Beyond the limits of human consciousness grof. Stanislav Grof - beyond the brain. Preface to the Russian edition

Add to favorites

Stanislav Grof

Beyond the Brain

Chapter 1. THE NATURE OF REALITY: THE DAWN OF A NEW PARADIGM
IN different parts This book will discuss important observations from various fields of knowledge - those observations that mechanistic science and the traditional conceptual systems of psychiatry, psychology, anthropology and medicine are unable to recognize or explain. Some of the new data is so significant that it points to the need for a radical revision of the current understanding of human nature and even the nature of reality. Therefore, it seems appropriate to begin the book with an excursion into the philosophy of science and reconsider some modern ideas about the relationship between scientific theories and reality
Resistance to the influx of new revolutionary data on the part of traditionally minded scientists is based in large part on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and function of scientific theories. In the last few decades, philosophers and historians of science such as Thomas Kuhn (1962), Karl Popper (1963, 1965), Philip Frank (1974), and Paul Feyerabend (1978) have brought considerable clarity to this area. . The pioneering research of these thinkers deserves at least a brief overview.
Philosophy of science and the role of paradigms
Since the Industrial Revolution, Western science has made amazing strides and become a powerful force shaping the lives of millions of people.
Its materialistic and mechanistic orientation has almost completely replaced theology and philosophy as the guiding principles of human existence and has transformed the world in which we live to a degree previously unimaginable. The technological triumph was so noticeable that only at the very Lately and only a few doubted the absolute right of science to determine the general life strategy. In textbooks in various disciplines, the history of science is described primarily as a linear development with a gradual accumulation of knowledge about the Universe, and the culmination of this development is presented as the current state of affairs. Therefore, figures important for the development of scientific thinking appear to be collaborators who worked on a common range of problems, guided by the same set of fixed rules, which, by the way, were only very recently defined as scientific
Each period in the history of scientific ideas and methods is seen as a logical step in a gradual approach to an increasingly accurate description of the Universe and to the ultimate truth about existence. A detailed analysis of scientific history and philosophy showed an extremely distorted, romanticized picture of the real course of events. It can be argued quite convincingly that the history of science is far from straightforward and that, despite technological advances, scientific disciplines do not necessarily bring us closer to a more accurate description of reality. The most prominent representative of this heretical view is the physicist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn
His interest in the development of scientific theories and revolutions in science grew out of reflection on some fundamental differences between the social and natural sciences. He was shocked by the number and degree of disagreement among social scientists about the basic nature of the problems covered and the approaches to them.
Things are completely different in the natural sciences. Although those studying astronomy, physics and chemistry are unlikely to have clearer and exact solutions than psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists, for some reason they do not engage in serious debates on fundamental issues
Exploring this apparent discrepancy further, Kuhn began intensively studying the history of science and fifteen years later published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962), which shook the foundations of the old World View
In the course of his research, it became increasingly clear to him that, from a historical perspective, the development of even the so-called exact sciences was far from smooth and unambiguous. The history of science is in no way a gradual accumulation of data and the formation of ever more accurate theories. Instead, its cyclical nature with specific stages and characteristic dynamics is clearly visible. This process is natural, and the changes taking place can be understood and even predicted: this can be done by the central concept of paradigm in Kuhn’s theory
In a broad sense, a paradigm can be defined as a set of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of a given scientific community. Some of the paradigms are philosophical in nature, they are general and all-encompassing, while other paradigms guide scientific thinking in rather specific, limited areas of research. A separate paradigm may therefore become mandatory for all natural sciences, another - only for astronomy, physics, biology or molecular biology, another one for such highly specialized and esoteric areas as virology or genetic engineering
Paradigm is as essential to science as observation and experiment; commitment to specific paradigms is a necessary prerequisite for any serious scientific endeavor
Reality is extremely complex, and it is generally impossible to address it in its totality. Science is not able to observe and take into account all the diversity of a particular phenomenon, it cannot conduct all kinds of experiments and perform all laboratory and clinical tests
