CALResCo Group (Complexity & Artificial Life Research), Manchester U.K.
(published in Dynamical Psychology Journal January 1999)
We investigate the value of spiritual concepts in the context of our evolutionary fitness, and attempt to bring together science and spirit under the common viewpoint of complexity theory. Within such a paradigm, we show spiritual ideas to be perhaps the most valuable and neglected aspects of our education, and give some complexity based criteria for the evaluation of religious systems. The idea of spirituality as a worldly asset permits us to re-evaluate many of the assumptions lying behind traditional science and religion, and allows us to move to a viewpoint integrating both spiritual and scientific processes into the psychology of the mind.
In our supposedly material world, the cultivation of spiritual excellence is often regarded as at best irrelevant or at worst a psychotic delusion. Complexity Science however can throw a very different light on this subject, revealing spiritual development to be not only advantageous, but perhaps the most valuable asset currently available to the human race.
We do however need to be quite clear about the difference between spirit and religion and between spirit and instinct. A religion is a belief system, a set of structured concepts, generally (but not always) related to a deity. It comprises several dimensions: Ritual, Mythological, Doctrinal, Ethical, Social and Experiential [Smart, pp15]. Most of these dimensions vary greatly between the various religions, but the last, the experiential dimension, seems common to all religions [Huxley]. This includes that aspect we call spirit. The external trappings of religion can be regarded as simply alternative ways in which to package the internal spiritual meaning, so they will take a back seat for our purposes here. Our study will instead concentrate on the wider aspects of spirit, considering not just the religious manifestations, but also the artistic, philosophical and scientific aspects of the concept.
When we were young children we had many dependencies upon our parents. Those psychological needs for protection and support are deeply embedded within our evolutionary instincts, and it is natural for us to project such needs onto a parent substitute as we grow (the security blanket syndrome - a desire to return to the stressless safety of the womb) [Freud, pp72]. Many aspects of our Gods show this instinctive or cultural personification, yet these archetypes [Jung, pp105] are not spirit, and appear to be simply overlays upon it, patterns based upon our historical or genetic predispositions.
Complexity Theory deals with those systems outside the scope of reductionist or statistical techniques, and takes a connectionist approach in which the interconnections are more important than the composition of the parts. Generally these systems are composed of many interacting variables, arranged in such a way as to be non-linear, non-deterministic, non-equilibrium and composed of extensive feedback loops, allowing self-organization. Such ideas merge the systems approach of technology, the evolutionary approach of biology and the phase transitions of physics to obtain a methodology of considerable scope [Lucas98]. These complex adaptive systems operate, for greatest efficiency, at a delicate dynamic balance between static and chaotic modes of operation, which we call the 'edge of chaos'. At this point the system exhibits considerable structure at many inter-related emergent levels. For a popular overview of this new science see [Waldrop] or [Lewin], and for an introduction to the complexity concepts used in this paper and their relation to social systems see [Lucas97].
Spirit is often defined as an immaterial animating force, something surviving bodily death, a God given life-force, soul or the essence of our character. The most general definition would be that spirit includes all the non-material states of being. All these terms seem alien to the concepts of science, yet this is not so. Modern science contains many such immaterial concepts, e.g. gravity, electromagnetism, energy, fields and the quantum vacuum. None of these have substance, they are detectable only in relative ways, in their observable effects, but are concepts that prove very useful in practice and are regarded by scientists as 'truths' nethertheless.
Treating spirit as just another immaterial concept allows us to discard the metaphysical 'meaning' (the theology and philosophy) and concentrate on the usefulness of the idea itself in dealing with the wider world in which we live. Can we claim that spiritual ideas actually have effects ? The preponderance of religious thought in all cultures and the actions of the believers leaves no doubt as to this. In all aspects of life our beliefs affect our behaviour and this is true regardless of the type of belief. The difference, if any, between scientific beliefs and those relating to other areas (mathematics, art or religion say) is in how we evaluate utility or value. It is in this area that we will look to integrate the various forms of belief that drive our lives.
Complexity Theory puts much emphasis on emergence, on the generation of new higher levels of structure from the interactions of the parts that comprise them [Goodwin, Holland, Kauffman]. We are most familiar with this in our investigations of the material world. It is now apparent that organic molecules are made up of atoms, that cells in turn comprise such molecules, that animals and plants are built from cells, and that ecosystems are composed of plants and animals. In a similar way we can identify levels other than the material, for example processes (chemical bonding, cell metabolism, brain activity, choral singing). These emerge within the physical world but are not in themselves physical (the material constituents are largely unchanged whether the process happens or does not). Our mental concepts, for example, have no physical reality in themselves, a thought of a 'table' hasn't a one to one correspondence with any physical object, it is a generalisation of many potential properties that are socially agreed to constitute the word 'table'. Whether a particular external object qualifies for this designation is always contextual, and this is true of all our concepts [Wittgenstein]. Extending this idea of generalisation, we can create concepts that are altogether beyond the material world, for example mathematics, abstract art or ethics. Although we can apply these concepts to the world in various ways, none of them refer to physically existing objects, they exist (if the term is valid) in a different (Platonic) world, an alternative non-physical reality.
Science, by concentrating almost exclusively on visible (material) emergence, has neglected the hidden (process) equivalents. Spirituality in essence is such an internal concept, as are most of the aspects of mind that so far elude scientific explanation (e.g. emotions and consciousness). That there are multiple levels here also is evident from our own experience, our ability to 'stand back' mentally from our actions, to observe ourselves from a distance as it were, what might be called a meta-consciousness. Add to this dreams, hypnosis, drug states and other altered and partially conscious states and we have a whole hidden world of emergent possibilities available. These states are occasionally studied in philosophy [Flanagan] and psychology [Grof, p95], but many spiritual writings go far beyond this, and identify several other levels of awareness and abilities (including the paranormal) on the road to enlightenment or total understanding [Sangharakshita, p120]. From a complexity science viewpoint, all such levels are equally possible, and it is an empirical question as to which exist and what effects they have on our views of reality, modes of operation or fitness.
