Extending the Range of Consciousness

Article by Chris Thomson

Read comments (2)

I gave a talk to the Science and Consciousness Conference a few years ago in New Mexico. The topic was �Extending the Range of Science�. I learned during and after the presentation that quite a few people in the audience thought I was going to talk about the role of intuition when making breakthroughs in science. Although intuition is clearly important in any human endeavour, the talk was about something very different - direct perception of the non-physical.

When I said �extending the range of science�, I was talking about the possibility � and desirability - of extending the range of consciousness of scientists, so that, without the help of sophisticated instruments, they would be able to perceive the non-physical aspects of the world directly for themselves. But what do I mean by �non-physical�, and why do I think it is important that we explore it and experience it? To answer this, a useful starting point is to look at how modern science began.

Modern science was effectively born when instruments were invented that made it possible to observe and measure things much more accurately than ever before. The telescope and microscope are classic examples of such instruments, but just as important are accurate clocks, thermometers and weighing machines. Being able to do this ushered in many benefits, and we have a lot to thank science for.

It has changed the world and our lives in many important ways. But there is a price to be paid, because it was only a short step from being able to measure and quantify things to believing that if something did not lend itself to measurement or quantification, then it might not be all that important or might not even exist. As measurement and quantification grew in importance, a whole range of human experience, including the intuitional and qualitative, was pushed to the margins or right out of sight. Thus, science increasingly became science of the physical, in the sense that it generated knowledge about the physical aspects of the universe, the physical aspects of our home planet and the physical aspects of the human being, to the virtual exclusion of all other aspects.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this.

The problem arises only because most scientists � to be fair, most of the world � appear to believe that science is exploring all possible aspects of the universe, the world and the human being. They believe that the physical reality is the only possible reality, and therefore all the many things that might at first sight seem not to be physical � such as mind, consciousness or God � can either be explained in terms of the physical (for example, consciousness is assumed by science to be an epiphenomenon of the brain) or may not exist at all. In passing, it is worth noting that the �new physics� and the �new biology� may have taken us beyond reductionism, but they have not taken us beyond the physical.

It is because scientists do not normally admit to the existence of modes of perception other than the physical that they do not admit to the possibility of other forms of reality.

They continue to believe that the physical universe is one and the same as the whole universe. The mistake they make is to use their narrowly based �map� to interpret a world that not only far transcends the limitations of this map, but also far transcends the comprehension of any one of us. Scientists rely almost exclusively on their physical senses and on extensions to these senses (telescopes, microscopes, weighing machines etc.) to explore the world. Although it should be self-evident, perhaps we need to remind ourselves that if we use only one modality � the physical one - to view the world, the world will respond in kind, by appearing to be wholly physical. If we had used another modality, the world would seem different. This is exactly analogous to viewing the world through different coloured lenses. If we look through a red lens, the world seems to be red. If we look through a blue one, it seems to be blue. If we look though a physical lens, the world is physical, and so on. What the world seems to be depends on the �lens� we use to view it. That lens determines the quality and level of our consciousness.

There can be little doubt that the physical �lens� has become the lens of almost universal preference in the modern world. I say �almost� because there are people, e.g. some Australian Aborigines and some practising mystics, who are able to use other �lenses�, in addition to the physical one. The world they experience is therefore richer and more extensive than the world most people see. That is because they experience the non-physical as well as the physical. But why has the physical �lens� become the lens of universal preference today? I believe it is because, for the vast majority, the non-physical senses have become dormant, through lack of use over the centuries. Most people today probably do not know they even exist. However, what many people do have is the occasional fleeting glimpse of what it would be like to have the use of their non-physical senses. This happens when they have particular types of extraordinary experience.

[BB]

Most of us have extraordinary experiences. It could be a vivid dream, or a powerful sense of being totally connected to the whole of creation, or a feeling of absolute certainty that we have just met the love of our life. Or it might be a lasting sense of inspiration brought on by something or someone. Although each of these counts as extraordinary, they are not all that extraordinary, in the sense that they do not pose a threat to the prevailing worldview, which is essentially the worldview of science. On the other hand, there is a whole class of experiences � such as telepathy, precognition, distant healing, clairvoyance, a near death experience, or an out of the body experience � that cannot be explained by science. But it goes further than this. Science actively rejects them because it believes that they are impossible. They are indeed impossible from the point of view of science, but that is only because science has, unknown to itself, become a restricted form of knowledge.

Although science undoubtedly tells us much about the world and ourselves, it does not and cannot, give us the whole picture. Science, as it is currently understood and practised, is a restricted form of knowledge. There are two reasons for this. The first is that scientific knowledge is always changing. Despite the claims of some that we are close to producing a �theory of everything� or to knowing �the mind of God�, it is helpful to recall that the history of science is littered with the corpses of �hard facts� that have had to give way to newer �hard facts� as we make new discoveries. This is well illustrated by our understanding of the nature of matter.

At one time, many centuries ago, we were convinced that matter consisted of tiny solid things, which we decided to call �atoms�, because we thought there could be nothing smaller (that is what the word �atom� implies). This belief eventually had to give way when we discovered that atoms consisted of even smaller things that we decided to call �protons, neutrons and electrons�. For some time this was the scientific �truth� until, inevitably, it was replaced by another �truth�, that protons and neutrons are themselves constructed of yet tinier particles, which may not actually be particles but �probabilities� or �tendencies to exist�. This process, of facts being replaced by newer facts, is unlikely to stop, and there is no a priori reason to suppose that the facts of the early twenty first century are more sacrosanct than those of any other period. If they were sacrosanct, we would soon reach the point at which there is no more for us to discover and learn. Science would have done it all for us. But that would be the ultimate boredom, the ultimate stasis. Quite apart from anything else, it just does not ring true, and it sits ill beside the daily diet of human affairs. If as a species we cannot even live in peace and harmony with each other and the planet, claims that we shall soon know nearly everything about almost everything sound hollow indeed. We still have a great deal to discover and learn. The likelihood is that what we know is greatly outweighed by what we do not know. Of one thing we can be sure, that however much we think we know and understand today, our knowledge and understanding will be different in the future.