The scientist has to reduce the problem to a working scope, and his choice is guided by the leading paradigm of the time. Thus, he necessarily introduces a certain belief system into the field of study. Scientific observations by themselves do not dictate unique and unambiguous solutions, no single paradigm will ever explain all available facts, and many paradigms can be used to theoretically explain the same data. Which aspect of a complex phenomenon is chosen and which possible experiment is started or carried out first is determined by many factors. These are accidents in preliminary research, basic education and special training of personnel, experience accumulated in other fields, individual inclinations, economic and political factors, as well as other parameters
Observations and experiments can and should significantly reduce the range of acceptable scientific solutions - without this, science would become science fiction. However, they cannot, by themselves or for themselves, fully validate a particular interpretation or belief system. Thus, it is in principle impossible to engage in science without some set of a priori beliefs, fundamental metaphysical assumptions, and answers to the question of the nature of reality and human knowledge. But we should clearly remember the relative nature of any paradigm - no matter how progressive it may be and no matter how convincingly it may be formulated. It should not be confused with the truth about reality
According to Kuhn, paradigms play a decisive, complex and ambiguous role in the history of science. From the above considerations it is clear that they are certainly essential and necessary for scientific progress
However, at certain stages of development they act as a conceptual straitjacket - in that they impinge on the possibilities of new discoveries and exploration of new areas of reality. In the history of science, the progressive and reactionary functions of paradigms seem to alternate with some predictable rhythm
The early stages of the sciences, which Kuhn describes as “pre-paradigm periods,” are characterized by conceptual chaos and the competition of a large number of divergent views of nature. None of them can be immediately dismissed as incorrect, since they all roughly correspond to the observations and scientific methods of their time. A simple, elegant, and plausible conceptualization of data that can explain most of the existing observations and promises to guide future research begins to emerge as the dominant paradigm in this situation.
When a paradigm is accepted by the majority of the scientific community, it becomes a binding viewpoint. At this stage there is a danger of mistakenly seeing it as an accurate description of reality, rather than as an auxiliary map, a convenient approximation and model for organizing existing data. This confusion of map with territory is characteristic of the history of science. The limited knowledge of nature that existed over successive historical periods seemed to scientists of those times to be a comprehensive picture of reality, in which only details were missing. This observation is so impressive that a historian could easily imagine the development of science as a history of errors and idiosyncrasies, rather than a systematic accumulation of information and a gradual approach to the final truth.
Once a paradigm is accepted, it becomes a powerful catalyst for scientific progress; Kuhn calls this stage the “period of normal science.” Most scientists spend all their time engaged in normal science, which is why this separate aspect of scientific activity became in the past synonymous with science in general
Normal science is based on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the Universe is. The dominant theory defines not only what the world is, but also what it is not; Along with what is possible, it also determines what is in principle impossible. Kuhn described scientific research as "the intense and all-consuming effort to fit nature into the conceptual boxes prepared by professional education." As long as the existence of a paradigm remains a given, only those problems will be considered legitimate for which a solution can be assumed - this guarantees the rapid success of normal science. Under such circumstances, the scientific community restrains and suppresses (often at great cost) all novelty, because innovation is detrimental to the main cause to which it is devoted
Paradigms, therefore, carry not only cognitive, but also normative meaning; in addition to being statements about the nature of reality, they also define a permissible problem field, establish acceptable methods and a set of standard solutions
Under the influence of a paradigm, all scientific foundations in a particular field are subject to radical redefinition. Some problems that previously seemed key may be declared incongruous or unscientific, while others may be relegated to another discipline. Or, conversely, some issues that previously did not exist or were considered trivial may suddenly turn out to be subjects of significant scientific interest. Even in those areas where the old paradigm remains valid, the understanding of the problems does not remain the same and requires new designation and definition. Normal science based on the new paradigm is not only inconsistent, but also incommensurable with the practice governed by the previous paradigm
Normal science is essentially concerned only with solving problems; its results are largely predetermined by the paradigm itself; it produces little that is new. The main focus is on the method of achieving results, and the goal is to further refine the leading paradigm, thereby increasing the scope of its application. Consequently, normal research is cumulative, since scientists select only those problems that can be solved with the help of already existing conceptual and. tools. The cumulative acquisition of fundamentally new knowledge under these circumstances is not just rare, but in principle incredible. Real discovery can only occur if the assumptions about the nature, methods and means of research based on the existing paradigm do not come true. New theories will not arise without the destruction of old views on nature
