic separation of mind and matter along with the physical separation of all material objects by empty space; it also predicts the ultimate heat death of the universe. The new paradigm is based on the interconnection of mind and matter throughout the universe along with the inclusion of multidimensional spacetime and universal consciousness; it ensures eternal life via a self-organizing, self-transforming universe that continues to create additional variety, complexity, and life.
Most organizations have undoubtedly been created and maintained according to the old Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm. These organizations have recruited, trained, and rewarded members for seeing, thinking, and behaving according to the categories in the old paradigm. As a result, the employees of these organizations have become (and were destined to be) no more than inert molar objects -- controlled by external reinforcement and coercion. These Newtonian organizations will most certainly become even more inefficient and ineffective in facing the increasing challenges of a living, self-organizing, global economy -- epitomized by Mother Earth as an intelligent, living system.
The principal challenge to the survival and evolution of our highly organized society is to reverse the growing discord between inert-object organizations and the self-motion global community. To accomplish such a self-transformation requires quantum infrastructures so that organizational members, who currently may be functioning as frustrated human objects, can develop self-aware consciousness and thus become fully functioning, self-motion monads. These enlightened participants would then generate quantum thinking, which is the basis for self-designing, implementing, and improving formal systems and value-added processes. As members enhance their innate capabilities for creativity, collaboration, and commitment, they will perpetually transform themselves and their organizations. This evolution will further enhance self-aware consciousness, organizational success, and personal meaning.
Keep this in mind: The transformation of inert-object people into
self-motion monads mandates the establishment of effective quantum infrastructures before self-transformation of systems and processes can possibly succeed. Failure to honor this commandment is the prime reason change initiatives fail at shifting paradigms and achieving transformation.
The remainder of this book will illuminate how transformation to a quantum organization can truly be realized for a Newtonian organization. We will frequently return to the seven essential categories that define the new paradigm (versus the old) with the purpose of deeply understanding why we are moving in a particular direction and, therefore, how we can get there. During this journey, the guiding light for consciously exploring the underlying distinctions between the two dueling paradigms will become even more apparent than it is now.