The second reason is that science is a partial form of knowledge because, as with all other forms of knowledge, it is the product of the means of acquiring it. Ultimately it is we who are the means. It is we who do the acquiring. Now, if we were to apply the whole of ourselves to acquiring knowledge in the pursuit of science, then science would reflect this. It would be science of the whole. However, if, as we do, we apply only part of ourselves, then scientific knowledge will be correspondingly limited. It will be, and is, science of the part. Since, in my opinion, we have applied only the physical and intellectual parts of ourselves to the pursuit of science over the last few centuries, science today reflects this. It is science of the physical. If, however, we were to awaken, train and use parts of ourselves that we have forgotten about � such as our non-physical senses � our understanding of who we are and what the universe is would change out of all recognition.

Meanwhile, the fact that the worldview of science has become the dominant paradigm of our time is causing all kinds of serious problems. It has relegated western religions to the role of �ethics providers�, for example. (In the past, they were providers of facts too). And it has led to the widespread belief that the universe and all its contents, human beings included, are essentially physical in nature, that the universe is little more than a sophisticated machine and that we, too, can best be understood as machines. It is sobering to reflect that what we believe strongly determines what we value. If our core beliefs are that the universe is little more than a highly complex machine, that it consists entirely of physicality, and that we, too, are little more than complex machines, then our values will reflect these beliefs.

[BB]

In essence, they will be physical/material values. This means that we will give the highest priority to material things. It can be no accident that shopping is now the world�s main activity, and that economists and financial pundits are the new high priests. In such a climate, we will give the lowest priority to spiritual things, so much so, that in some circles �spirituality� has to be whispered as the �S-word�. It is surely no exaggeration to say that our lives, our economics, our politics, our healthcare and our education are all rooted in material values and the beliefs that underpin them. We are paying a high price for this. Why are we surprised that we exploit and destroy each other and the world on such a scale? The fact is that we do not care for things we do not value.

If, as many scientists insist, we and the universe are merely physical mechanisms, that the universe began suddenly for no reason, and that life emerged by chance, then the whole show must be meaningless. The fact that this statement, being part of the universe, must also be meaningless is little consolation! A life without meaning is a bleak life indeed. The search for meaning for many people has become little more than a desperate attempt to find instant happiness and to solve problems of their own making. That is probably why, in today�s world, there is nothing like a good crisis or tragedy to give people a sense of meaning. It is interesting to reflect on the growing status of the emergency services over the last 20 years.

The Non-physical

For the avoidance of doubt, when I say �non-physical� I am not referring to auras or qi or ghosts or anything like that. These are simply subtle manifestations of the physical, available to anyone who is very sensitive to the subtle. The non-physical is different altogether. Perhaps the easiest way to describe it is to say that it is direct participation in the total and instantaneous connection of everything in the universe. And I do mean everything and I do mean instantaneously. Thoughts are connected to thoughts. Events are connected to events, wherever they are. Lives are connected to lives. Past, present and future are connected to each other. In such a reality, the things we currently think of as extraordinary or paranormal or impossible become ordinary, normal and possible. Once we start experiencing the non-physical directly for ourselves, we see that the things mentioned earlier - telepathy, precognition, distant healing, clairvoyance, a near death experience, an out of the body experience � start to make perfect sense. Just as important, they become part of our normal experience.

The actual process of awakening and training our dormant non-physical senses is not easy. There is a lot to it. It is as much a general character training as it is a specialist training in being able to experience at will what we may have experienced only very haphazardly and infrequently, in the form of an extraordinary experience. I will go into some detail about the training in the second part of this article.

If we did go through such training, the range of our consciousness would extend considerably, and I believe that our lives would change fundamentally as a consequence. For instance:

First, extraordinary experiences � such as telepathy and clairvoyance � will become a normal, accepted part of our daily lives. That alone will change much that we think and believe. And that, in turn, will lead to changes our behaviour and how we live our lives.

Second, we would learn about aspects of the universe and the human being that we are unaware of. It would be like seeing, for the first time, the bigger part of the iceberg, although it would feel as if our current reality is the tiny tip of an inverted iceberg, below the surface, in the dark. What we think of today as indisputable scientific facts will turn out to be the product of restricted (physical) consciousness. It would completely change our understanding of who we are, as human beings, why we are here, and what we are capable of. This would give us new meaning and purpose, and that would lead to new values and priorities.

Third, we would have something very new to be serious about. What do I mean by this? At present, by far the biggest source of seriousness in the world is worrying about, or trying to solve, problems. The problem is that nearly all of the problems of our time are of our own making. When coupled with the fact that a lot of people appear to derive their sense of meaning and purpose from having problems and crises and to deal with, there is a widespread, albeit unconscious, vested interest in having a reliable supply of problems to deal with far into the future. This must surely act against any real attempts to solve problems once and for all. Perhaps we should not be surprised that poverty, crime, injustice and unhappiness (to name but a few) seem to be as widespread as ever. If, however, we had the use of our non-physical senses, we would see that there are very different things to be serious about, very different sources of meaning and purpose, which have nothing to do with problems.

We would cease to be a problem-creating race, and become a life-enhancing race.

Chris Thomson

chris@school-of-consciousness.com