A new, radical theory will never be an addition or increment to existing knowledge. It changes the basic rules, requires a decisive revision or reformulation of the fundamental assumptions of the previous theory, and re-evaluates existing facts and observations. According to Kuhn's theory, only in events of this kind can a real scientific revolution be recognized. It may occur in some limited areas of human knowledge or it may radically affect a whole range of disciplines. The shifts from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics, or from Newtonian to Einsteinian, from the geocentric system of Ptolemy to the astronomy of Copernicus and Galileo, or from the theory of phlogiston to the chemistry of Lavoisier, are remarkable examples of changes of this kind. In each of these cases, it was necessary to abandon a widely accepted and worthy scientific theory in favor of another, in principle incompatible with it. Each of these shifts resulted in a decisive redefinition of the problems accessible to and relevant to scientific research. They also redefined what is acceptable as a problem and what is the standard for a legitimate solution. This process led to a radical transformation of the scientific imagination; we will not exaggerate if we say that under its influence the very perception of the world changed
Thomas Kuhn noted that every scientific revolution is preceded and foreshadowed by a period of conceptual chaos, when the normal practice of science gradually turns into what he calls "extraordinary science." Sooner or later, the daily practice of normal science is bound to lead to the discovery of anomalies. In many cases, some instruments will no longer work as the paradigm predicts, some observations will reveal something that cannot be accommodated in the existing belief system, or the problem to be solved will not respond to the persistent efforts of outstanding specialists
As long as the scientific community remains under the spell of the paradigm, anomalies alone will not be enough to question the validity of basic assumptions. At first, unexpected results will be called "bad research" because the range of possible results is clearly defined by the paradigm. When results are confirmed by repeated experiments, it can lead to a crisis in the field
However, even then, scientists will not abandon the paradigm that led them to the crisis. A scientific theory, once given the status of a paradigm, will remain in circulation until a viable alternative is found.
The incompatibility of the paradigm's postulates and observations is not enough. The discrepancy will be seen as a problem for some time, which will eventually be resolved through modifications and clarifications
And yet, after a period of tedious and futile effort, the anomaly suddenly emerges as just another mystery, and the discipline enters a period of extraordinary science. The best minds in the field focus their attention on the problem. Research criteria begin to loosen, and experimenters become less biased and willing to consider bold alternatives. The number of competing justifications is growing, and they are increasingly diverging in meaning
Dissatisfaction with the existing paradigm is growing and being expressed more and more clearly. Scientists are ready to turn to philosophers for help and discuss fundamental principles with them - something that was out of the question during the period of normal research. Before and during scientific revolutions, there are also heated debates about the legitimacy of methods, problems and standards. In these circumstances, as the crisis progresses, professional uncertainty increases. The failure of old rules leads to an intensive search for new ones
During the transition period, problems can be solved using both the old and the new paradigm. This is not surprising - philosophers of science have repeatedly proven that a specific set of data can always be interpreted within the framework of several theoretical constructs
Scientific revolutions are those non-cumulative episodes in science when an old paradigm is completely or partially replaced by a new one that is incompatible with it
The choice between two competing paradigms cannot be made on the basis of the evaluative procedures of normal science. The latter is the direct heir of the old paradigm, and its fate depends decisively on the outcome of this competition. Therefore, the paradigm becomes a rigid prescription by necessity - it is able to persuade something, but is not able to convince either with logical or even probabilistic arguments. The two competing schools face a serious communication problem. They operate with different basic postulates about the nature of reality and define elementary concepts differently
As a result, they cannot even agree on what problems are considered important, what their nature is and what their possible solution is. Scientific criteria vary, arguments depend on the paradigm, and meaningful confrontation is impossible without mutual interpretation of concepts. Within the new paradigm, old terms acquire completely different definitions and new meanings; as a result, they will most likely correlate completely differently. Communication through the conceptual partition will obviously be incomplete and lead to confusion. As a typical example, we can cite the complete difference in the meaning of such concepts as matter, space and time in the Newtonian and Einsteinian models. Sooner or later, value judgments will also come into play, as different paradigms disagree on which problems to solve and which to leave unanswered.