How far we wish to pursue this is however a matter of taste. From a purely scientific viewpoint we may be content to consider only those levels available to everyone (these themselves go quite a way beyond a purely materialist science, and include many of the psychological levels that we use in daily life). Taking a less restrictive approach allows us to consider forms of interaction beyond the self, and this takes us into the realms of the paranormal, but this can still be within the general world view in which all that occurs is 'natural'. The most controversial areas however allow for a much wider remit, one that is closer to the traditional religious viewpoint. Here we can consider the possibility that there are genuine levels of reality far beyond the more mundane levels of which we are normally aware. Evidence for such levels, at least so far, depends on experiential accounts from mystical experiences, often contradictory (biased by personal beliefs), yet frequent enough in all cultures to leave the possibility open that they reflect a genuine form of higher reality. Nethertheless, for our purposes here, we will concentrate on the more mundane areas of spirit.
Few people would regard life as very worthwhile if they were restricted only to material necessities, the animal survival kit. Which extras we consider valuable however, beyond this minimum, depends to a large extent on our education and experience. We grow over time, physically and mentally. As adults, our interests transcend those simple satisfactions we enjoyed as young children. If we pursue a hobby (say) we develop constantly our expertise and knowledge. Sometimes material possessions play some part in this, yet these too tend to relate to immaterial ideas (e.g. money is a mental concept, not a physical one, and similarly, for all collectibles, value is in the mind of the beholder).
In the religious forms of spiritual development we typically see a move away from the material world and into the mental - exactly the same move as is seen in the development of 'self' in those fields that we label artistic, scientific, humanitarian or just 'growing up'. The material aspects (physical skills) take second place to abstract ones (decision skills). Thus we can regard spiritual growth as having the same basis as any other form of growth, and can evaluate it accordingly, in terms of its contribution to our quality of life.
This quality of life is a multi-level idea, there are many needs to be considered. It is not however the maximisation of just material goods (as is often assumed in modern society) but includes also artistic levels, social levels and (we would suggest) spiritual levels. Any measure of quality must include contributions from all these possible levels of reality, including our higher mental development (educational depth and width).
Just after birth, a child is largely governed by those survival instincts inherited from our animal past and passed down through the genes. These instincts, as in all creatures, are the residues of trial and error selection over many aeons. Some possible behaviours are useful, some are not. Those organisms adopting useful behaviours (e.g. running away from predators) will be more likely to survive and reproduce than those that adopt unproductive ones (e.g. jumping off cliffs). Humans, however, are pre-programmed not only with such instincts but with the ability to learn, to generate our own dynamically changing categories and behaviours - an internal model of the world and how to behave in it.
As we are taught (by parents, friends, teachers, experiment) we mould our world into a very complex place, each new morsel of knowledge adding to the detail in our world view. The information we retain is that which proves useful (e.g. balls aren't edible, running into doors hurts). Each new category is an option, a new decision point in our life, a widening of the possibilities open to us, or (in complex system terms) an expansion of our state space. Progress and evolution could be said to depend on this process of expansion, the exploration of novelty. Quality of Life, on the other hand, depends upon choosing the right path through the maze of possibilities - those providing the highest fitness or value within our individual world concept (defined as an internal mental perception rather than as an external utilitarian result). But we do not operate in a vacuum, our actions take place in an environmental and social context. As we act, we add in turn to the possibilities for others, we create spirals of change, inter-twined ladders that can provide a ratchet of self-reinforcing feedback, driving us all onward (for better or worst, depending upon the particular paths chosen and whether the results agree with the expectations of our model).
The fitness we experience is thus dependent not only on ourselves but on how our viewpoint relates to those around us. A behaviour that is fit in one circumstance (e.g. wearing fancy dress, at a party) may be highly disadvantageous in another context (e.g. meeting a business client). But we must recall that fitness is not a single dimension, multiple aspects of any situation will contribute to the overall fitness (in the same way that multiple genes contribute to any trait). For a body, say, to be fit, the chemistry must be fit (in balance), the cells must be fit (not infected), the organs must be fit (functioning correctly) and so on. Thus our fitness is a multi-level concept, including levels both internal and external to the body. Fitness is then that holistic state that gives maximum success in any particular context.
Each individual on the planet has a unique upbringing, our experiences are different, the things we are taught vary with culture. It is not surprising therefore that our categories, values and preferences similarly cover a wide range. That we have, nethertheless, many common beliefs and practices suggests that these have proved valuable in our lives. If the pursuit of spiritual concepts is taken to be one of these common themes, then it behoves us to take seriously its adaptive significance.
Nobody can doubt the benefits of science, in terms of efficient machines and processes; or the benefits of the arts in terms of beauty and entertainment; or the benefits of societies in terms of trade, mutual support and diversity. Yet the possible benefits of spirituality are often ignored. The pursuit of spiritual growth can however also be a valid form of knowledge acquisition, so what sort of knowledge might this be ?
Essentially it is the knowledge of ourselves (a looking inward), the way we think, behave and react, our positive and negative aspects, and our values in relation to the whole. It involves bringing into consciousness our unconscious motivations, beliefs, feelings and predispositions, so that we can evaluate their part in our overall fitness (in complexity terms, so that we can change the neural ruleset based on connections, and thus the attractors). The psychological benefits of this seem clear, in the reduction of internal stress or errors and in more constructive interactions with the world around us. The process is that of better integrating the various aspects of our personality with each other and with the rest of the Universe, something badly neglected in our current educational systems [Adler, Ch15]. But when we do this we often find more, glimpses of another universe (or world view), an alternative reality or altered state of consciousness. Such experiences (described in religion as mysticism) traditionally form the higher levels of spiritual development, reached through meditation techniques. These techniques however need not have a religious slant, but can simply be used to restore balance and to enhance creativity [Gawler, Kabat-Zinn]. Their success, even on a mundane level, indicates the value of such spiritual introspection in revealing new ways in which to view and integrate our world.
