Wolfgang Pauli, one of the founders of quantum mechanics (QM), knew that QM revealed a fundamentally different reality than classical physics had assumed for centuries, and he sought to bridge the gap between scientific and symbolic understandings of reality. Through a decade-long collaboration, Pauli and Carl Jung explored the idea that reality might have both physical and psychological dimensions, an idea that resonates with many mystical and esoteric traditions. Pauli lamented that people tend to equate reality solely with the world we experience through our senses— or, more simply, with the way things appear to be. In light of QM’s revolutionary discoveries, however, he insisted that “The most important and exceedingly difficult task of our time is to work on the construction of a new idea of reality,”1 Suzanne Gieser, The Innermost Kernel: Depth Psychology and Quantum Physics: Wolfgang Pauli’s Dialogue with C. G. Jung (2005).
This is no small task. Expanding our understanding of reality requires recognizing the limits of our current conceptual frameworks—just as Edwin Abbott Abbott explored in his 1884 Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, a satirical novel that imagines a two-dimensional world whose inhabitants struggle to grasp the existence of a third dimension. The book was, as Isaac Asimov later noted, “probably the best introduction one can find into the manner of perceiving dimensions,” and:
“This book, then, should lead us to question the limitations we set to our Universe generally, not only those that are mathematical and physical, but those that are sociological as well. How far are our assumptions justified, and to what extent are they merely careless, or self-serving, misinterpretations of reality?”2 Isaac Asimov, Limitations, Introduction to Flatland, Barnes & Noble edition, 1983
With Isaac Asimov advising us to be careful in our assumptions about reality and Wolfgang Pauli advocating for a new idea about it, this might be a good time to reflect on just what we mean by reality, or whether the singular construction is even appropriate. Thomas Nagel, in his foundational essay What is it like to be a bat? argues that we cannot, even in principle, know or experience what it is like to be another conscious organism. Nagel’s argument follows from the perspective of H.J. Jerison— the biologist whose encephalization quotient (EQ) is routinely used to compare the intelligence of different species— who used the plural realities, proposing that each species (and each brain) constructs its own model of the world— a perspective that seems beyond serious dispute.
If we are to accept the scientific realist model of reality,3 Scientific realism is the idea “that scientific claims about theoretical entities should be taken literally, or at face value. They should be treated as true, approximately true, or at least as genuine attempts to make true or approximately true claims about objective reality.” Howard Sankey, “What is Scientific Realism,” Divinatio, Volume 12, 2000, pp 103-120 we should do so provisionally, keeping in mind that the assumption of an objective, independent reality is a relatively recent development in the history of thought, at least in its current scientific form. Furthermore, this view has evolved: for much of recorded history, the most learned scholars were convinced that the Earth was the center of the universe.
This might be an apt admonition for the many of today’s scholars— particularly those with the loudest voices in popularized science— who believe with similar certitude that the universe consists exclusively of physical objects and forces, and that science is the only valid means of describing reality. Just as Flatland’s inhabitants were confined to their two-dimensional worldview, modern scientific paradigms, shaped by materialist assumptions, may be blind to dimensions of reality beyond the physical. Pauli’s call for a “new idea of reality” suggests that we may need an entirely different conceptual framework to accommodate the implications of quantum mechanics, consciousness studies, and mystical traditions.
This project explores an alternative framework—one that integrates both scientific insights and a broader understanding of consciousness and meaning. It loosely aligns with and draws ideas from a conception often referred to as “natural spirituality,” a form of spirituality grounded in nature, science, and human experience rather than supernatural beliefs. Natural spirituality offers a compelling alternative framework—one that does not discard scientific insights but also does not reduce consciousness and meaning to mere epiphenomena of physical processes. It suggests that subjective experience, interconnectedness, and intrinsic order are fundamental aspects of the universe.