The criteria for examination of this situation are entirely outside the scope of normal science.
A scientist engaged in normal science becomes a problem solver
The paradigm for him is something that goes without saying, and he is not at all interested in testing its reliability. In fact, it significantly strengthens its fundamental assumptions. In particular, there are such understandable explanations as the energy and time spent in the past on learning, or academic recognition, which is closely related to the development of this paradigm. However, the roots of the problem go much deeper, beyond human error and emotional input.
They affect the very nature of paradigms and their role in science
An important part of this resistance is the belief that the current paradigm correctly represents reality and that it will eventually overcome all its problems. Thus, resistance to a new paradigm is, ultimately, the very disposition that makes normal science possible. A scientist engaged in normal science is like a chess player, whose activity and problem-solving ability are strictly dependent on a set of rules. The point of the game is to find optimal solutions in the context of these a priori rules, and in such circumstances it would be absurd to doubt them, much less change them. In both examples, the rules of the game are self-evident; they represent the necessary set of prerequisites for problem-solving activities. Novelty for the sake of novelty in science is not desirable, unlike other areas of creativity
Thus, it comes to testing the paradigm only in the case when, with constant failures, it is possible to solve important task a crisis arises, giving rise to competition between two paradigms. The new paradigm will have to be tested against certain quality criteria. It must offer solutions to some key problems in areas where the old paradigm has failed. In addition, after a paradigm shift, the same ability to solve problems as the outgoing paradigm had must be preserved. Also important to a new approach is a willingness to tackle additional problems in new areas. And yet, in scientific revolutions, along with gains, there are always losses. They are usually hidden, accepted behind the scenes - until progress is guaranteed
Thus, Newtonian mechanics, unlike Aristotelian and Cartesian dynamics, did not explain the nature of the forces of attraction between particles of matter, but simply admitted gravity. This question was later addressed to the general theory of relativity and only received resolution there. Newton's opponents considered his adherence to innate forces to be a throwback to the Middle Ages. In the same way, Lavoisier's theory could not answer the question why the most different metals so similar is a question that the phlogiston theory has successfully dealt with. And only in the twentieth century was science able to take up this topic again. Lavoisier's opponents also objected to the abandonment of "chemical principles" in favor of laboratory elements, considering this a regression from justification to simple name. In another similar case, Einstein and other physicists resisted the dominant probabilistic interpretation of quantum physics
The new paradigm is not adopted gradually, under the inexorable influence of evidence and logic. The change occurs instantly, it is similar to a psychological transformation or a shift in the perception of the figure and the background, and it obeys the law of “all or nothing.” Scientists who choose a new paradigm for themselves talk about what “has dawned on them,” about an unexpected decision, or about a flash of clarifying intuition. Why this happens is not yet entirely clear. In addition to the paradigm's ability to fix crisis situation, to which the old paradigm led, Kuhn mentions as reasons irrational motives, biographically determined idiosyncrasies, the original reputation or nationality of the founder, and other reasons. In addition, the aesthetic qualities of the paradigm - such as elegance, simplicity and beauty - can also play an important role.