Before we can fully bring together scientific and spiritual development, however, we need to look into the philosophical background of our science. In investigating the world we must distinguish what is there from what is not, in other words we need to categorize or label our discoveries. In complex systems there are many ways of doing this (based upon the various emergent levels), but since Aristotle [Bambrough, Logic] we have traditionally regarded 'substance' (existence) as more primary than 'quality' (appearance). Substance (the inherent, non-subjective, properties of an object) suggests the questions: 'Where ?', 'When ?' and 'How Much ?'. 'Where' presupposes a space in which to exist (location), 'When' presupposes a time (duration) and 'How Much' a measure of extent (matter). These three basic categories of position, momentum (mass times velocity) and time, run throughout science, so much so that some physicists seem to regard them as the self-evident basic properties of the Universe (e.g. Laplace claiming that, given such initial conditions, all of reality could be deterministically predicted - a viewpoint still held by many reductionist scientists).
To see that this is not the case, we need to look into quantum theory, which is recognised as being more accurate and fundamental than the classically based theories that still pervade almost all science. In Quantum Electrodynamics [Feynman], for example, matter largely reduces to an exchange of photons, electromagnetic 'particles' which have no mass, 'waves' that have no position, a dynamic relativistic interchange between 'particle' and 'wave' where time has no simple meaning. Thus the idea of objective substance itself is seen to be no more than an emergent property of interactions between ephemeral and transcendental constituents. The non-substances that surround it (time and space) are likewise emergent concepts of our belief system (logical necessities due to our dualist mode of thought), dependent upon our assumptions of direction, our labels, and the desire to 'ground' our concepts in a fixed framework, to have foundations to our world.
If we accept that any concept of scientific reality is arbitrary (which we can see in the co-existence of both quantum and classical versions for different purposes), we must ask what other concepts could we use ? From a complexity theory viewpoint it is not a matter of replacing our physical views, but of supplementing them, by adding new layers that target purposes currently neglected in a material perspective. The material world is only one level in what is perhaps a continuum of emergent levels, that form the whole of reality. Even on a material level we can use different paradigms to evaluate different sub-levels, e.g. in physics (quanta), biology (evolution) and technology (systems) terminologies. The labels we use for these different levels are not, on a complexity viewpoint, interchangeable, this means that a reduction to the lowest level is invalid. We must treat the emergent properties of each level as self-contained and discrete, yet recognise that the levels do interact (in both directions). Our labels are, in essence, relations, that allow us to tie together diverse aspects of our reality, e.g. the word 'planet' contains within itself links to multiple concepts, other associated labels. These labels can exist at many levels, including their symbolic and metaphoric uses in poetry and myth. All such categories (divisions of our world) are seen ultimately to be creations of mind and not inherent in reality.
The categories we perceive (appearances or 'secondary qualities' [Locke,8:10]) include other forms of labelling, for example colour, properties said to depend upon the observer and not to be inherent in the substance of the object. We see however that from the quantum viewpoint no properties are independent of the observer, so the distinctions made by Aristotle and Locke were false ones. By artificially separating one set of emergent properties (appearance) from another (substance), a barrier was created that has isolated mind and matter and created a strongly dualist philosophy behind science. By re-integrating, under the complexity viewpoint, the continuity of emergent levels, we can seamlessly move from object, via subject, to spirit, recognising these labels themselves as no more than arbitrary stepping stones along the way, relating to our level of abstraction.
Spirit is thus seen as another form of the categorization of that which concerns us, a way of viewing the world that we can suppose increases our ability to exist successfully. Recognising the equivalence of different abstract concepts enables us to discard the historical barriers between them (for example the view that mathematical abstraction is fundamentally different from metaphysical abstraction). We see that all such abstractions are emergent properties going beyond the level of our more physically related concepts. Spirit, in this view, can be regarded "as the operational definition of who he or she really is; what they give their highest priorities to; what their values are; how they behave towards other people, towards God, towards creation" [Jeeves, p100]. It is an integrated (holistic) view of our being - body, soul, spirit, intellect, emotion (even society, nature and God) are one not many.
To enquire about the meaning of something is to ask how it can contribute to our quality of life, what is its value. One of the problems we have in science is the lack of value judgements inherent in its methodology. Many scientists even reject the concept of 'meaning' in science - nature is just what we measure [Bohr, p179, Hawking, p121]. This states that no available metaphysical context adds to the utility or practical value of the scientific observation or fact. Yet meaning abounds in our lives, in poetry, novels, art, as well as in religion and social behaviour. So to reject it in just one field is to perform an error of omission. Can we then re-formulate science to include the concept of value ?
To some extent we already have. The principle of natural selection in biology assumes that what is selected is a difference in fitness, or the value to an organism of a particular trait. This concept runs widely throughout our lives (even if, by itself, it is inadequate within a complexity viewpoint [Wesson]). Yet in evolutionary terms, even scientific formulae are fitness related, we choose them based on their truth value in prediction (an arbitrary criterion [Kolakowski, p79]), and we see that this is itself a value judgement based upon what we want to predict. We can, in principle, extend these ideas easily to select theories based on other, wider, criteria, including for example their contribution to our quality of life. Doing this we find that science ceases to be an isolated, pseudo-objective, enterprise but instead become a formalised tool tacked on to our evolutionary brain, a better way of relating to the world and increasing our fitness. In the same way the spiritual aspects of our being can also give meaning or value to the whole, but these increase fitness in different ways than those we value in our science.