The basic principles4 See Wikipedia Spiritual Naturalism and “A brief introduction to natural spirituality” in this project. of natural spirituality have ancient roots, and over millennia have been integrated with or subsumed into various religious and philosophical traditions. In contemporary thought, Loyal Rue, Jerome Stone, Abraham Maslow and many others in various disciplines have expanded on or argued for some form of natural spirituality. My limited contribution is to suggest that 1) mind (or spirit or any other similar term) is fundamental to all that exists, 2) almost any religious belief or spiritual tradition can fit within the broad scope natural spirituality if it is held in a spirit of inclusion and not held as an exclusive path, and 3) basic principles are more important than specific belief systems, and attitudes and behaviors that align with those principles are far more important than abstractions about ultimate truth.
It’s an easy extension to think of natural spirituality as part of a larger cosmic order or intrinsic structuring principle to the universe, an idea that extends back in time through Platonism, Hermeticism, Taoism and other philosophical and mystical traditions.5 Pythagoras is often credited with introducing the term kosmos to describe the universe as an ordered and harmonious whole. Johanne Kepler believed that his 1619 Harmonices Mundi (The Harmony of the World) showed that planetary motion reflected a deeper mathematical and musical harmony. Humbolt’s 1845 Kosmos brought the idea of an ordered universe into the domain of public thought, explicitly proposing that humans and nature were all part of a much greater fabric. More recently, the idea of a central order has garnered renewed interest with the advent of quantum mechanics. Several prominent physicists who developed QM— Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, David Bohm, Wolfgang Pauli and others— held views that could reasonably be characterized as mystical.
A related idea is that humans are not the pinnacle of conscious intelligence on earth. Human intelligence— largely expressed by our abilities for technology and complex abstractions— appears to be unique on earth,6 Although the technology part is indisputable, complex abstractions are another matter, particularly for large-brained species that we know so little about such as the Odontocetes. a fact that seems to be widely accepted as evidence that we are far and away earth’s most intelligent species. But dozens of species of marine mammals— toothed whales including dolphins, orcas, and sperm whales— appear to have achieved what can reasonably be described as advanced consciousness millions of years ago.7 Inferred from the fact that most of the dozens of species of Odontocetes have had brains similar in size and complexity to humans for millions of years. See “A Consciousness Continuum” in this project for an expanded discussion. The fact that we lack deep knowledge of their communications, cultures, or consciousness— or even the means to develop such knowledge— does not mean that their realilties are any less rich than ours, even if fundamentally different in structure and expression.
Language is an impediment here, as English does not readily accommodate notions of subjective realities. Although the term “New Age” is often dismissed as vague or pseudoscientific, the underlying impulse toward a more integrative understanding of reality—one that bridges science, consciousness, and spirituality—remains a serious and growing area of inquiry. This tertium quid, envisioned by thinkers like Thomas Nagel and others, may be approaching wider recognition as philosophical and scientific discourse moves beyond strict materialism.
Some of the other topics and ideas to be explored here include:
A provisional equivalence of the terms “mind” and “spirit,” and select conceptions of a mind-matter relationships, including panpsychism and dual-aspect monism.
A revisionist history of physicalism— the currently dominant conception of a mechanistic, purely physical universe— and its (Protestant Christian) theological roots.
The imaginal realm, a term that some have come to use as a broad label for the subjective, experiential and symbolic dimensions of reality, aspects of deeper-sentience life8 Although we have no idea whether or to what extent large-brained non-human animals have a deep sense or use of symbolism that are almost by definition not addressable through scientific methods.
Why language constrains discussions about the imaginal or subjective realm, and how the words we use or are available can significantly influence what we perceive and how we think.
The word ‘consciousness’ carries multiple meanings— different, and sometimes ambiguous or contradictory—similar to how ‘electricity’ is measured in Volts, Coulombs, Amperes, and Joules; or that it is a “flow of electrons” even though the electrons in a wire barely move at all.
A brief fly-over of quantum mechanics and philosophical implications for consciousness, including the Pauli-Jung Conjecture and arguments for a seamless integration of mind and matter made by David Bohm, Henry Stapp and others.
Argues that we should abandon ontological committments in favor of terms such as myths or models that clearly express the uncertain and provisional nature of our understanding.