There has been a tendency in science to view the consequences of a paradigm shift in terms of a new interpretation of the available data
According to this view, observations are uniquely determined by the nature of the objective world and the apparatus of perception. However, such a position itself depends on the paradigm - this is one of the main assumptions of the Cartesian approach to the world. Raw observational data is far from representing pure perception; and stimuli should not be confused with their perception or sensation. Perception is conditioned by experience, education, language and culture. Under certain circumstances, the same stimuli can lead to different sensations, and different stimuli can lead to the same ones. For the first of these provisions, an example is ambiguous pictures that cause a radical switch in the gestalt of perception. The most famous of these are those that can be perceived in two different ways - i.e. like a duck or a rabbit, like an antique vase or two human profiles. A good example of the second position is a person with a visual impairment who learns to correct the image of the world using complex lenses. There is no neutral language of observation, which would be based only on imprints on the retina. Understanding the nature of stimuli, sensory organs and their interactions reflects existing theory of perception and the human mind
A scientist who accepts a new paradigm does not interpret reality in a new way; rather, he is like a person wearing new glasses. He sees the same objects and finds them completely transformed in essence and in many details, while he will be convinced that they really are like that
We are not exaggerating when we say that with a paradigm shift, the world of scientists is changing too. They use new tools, search in different places, observe different objects, and perceive even the familiar in a completely different light. According to Kuhn, this radical shift in perception can be compared to suddenly being transported to another planet. A scientific fact cannot be separated from a paradigm with absolute clarity. The world of scientists is changing qualitatively and quantitatively due to new developments - either fact or theory
Proponents of a revolutionary paradigm do not usually interpret a conceptual shift as a new, but ultimately relative, perception of reality. And if this does happen, there is a tendency to reject the old as wrong and welcome the new as an accurate system of description. However, in a strict sense, none of the old theories were truly bad as long as they were applied only to those phenomena that they could adequately explain. It was wrong to generalize the results to other areas of science. Thus, in accordance with Kuhn's theory, old theories can be preserved and left as true in the case when the range of their application is limited only to such phenomena and such accuracy of observation when we can already talk about experimental evidence. This means that a scientist cannot speak “scientifically” and with authority about any phenomenon that has not yet been observed. Strictly speaking, it is not permissible to rely on a paradigm when the research is just opening up a new field or seeking a degree of precision for which there is no theoretical precedent. From this point of view, even for the theory of phlogiston there would be no refutation if it were not generalized beyond the scope of the phenomena that it explains
After a paradigm shift, the old theory can be understood in some sense as a special case of the new one, but for this it needs to be formulated differently and transformed. Revision should be undertaken if only so that the scientist can take advantage of hindsight; revision also implies a change in the meaning of fundamental concepts
Thus, Newtonian mechanics can be interpreted as a special case of Einstein's theory of relativity, and a reasonable explanation can be offered for it within the range of its applicability. However, fundamental concepts such as space, time and mass have fundamentally changed and are now incommensurable. Newtonian mechanics retains its effectiveness as long as it does not pretend to be used in the field of high speeds or to the unlimited accuracy of its descriptions and predictions. All historically significant theories have, in one way or another, demonstrated their correspondence with observed facts. True, at no level of the development of science is there a decisive answer to the question: is any particular theory consistent with the facts, and to what extent is it consistent? However, it is useful to compare the two paradigms and ask which one better captures the observed phenomena. In any case, paradigms should always be considered only as models and not as definitive descriptions of reality
A new parahydma is rarely accepted easily, since it depends on various factors of an emotional, political and administrative nature, and is not simply a matter of logical proof. Depending on the nature and horizon of the paradigm, as well as on other circumstances, it may take the efforts of more than one generation before a new view of the world is established in the scientific community
The statements of two great scientists are indicative in this regard. The first is the final passage from Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859): "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views presented in this volume... I do not in any way hope to convince experienced naturalists, in whose minds there are many facts stored up." , which for a long time were understood from a point of view completely opposite to mine... But I look to the future with the hope of young naturalists who will be able to look at both sides of the issue impartially." Even more convincing is Max Planck’s comment from his “Scientific Autobiography” (Plank, 1968): “... a new scientific truth does not convince its opponents, does not make them see the light, it wins because its opponents eventually die and the new, familiar grows generation with her"