If we generalise all these terms (fitness, value, meaning, prediction) we see that all relate to improvement or adaptations in the context of our lives and the world we live in. We are multi-faceted creatures operating in many different realities [Ram Dass, pp20]. We expect (and find) that these improvements come in many forms, yet it would be a brave person to claim that one form was superior to another. It seems clear that eating is of value only when we are hungry, and science (perhaps) only when we need to predict. Value is a relative term, but maybe spirituality is at its greatest value when we need to choose between alternatives, in evaluating just which selection criteria we should use. This takes a view of spirit as a higher level of reality, a sort of meta-value system concerned with putting into perspective the alternatives available at the lower levels.
Few would suggest that abstract concepts are meaningless, the benefits of mathematical ideas, for example, seem obvious, applications are encountered daily. Can we say the same about the application of spiritual ideas ? Let us proceed by identifying some of the more common spiritual beliefs and relating them to modern complexity thinking and fitness.
A totality comprising all connected things could be taken to have the emergent universal property often referred to as God. As in any emergent property, the parts experience only a little of the higher property at best. Thus the difficulty in man comprehending his God relates to the part experiencing the whole, in the same way that individuals only partly understand the whole of the society of which they are members. As in any highly connected system, each choice we make has subtle effects on our neighbours in the network, and they affect others in turn, until the whole is encompassed and the effects return to act on the cause - this is similar to the concept of karma [Motoyama, pp28]. Thus there is closure of the system, the fitness of the one relates to the fitness of the all, so similarly any 'God' influence that we allow would be felt throughout the Universe.
Viewing all as parts of the one, is analogous to considering the relationships between the parts in a machine. If one part destroys another the machine stops. In our more redundantly constructed living systems the efficiency is degraded instead, but there is a progressive tendency to loss of function, to chaos. For a human society the same applies, individuals fighting individuals retards the fitness (quality of life) of each, reducing the value of the whole. Seeing God as in the world, not separate from it, removes the religious tendency to claim love of God, yet hate neighbours (pure selfhood [Kierkegaard, p7]). In an integrated view, God and Neighbour are connected, so love must be universal and apply to both ("love God and love your neighbour as yourself" Luke 10:27). In the same way that one part of our body fearing another would be nonsensical, the fear and hate of other humans (in the context of the whole) is thus seen as self-defeating and illogical.
These can relate to our view of the world's perceived fitness - an amalgam of 'out-there' and 'in-here' (Heaven presumably being idyllic and Hell diabolical in nature). By changing 'in-here' we can perhaps transform perceived Hell into Heaven [Amritanandamayi, pp432], thus spiritual development (which targets the 'in-here') complements materialist changes (which affects the 'out-there'). These are two valid ways in which to achieve the same end, but whereas changing the outer world affects only one present situation, changes to the inner perceptions affect all future situations, and are thus far more powerful and fit [Tart, pp279, Brunton, pp374].
Categories are simple snapshots, just different views of a complex whole. To see the whole truth we must merge all possible views, but when we do this we see that no clear divisions exist, the whole is seamless, with detail at all levels (fractal structure [Mandelbrot]). Thus complexity thinking and spiritual teaching seem to say the same thing. Science too at the quantum level denies inherent properties, yet it is so natural for us to create divisions, to divide up our world. The usefulness of this is clear in everyday life, where we only employ simplified views, concentrating on just one aspect (view) at a time. We need to realise however that such simplifications (however strongly we cling to them [Krishnamurti, pp34]) are only an evolutionary technique for fast survival decisions or choices and not reflections of ultimate reality or the full picture. When we need to choose on a different level (e.g. artistic), then quite different ways of thinking are usually needed and the previous divisions become redundant. In the sense often (obscurely) employed in religious thinking, any material only viewpoint is an illusion, in that what it excludes exceeds by far what it includes. By letting go of our attachment to divisions, except where they are necessary (i.e. fitness enhancing), we can develop an awareness of the whole, a more balanced viewpoint [Krishnamurti, pp67].
Wisdom resides in the whole, the depth of knowledge available at all levels. We can transfer this metaphorically to a personified God (in the Greek tradition of Zeus perhaps), a substitute for the whole, or sometimes to many such substitute Gods, each standing for a particular quality. Yet to assume that a limitless whole can take the form of a limited part is inadequate (this being the same reductionist methodology as is often employed in science), thus the projection can only be a simplified analogy. Further, it is one that often attributes qualities (e.g. sex) to a being supposedly existing at an higher emergent level than such categories possess meaning. Whilst complexity thinking would reject such a concept as structurally illogical, nethertheless it can have utility for an individual, allowing them to relate more easily to wider issues. We see the same process in the personification of Nations, animals and things - the analogy helps us to feel closer and more involved, which is beneficial. But emergence requires instead that we view God not as something separate, but integrating and penetrating the whole (an immanent theology [Underhill, pp529]) and this proves to be basic to the esoteric aspects of all religious traditions [Perry, pp855].
God is regarded as outside time, eternal and unchanged, whilst the world changes. Yet time is just the measure of a change (e.g. movement of a clock hand) and in science too various qualities are unchanging, they are conserved. These include energy and momentum. An analogy is the sea, where waves constantly come and go in all forms and shapes, yet the water is unchanged. Eternal versus temporal is thus a change in viewpoint not a qualitative difference, e.g. when we regard individuals as living and dying, but the society of which they are a part as unchanging - yet both consist of the same elements. God is simply the same idea viewed over an infinite timescale, a view at a different emergent level than that we usually employ. Another way of looking at this is in the context of the 'Eternal Now', often employed by adepts, where the attachment to past and yearning for future are both discarded, freeing the sage to enjoy the bliss of pure timeless existence [Perry, pp838].