Once a new paradigm is accepted and assimilated, its main provisions are included in textbooks. Because they become sources of authority and pillars of pedagogy, they have to be rewritten after every scientific revolution. By their very nature, these provisions will distort not only the specifics, but also the very essence of the revolution that gave birth to them. Science is described as a series of individual discoveries and inventions that collectively represent the modern body of knowledge. And it turns out that from the very beginning scientists were trying to achieve the goals prescribed by the most recent paradigm. In historical reviews, authors tend to reveal only those aspects of the work of individual scientists that can be seen as contributing to the modern worldview. Thus, when discussing Newtonian mechanics, they did not mention either the role that Newton assigned to God or the deep interest in astrology and alchemy that integrated his entire philosophy. Likewise, nowhere is it mentioned that Cartesian mind-body dualism implies the existence of God. It is not customary to mention in textbooks that many of the founders of modern physics - Einstein, Bohm, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr and Oppenheimer - not only considered their work to be completely compatible with a mystical worldview, but in some sense opened up mystical areas with their scientific pursuits. Once the textbooks are rewritten, science is again seen as a linear and cumulative enterprise, and the history of science is presented as a gradual increment of knowledge. The share of human errors and idiosyncrasies has always been diminished, and the cyclical dynamics of paradigms with its periodic shifts have been obscured
The field was being prepared for the quiet practice of normal science until the next accumulation of observations brought into being a new paradigm.
Another philosopher whose work is directly related to the topic is Philip Frank. In his seminal book, The Philosophy of Science (Frank, 1974), he provides an insightful, detailed analysis of the relationship between observed facts and scientific theories. He managed to dispel the myth that scientific theories can be logically deduced from existing facts and that they clearly depend on observations of the phenomenal world
Using the geometric theories of Euclid, Riemann and Lobachevsky, Newtonian mechanics, Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics as historical examples, he came to remarkable insights about the nature and dynamics of scientific theories
According to Frank's theory, every scientific system is based on a small number of basic statements about reality, or axioms, that are taken to be self-evident. The truth of the axioms is determined not by reasoning, but by direct intuition; they are produced by the imaginative faculties of the mind, and not by logic. Using strict logical procedures, one can extract from the axioms a system of other statements or theorems. A theoretical system that is purely logical in nature will emerge - it confirms itself, and its truth essentially does not depend on physical accidents occurring in the world. To assess the degree of practical applicability and consistency of such a system, one should examine its relationship to empirical observations.
To do this, the elements of the theory must be described using “operational definitions” in the Bridgmanian sense. Only then can the limits of applicability of a theoretical system to material reality be determined
The internal logical truth of Euclidean geometry or Newtonian mechanics was not at all destroyed when it became clear that their application in physical reality has specific limitations. According to Frank, all hypotheses are essentially speculative. The difference between a purely philosophical hypothesis and a scientific hypothesis is that the latter can be tested. It is no longer important that a scientific theory appeals to common sense (this requirement was rejected by Galileo Galilei). It can be as fantastic and absurd as you like, as long as it can be verified at the level of everyday experience
In contrast, a direct statement about the nature of the universe that cannot be verified experimentally is purely metaphysical speculation and not a scientific theory. Statements such as "Everything that exists is by nature material, and there is no spiritual world" or "Consciousness is a product of matter" belong, of course, to this category, no matter how self-evident they may seem to the common sense or mechanically oriented scientist
The most radical scientific methodology in its modern forms is criticized by Paul Feyerabend. In his stunning book, Against Methodological Coercion: An Outline of Anarchist Theory of Knowledge (Feyerabend, 1978), he emphatically states that science is not and cannot be governed by a system of rigid, immutable, and absolute principles. There are many clear examples in history that science is an essentially anarchic enterprise. The violation of basic epistemological rules was not an accidental event - it was necessary for scientific progress. The most successful scientific research never followed the rational method. In the history of science in general and during great revolutions in particular, a more decisive application of the canons of the current scientific method would not hasten development, but would have led to stagnation. The Copernican Revolution and other fundamental developments in modern science survived only because the rules of prudence were often violated in the past
The so-called correspondence condition, which requires new hypotheses to be consistent with previously accepted ones, is unreasonable and unproductive. It rejects a hypothesis not because of disagreement with the facts, but because of a conflict with the prevailing theory. As a result, this condition protects and preserves the theory that is older rather than the one that is better. Hypotheses that contradict well-founded theories provide us with facts that cannot be obtained in any other way. Facts and theories are more closely related than traditional science admits, and some facts cannot be reached except through alternatives to established theories.
When discussing hypotheses, it is extremely important to use the entire set of adequate, but mutually incompatible theories. The enumeration of alternatives to the central view is an essential part of the empirical method. And it is not enough to compare theories with observations and facts. Data obtained in the context of a particular conceptual system cannot be independent of the underlying theoretical and philosophical assumptions of that system. In a truly scientific comparison of two theories, the "facts" and "observations" must be interpreted in the context of the theory being tested
Since facts, observations, and even evaluative criteria are “paradigm-bound,” the most important formal properties of a theory are revealed by contrast rather than analytically. If a scientist wants to maximize the empirical content of the views he holds, a pluralistic methodology is mandatory - introducing competing theories and comparing ideas with ideas, not with experimental data
There is no idea or system of thinking, no matter how ancient or obviously absurd, that would not be capable of improving our knowledge. For example, ancient spiritual systems and primitive myths seem strange and meaningless only because their scientific content is either unknown or distorted by anthropologists and philologists who do not possess the simplest physical, medical or astronomical knowledge
In science, reason cannot be universal, and the irrational cannot be completely excluded. There is no one interesting theory, which would agree with all the facts in its field. We find that no single theory is able to reproduce some of the quantitative results, and that all of them are surprisingly incompetent qualitatively
All methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits.
New theories are initially limited to a relatively narrow range of facts and slowly spread to other areas. The form of this expansion is rarely determined by the elements that constituted the content of the old theories. The emerging conceptual apparatus of the new theory soon begins to identify its own problems and problem areas
Many of the questions, facts and observations that make sense only in the context that has already been left, suddenly turn out to be stupid and irrelevant: they are forgotten or discarded. Conversely, completely new topics emerge as problems of extreme importance
Our discussion of scientific revolutions, the dynamics of paradigms, and the functioning of scientific theories may perhaps leave the reader with the impression that this work is concerned primarily with the history of science. It is easy to assume that the last major conceptual revolution occurred in the first decades of this century, and that the next scientific revolution will occur sometime in the distant future. Not at all, the main message of this book is that Western science is approaching a paradigm shift of unprecedented proportions, which will change our concepts of reality and human nature, which will finally connect a conceptual bridge between ancient wisdom and modern science, which will reconcile Eastern spirituality with Western pragmatism
Newtonian-Cartesian spell of mechanistic science
Over the past three centuries, Western science has been dominated by the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, a system of thinking based on the works of the British naturalist Isaac Newton and the French philosopher René Descartes. Using this model, physics has made amazing progress and earned itself a solid reputation among all other disciplines. Its strong reliance on mathematics, efficiency in problem solving and successful practical applications in various areas of everyday life then became the standard for all science.
The ability to relate basic concepts and discoveries to the mechanistic model of the universe developed in Newtonian physics has become an important criterion for scientific legitimacy in more complex and less developed fields such as biology, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology and sociology. At first, adherence to the mechanistic view gave a very positive impetus to the scientific progress of these sciences. However, in the course of further development, conceptual schemes derived from the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm lost their revolutionary power and became a serious obstacle to research and progress in science
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, having undergone profound and radical changes, physics has overcome the mechanistic point of view of the world and all the basic assumptions of the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm. In this extraordinary transformation, it became increasingly complex, esoteric and incomprehensible to most scientists working in other fields. Disciplines such as medicine, psychology and psychiatry have failed to adapt to these rapid changes and to integrate them into their way of thinking. A worldview that has long been outdated for modern physics is still considered scientific in many other areas - to the detriment of future progress. Observations and facts that contradict the mechanistic model of the Universe are most often discarded or suppressed, and research projects that do not belong to the dominant paradigm are deprived of funding. The most striking examples of this are psychology, alternative approaches to medicine, research on psychedelics, thanatology and some areas of anthropological field research.