Life dissipates in one form yet returns in another, it flows, being a process not an entity. Once we die we are recycled into many other lifeforms and these into higher ones until, perhaps, we are reabsorbed by humans and reborn as children. An unusual notion of being resurrected or reincarnated perhaps, yet in such a science based view of evolution, learning is passed on (in chemistry, genes, books, conversation, all forms of interaction). The assumption of a personal immortality (not part of all religions) in the context of complex systems is problematical, since these are never constant, so which version is the self ? From a systems point of view, function (personality) is passed on in interactions, knowledge is distributed in the whole, our effect on the world about us. We can see this in the structure of our body, the cells die and are replaced, but the higher functions persist and grow. We are constantly physically reborn. In a similar way our 'personality' or 'self' is largely a meaningless construct [Parfit, Ch10], being just a mirror of our place in the wider social world - dynamic bubbles of being floating through the cosmic sea, until they burst with death and reform elsewhere. Negation of 'self' as illusion is a common theme underlying spiritual development [Perry, pp143, pp205]. Death, in spiritual terms, could be said to be the expansion of the one into the many [Levine, pp552], a process also commonly seen in Near Death Experiences [Moody, p9] and Hypnotic Regression [Whitton, p29]. Experience of such an alternative higher reality is perhaps also available during life, to those sufficiently spiritually enlightened [Sangharakshita, p195].
Religion often preaches that our reward is not to be expected in this life but in the next. We can relate to this in terms of emergent levels, in that the benefits of the higher level are not apparent in terms of the lower. Thus material reward is less valuable than psychological (a higher level of reality) and that in turn less valuable than spiritual (as a more Universal view). Viewing Heaven as an internal concept is compatible with this [Mitchell, pp839], and suggests that passivity (waiting to be 'redeemed') is not the meaning intended, instead an active development of non-material levels is being encouraged. This sort of indifference to the material world is often found in adepts [Perry, pp139].
This is Universal spirit or love, manifested in each of us as soul. Relating this to the physics view that energy is fundamental in the Universe, and to the complexity view that structure or form results from the interaction of the constituents (given a source of energy to escape equilibrium), we can suggest that creativity also derives from the same source (whether artistic, scientific or other forms), thus this is a positive viewpoint similar to that taken in religious teachings [Rinpoche, pp349, Sri Aurobindo, pp499]. It is largely a matter of attitude whether we use such energy constructively or destructively, spiritual teachings stress the importance of the former, expressed as compassion and selfless love to all of creation and this seems fitness related, in the complexity sense of enhancing the whole.
Our actions or applied energy if they are positive in fitness terms are Good (creative, knowledge enhancing, mutually beneficial); but if negative, are Evil (destructive, ignorant or censorial, divisive). These evaluations apply to the multi-level whole, not just to the individual ego (as in capitalism), nor just to the state ego (as in communism), but to the Universe with its complexity of viewpoints and groupings. In spiritual terms, we can view ourselves as part of God and the Universe as a whole as God [Kitaro, pp153]. We are here charged with developing ourselves (increasing our fitness) but not at the expense of the whole (in fact recognising our identity to the whole is said to be part of the purpose of spiritual development). Thus the net result of our actions should be positive-sum for God as a whole, a very different mode to our usual behaviour where selfish progress so often means impoverishment for nature and other humans (overall negative-sum).
Generally this is goal directed, so we can regard it as a deliberate perturbation or stress of the system. If this perturbation is maintained as a constant fitness aim we would expect success eventually, stress needs to be released. Psychologically, confidence generates success, whether based on actual or imagined support. In complex systems (close to chaos) small influences can cause massive effects, which we could attribute to God's influence, this assuming a teleological goal for what is unpredictable, even in science. Often lack of success is written off as "God knows best", but time limited perturbations do die out, swamped by other factors. For a global God, the failure can also be attributed to the system self-balancing to prevent the attempted change (a form of homeostasis), which amounts to the same thing - rejection of a part preference. Due to the large number of influences in complex systems and their interactions, it is not generally possible in any case to distinguish between random and teleological instigations of happenings, except in simple instances.
This encourages the widening of a narrow selfish viewpoint towards a larger system view, a form of surrender to a greater entity. Taking into account other needs than our own is a form of personal development necessary to all living in a society. Including God simply extends this to the whole, giving us a Universal framework in which to evaluate fitness, as opposed to the more secular worship of limited goals (e.g. money, fame). It unites the parts with the totality, an essential action in maximising the value of the whole system and this is fitness enhancing. To the extent that we understand and relate to the whole, our basis for fitness decisions is enhanced, we have more knowledge. This applies in all situations, such knowledge improves our power to make the optimum fitness decision. Communal worship also has clear value in binding together groups under a common social viewpoint, giving a sense of belonging and integration [Steindl-Rast, p417].
The systems of morality in religious thought tend to be static in presentation, in the form of rules (prohibitions or commandments), often formalised in the justice system as laws of the land. These systems tend to be rigid, they are based on the past, often on precedents and the status quo. Creativity in interpretation or re-balancing to modern conditions is not encouraged, such systems are sensitivity deadening, conformity enforcing and growth suppressing. In complexity thinking context is very important, the correct action must be determined by the options available at the time, taking into account the novelty of the situation. This is the idea that no two contexts are the same and that, since modern contexts bear little relation to those of the past, they may in fact require opposite 'ethical' decisions to achieve the optimum fitness. We can see the failure of rigid systems in the need to reverse their ethics to promote killing, in so called 'justified' wars, and the associated imprisonment of those unable to accept this forced illogic (conscientious objectors). Social systems that can adapt to changes are needed to maximise overall fitness [Rauschenbush, pp586], but since behaviour is an inner drive we can see that no set of external rules suffices, ultimately our internal viewpoint is the only law that is effective. In so far as spiritual development can internalise the wisdom embodied in our laws (if such there be), or that obtained from other sources, it will improve our judgement and thus prove fitness enhancing.
Salvation through belief or faith ("Thy Will be done" Matthew 6:10) seems to suggest that action takes place outside ourselves, that we can passively expect to reap the benefits without effort. Free Will on the other hand suggests that we only get what we instigate ourselves. Both, from a complexity point of view, are true. In any complex system what fitness we experience depends both on others and on ourselves. Fitness is a collective property. We are neither totally free, nor totally impotent. If we try to be passive (only receiving) we do not develop, that requires change in ourselves; if we are active however we must expect that the world around us will change in such a way as to feedback on our actions (opposing if negative, enhancing if positive). Faith, in this sense, is a trust that God (the whole) will have the same global fitness aim, and thus will act in our best interests as well as His own. At a lower level, society could not operate without such a concept of trust being valued (at least in some cases). In the Taoist ('The Way') viewpoint [Graham] this relates to not forcing events, trusting that things will occur in the right way and at the right time, and using opportunities as they arise (taking advantage of what is sometimes called synchronicity or serendipity) [Wing, pp12]. This also relates to complex systems, in that changes (fluctuations) are happening constantly, so waiting for the right moment (analogously 'a break in the clouds') allows achievement without the major disruption to the system that would result from any forced attempt to achieve a goal (analogously 'changing the weather' - which causes major repercussions).
If we accept such a fitness related role for spiritual belief systems, then we need to understand also how different religions implement these ideas. Here we encounter a problem however. In many forms of religion even to question the concepts being promulgated is regarded as heresy or blasphemy, punishable by exclusion or death (e.g. the Salman Rushdie case). These are closed systems. To a lesser extent we find the same reluctance to question standard views in the sciences and social systems, yet without such questioning at all levels our search for 'truth' is frustrated. We should recall, however, that only error needs to fear enquiry [Freud, pp72].
The complexity viewpoint asks searching questions about many of the views we hold most dear, and religion is no exception. We must apply the same criteria to religious systems as to any other complex systems. These questions include:
The essence of complexity theory. What influences are allowed (analogous to the physical interactions affecting matter - gravitation, electromagnetism, information etc.). Beliefs in karma, atonement, sin, prayer, sacred texts, leaders, paranormal action and so on. The parts and the relationships comprising the religion.
To what extent is the self transcended in the whole. Do the actions and practices pertain to the interests of the parts or to any wider viewpoint. Are values beyond the vocabulary of self visible.
These are the dimensions of the religion: thoughts, actions, symbols, artefacts, including the aspects of their God and levels of attainment. Some religions concentrate on only selected aspects, yet for a full understanding all aspects need to be integrated in the study of complex systems.
Rule driven, value driven or individual driven modes of operation. The first is restrictive and static, the last free but irresponsible to the needs of the whole. The value (or fitness) driven mode however allows all levels of the system to be integrated, to maximise overall development.
Growth, a progression, relates to the spiritual development of the members. Do they help each other to improve or hinder one another ? Are alternative views welcomed as a method of growth (creativity) or opposed and eliminated (censorship). Does the religion learn from outside itself.
This is the hierarchical structure of the religion. For example in the participant levels of spirituality, many believers are low down the development path, a few are highly spiritually developed; also in levels of involvement in the running of the organisation most do little, but a few do much of the work. This need not relate to the power structure, as these hierarchies are not static and do not all start with the same point or individual. If the distribution follows a straight line power law then the religion may have self-organized to the optimum evolutionary state (edge of chaos).
Where is the religion heading. Is there more than one simultaneous aim (e.g. power, afterlife, conversion, material acquisition, freedom, equality, morality, status, enlightenment, union). Does it try to fix the attractors (a Utopian viewpoint) or allow them to change as development proceeds. Are goals at multiple levels present, suitable for different stages of spiritual development.
Paradise can be identified with the best possible state, thus the optimum result should be associated with the fittest belief system. What is the overall value of the religion, compared to other belief systems. Are there clear advantages to adopting each of the beliefs included. Does fitness exist at all levels or just some. Can we imagine a better result than what exists, and if so how can the religion achieve it, without fitness loss.
When we adopt a belief we require it to be consistent with the other things we believe. This is a positive thing, with obvious fitness benefits in avoiding conflict in our decisions. But there is a drawback, previous beliefs constrain our freedom, they force our path, blinding us to other options. We see this in the Newtonian view of a flat Euclidean space and an independent time, and also in the assumption of a personal God, separate from the universe. To take assumptions as 'truths' either in science or religion is to adopt a naive viewpoint, a reduction of the complexity of the world to a child's vision, unexamined and unchallenged. The world is multi-dimensional, not in the space and time sense only, but in ways that go far deeper. To say of a person that she is a Scientist or that he is a Christian is to deny by implication that they are anything else, and to reduce them to a single dimension, in exactly the same manner as people are reduced to the single dimension of 'market value' in economics..
This is even more true within Religious thought. All believers share a large number of concepts, so the views of different sects are not totally disjoint. The transcendent can be regarded simply as another form of personal growth, and religions as just different dies used to stamp the same precious metal, that of spirit. A useful metaphor is to regard God as the top of a mountain. We wish to approach God, so we climb the mountain. How many ways can we do this ? In principle there are infinite ways. Some may take the long path, some try to go up the cliff face, some the north ascent, some the south, some go part way up but it becomes difficult and they are forced to descend and try another way. Religious sects are these paths, each a different route to the same end [Dalai Lama, p432] - we all climb the same mountain. This is analogous to searching for knowledge by studying physics or biology or sociology, all contribute, but none have all the answers. Given the vast differences in education, experience and interests amongst humans, to insist on a single method of spiritual study [Smart, Ch11] can only be regarded as misguided, rather like claiming Chinese symbolism is meaningless because we speak English. Generalising, the scientific and religious aspirations of people are all just different paths to the same end-point, that of complete truth or Enlightenment (although some ways may certainly be more efficacious than others for particular people).
Even within a tradition we must be aware that we are initially spiritually ignorant and only develop our expertise over time. Those concepts (myths, stories) suitable for our development early on the path (often as children) may need to be discarded as we gain in perception and spiritual depth. Generally we start with external actions, the moral and behavioural (worldly becoming) aspects of religion. Those that take it further later turn inward, developing the contemplative (otherworldly being) aspect, but that is still not the end of the path, a further stage of integration is possible, requiring further insight and development beyond self, generally fully attained only by a few adepts or saints (mystic beginning). On a more simplistic level, we can relate this to the common belief in the three integrated stages of physical fitness, mental control and spiritual unity in such techniques as Karate and Yoga [Hewitt, Ch3]. The lack of balance between these stages is responsible for much of the antagonism caused to, and by, religion in our societies [von Hugel, pp498]. But having found one path that works well for us does not mean that other viewpoints are invalid, nor that a better fitness cannot be found by a quantum jump in starting point (similar to the evolutionary technique of crossover in sexual recombination). Our next section explores such a leap in viewpoint.
Dismissal of paranormal ideas is often a gut reaction by scientists, and acceptance an equally unthinking assumption by spiritualists. Yet what do we mean by paranormal ? The word tells us - beyond normal. The normal knowledge of any individual is trivial compared to the sum total of Universal knowledge, at all levels of humanity and nature. To dismiss unknown forms of knowledge due to our own lack of development is analogous to dismissing mathematical calculus because we cannot do it personally. Before we can learn to do anything we must study it and listen to teachers. The normal in mental life is just those abilities common to all, instinctive or generally taught. Other abilities (e.g. juggling) are less common, some extremely rare (e.g. photographic memory) and not perhaps amenable to being taught, yet rarity itself isn't a reason to dismiss any phenomenon. What is 'paranormal' or 'magic' can be simply what our education omits to teach us [Watts, pp714].
Traditional science studies repeatable phenomena, in other words the 'normal'. One-off happenings are usually ignored (or dismissed as 'experimental error'). Yet they do exist, volcanoes erupt suddenly, planes crash, people meet unexpectedly, genius occurs. All science can say about these is that they are unpredictable, not that they are impossible or inexplicable ('after the event' theories are often widespread). Complexity theory concentrates on those areas of the world where this sort of unpredictability is usual - the edge of chaos. Small affects here conspire to create large changes, in just such a way as is often seen in studies of the paranormal where (presumably) tiny influences are said to change matter as in psychokinesis, other minds as in telepathy or our own as in ESP [Swann, p1]. The often quoted objection to 'action at a distance' is quite invalid, since this occurs as a matter of course both in classical science, in terms of gravity and electromagnetism, and in quantum theory (e.g. the Aspect experiments [Baggott, pp139] and the recent developments in quantum computation and teleportation [Buchanan]).
The world around us is full of these small causes. Radio stations broadcast all the time, electricity pylons generate low frequency waves, the earth emits radioactive particles, cosmic rays arrive from space, brains create low intensity fields, gravity affects all molecules, quantum fluctuations abound. All these 'scientific' affects (and any others not yet discovered) are theoretically capable of causing a one-off happening of any magnitude, indeed in complexity theory such 'power law' fluctuations would be expected to occur generally, with diminishing frequency as the magnitude increased (as for example in earthquakes [Bak, pp88]). These effects are often seen (e.g. pendulum clocks on a wall synchronize with each other). There need be no division here between science and religion, they are merely opposite ends of a continuum of happenings, from 'commonplace' to 'miracle', the latter needing only a system to exist in a critical state such that a minor change can cause a rare cascade of effects. In principle, any form of communication of such a change can suffice, so there could be many simultaneous 'paranormal' (or normal) mechanisms operating at various emergent levels.
Our view of reality is highly simplistic (a shadow world [Plato, VII:7]), we miss out many subtleties in our everyday life and science. Alternative realities, or viewpoints, may allow access to profound knowledge, for example in distressed or drugged states (where normal functioning is transcended) [Laszlo]. Our usual lives are filled with noise and sensory overload, so access to this more delicate information may require the quiet states to be found in meditation, sleep or just empty 'being'. Silence also seems to be required to achieve concentration, to allow subtle connections to be made, and for learning, creativity and vision. There can also be many ways of experiencing the same truths - as we see in quantum theory, where we see a particle if we look for one, or a wave if searching for that, but never both at the same time (our mode of looking constrains what we can see - rationality itself closes down many avenues, eliminating the other possibilities). Yet these alternative viewpoints are taken to be complementary, aspects of the same ultimate truth (and modelled by the same Schrodinger equation).
In a similar way matter and mind may also be complementary views of a more basic reality, as some thinkers suggest [Bohm, pp196], merging and expanding both objective and subjective viewpoints. Science and Religion ultimately speak the same language, but perhaps both just suffer from the 'not invented here' syndrome ? Allowing that both systems of knowledge are valid, and are capable of being pulled together by the ideas of complexity theory, leaves the possibility for a full integration of the fields. To do this however we must transcend some of the restrictive dogmas of both, their claims to already have the ultimate truth in whatever form [Whitehead, pp216, Kolakowski, pp196].
Where do we go from here ? If we regard humanity as evolving (non-deterministically [Popper, pp105]) to ever greater heights, then in what direction should we move ? It seems clear that, despite all the material progress achieved over the last two centuries or so, the average human mental state today is little different to that of our remote ancestors, material prosperity has not made us happy. People that win the lottery or are rich in other material ways are often less content than a peasant in the fields or a monk in a monastery. In the sense that a spiritual or religious belief improves the perceived world of the believer then it must be fitness enhancing, yet we can judge religious systems also by their wider effects and sadly it is here that they often reduce fitness for others, so proving to be overall negative-sum.
Many of these problems relate to a inherited viewpoint that takes all things as separate. War, greed, hate, starvation and similar evils can only occur if we regard others as not-us (and therefore irrelevant to our fitness). Both the complexity viewpoint and that of traditional spirituality reverse this imagined discontinuity. Whilst complexity science can analyse the inter-relationships of existing and possible systems it cannot change the values we place on not-self. If we are to defeat the negativity that besets our world then we need to employ a new set of values, values that relate to wholeness and not to parts. It is here that spiritual development may hold the key, in educating people to see beyond the fitness of self, to the fitness of the multi-level whole, and in coming to appreciate that our own fitness is extensively linked both to that of our environment and of our society, in both their external and internal aspects. In this respect even a single spiritual experience (a satori moment) can be enough to show what is possible and to encourage further study [Maslow, pp526]
One obvious feature of saints, adepts and those rare masters who have attained the highest levels of spiritual awareness is their contentment and involvement (e.g. Mother Teresa of Calcutta). They gain what the rest of us seem to seek. From a complexity viewpoint they enhance the whole with every action, positively influencing those around them. Compare the fitness of this to our own actions, too often we behave negatively, hurting not only others but ourselves also in the process. If we have an asset for the future, then that of spiritual development would seem the most valuable, enabling us to re-direct all that wasted conflict energy [Lucas97] to more useful purposes and enhanced fitness
Taking a view of God and spirit as a worldly and fitness related concept, and not as some 'beyond the Universe' future utopia, does not conflict with the deepest understanding of religious adepts. In any field of study we require to learn simple things initially, before moving on to the deeper issues. Perhaps only in Religion does the view seem to prevail that a shallow understanding is adequate and development can stop at that point. The problems caused by this in the past are immense, attachment to self, single minded values and the limited vision associated with such views have led to domination based religions, imposed external (static) systems not discovered internal (dynamic) ones [Gregory, Religion]. The fitness of these (certainly in terms of the human parts) has often been very low, more sub-animal in nature (as in persecutions) than Godlike - due perhaps to their attachment to the packaging rather than the content. Spirituality however does not require belief in any particular form of deity (e.g. the Buddhist viewpoint). Attachment to a personal God or Guru is certainly one way of approaching truth, but ultimately perhaps can be discarded or transformed as the believer gains enlightenment [Bibel, p283], thus allowing us to restore the (now untainted) missing element of spirit to our world view. Even if this is not accepted (and we allow for the presence of a traditional God), the lower levels of spiritual development can still give obvious utility in fitness terms.
In complexity thinking all emergent levels are important, and so collectively must have their fitness maximised. In human terms this applies to the internal as well as the external aspects of our being. The spirit of complexity can be defined as that emergent level concerned with integrating the particular (self) with the universal (not-self), bridging the subjective/objective duality. Spirit in this sense goes far beyond just the religious aspects and takes into itself the higher levels of artistic and emotional truths, as well as those of ontological origin. We need to extend our specialist tunnel vision to encompass the whole, in all its variety [Lucas98] and this includes all the emergent levels, especially the non-material. In essence, this means to recognise that the different worlds we inhabit (physical, mental and spiritual) must be in balance. A useful analogy is the colour wheel, white light is made up of equal amounts of red, green and blue. An excess of any colour gives an imbalance - our colour perception is then distorted. If we relate red to material aspects, green to living and blue to spiritual, we can perhaps see that in the remote past these were in a better balance, the world was a dim white (e.g. in Ancient Greece or China). Our recent material development has strengthened the red contribution until it now dominates the whole, we are unbalanced. Current ecological movements are attempting to grow the green to partly compensate, but there is a long way yet to go here. In contrast the blue 'spirit' component is being diminished, rather than enhanced, and this needs to be addressed to restore to our society those higher values of wisdom, harmony and imagination whose development is lacking today [Griffiths, pp686]. To synthesize, in other words, a new more 'brilliant white' whole.
The achievement of this new balance requires changes to our general approach to life, especially in our economic ideas [Schumacher, Ch4]. It is here that the complex systems approach may help, by showing us that those systems approaches that work well in the material world may also be translated to operate, in the same way, in any system having the same connectivity, and this means in the higher level realms of life and mind. We may thus already have the expertise to develop the psychological and holistic maturity we lack, within a scientific viewpoint. We must be aware however that we cannot do this with certainty, small influences preclude deterministic prediction in such complex systems (at the edge of chaos). A probabilistic approach may need to be employed, to achieve an incremental (step by step) readjustment to both our external world and our internal nature. This may not be quite as difficult as it may appear. We are not looking here to calculate (intellectually) an absolute fitness for every action (as in a utilitarian system), but simply to choose (intuitively) our best guess as to what will improve (or at least not reduce) fitness at all levels, by balancing the relative (probabilistic) values of the choices available to us at the present time. For example, by recognising that the self is just one level of choice, and that family, society, ecosystem and planet are other equally valid levels, we can perhaps re-evaluate our attitude to pollution, seeing that any personal gain in fitness is associated with greater losses for other levels (ecosystem, society), whilst some levels (family, planet) may be neutral to this choice. Merging the levels we get a negative-sum, a clear indication that this is the wrong choice. If we all choose like this consistently (as specific cases not as general rules, and more by a spiritually developed holistic feeling than by divisive simplification), then the Heaven we seek may be found to have been here all the time - as the sages have been saying for thousands of years [Merton, p132,Vardey, Ch14].
As a species we have embarked first upon the simplest form of knowledge, the dimensions of external reality (the 'out-there'), with the flowering of our science. The next stage, investigation of the dimensions of internal reality (the 'in-here') is underway, but is still at a primitive (and over-objectified) stage. Study of the final integrative dimensions of knowledge (which are both 'out-there' plus 'in-here' and not 'out-there' nor 'in-here' [Chang, pp98]) has yet to begin for the majority of us. Here, we would suggest, complexity theory can complement traditional spiritual approaches and help bring the higher dimensions of reality within our collective grasp. Humanity seems however to have a considerable journey ahead of it still, both to extract what spiritual knowledge still remains within our religious systems, and to develop and apply this, especially to world views and educational systems that increasingly neglect the wider issues, in favour of commercial specialisms and individuality.