Over the past two decades, the anti-evolutionary and anti-productive nature of the old paradigm has become increasingly apparent, especially in the scientific disciplines that study humans. In psychology, psychiatry and anthropology, conceptual “puritanism” has reached such a degree that these disciplines are facing a deep crisis comparable in scope to the crisis in physics during the Michelson-Morley experiment
There is an urgent need for a fundamental paradigm shift that would accommodate and absorb the ever-increasing influx of revolutionary facts from a variety of fields that do not fit the old models. Many researchers believe that with a new paradigm it will be possible to fill the gap separating our traditional psychology and psychiatry from the deep wisdom of ancient and eastern systems of thought. Before a detailed discussion of the reasons for the coming scientific revolution and its possible directions, it seems appropriate to describe the characteristic features of the old paradigm, the adequacy of which is currently very doubtful
Newton's mechanical Universe is a Universe of solid matter, composed of atoms, small and indivisible particles, fundamental building blocks. They are passive and unchanging, their mass and shape are always constant. Newton's most important contribution to the Greek atomist model (which was otherwise similar to his) was the precise determination of the force acting between particles. He called it the gravitational force and established that it is directly proportional to the interacting masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. In the Newtonian system, gravity is a rather mysterious entity. It seems to be an integral attribute of the very bodies on which it acts: this action is carried out instantly, regardless of distance
Another essential characteristic of the Newtonian world is the three-dimensional space of classical Euclidean geometry, which is absolute, constant and always at rest. The distinction between matter and empty space is clear and unambiguous. Likewise, time is absolute, autonomous and independent of the material world; it appears as a homogeneous and unchanging flow from the past through the present to the future. In accordance with Newton's theory, all physical processes can be reduced to the movement of material points under the influence of gravity acting between them and causing their mutual attraction. Newton was able to describe the dynamics of these forces using a new, specially developed mathematical approach - differential calculus
The final image of such a Universe is a gigantic and completely deterministic clockwork mechanism. Particles move in accordance with eternal and unchanging laws, and events and processes in the material world are a chain of interdependent causes and effects. Because of this, it is possible, at least in principle, to accurately reconstruct any past situation in the Universe or predict the future with absolute certainty. In practice, this never happens because we are unable to obtain detailed information about all the complex variables involved in a given situation. No one has seriously studied the theoretical likelihood of such an undertaking. Like the basic metaphysical assumption, it represents an essential element of the mechanistic view of the world. Ilya Prigogine (1980) called this belief in limitless predictability “the founding myth of classical science.”
One of the greatest French philosophers, René Descartes, has had an equal influence on the philosophy and history of science of the last two centuries.
His most significant contribution to the leading paradigm was his extreme concept of the absolute duality of mind (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa), which resulted in the belief that the material world can be described objectively, without reference to a human observer. This concept has served as a tool for the rapid development of natural sciences and technology, but one of the most undesirable results of its victory has been the serious neglect of a holistic approach to understanding people, society and life on the planet. In a sense, the Cartesian heritage turned out to be an even less malleable element of Western science than Newtonian mechanism
Even Albert Einstein - the genius who undermined the foundations of Newtonian physics, formulated the theory of relativity and laid the foundations of quantum theory - could not completely free himself from the spell of Cartesian dualism (Carga, 1982)
Whenever we use the term "Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm", we must remember that Western mechanistic science has distorted and perverted the legacy of both great thinkers. For both Newton and Descartes, the concept of God was an essential element of philosophy and worldview. Newton was a deeply spiritual person, seriously interested in astrology, the occult and alchemy. According to his biographer John Maynard Keynes (Keynes, 1951), he was the last of the great magicians, not the first great scientist. Newton believed that the Universe was material in nature, but did not think that its origin could be explained by material causes. For him, God is the one who originally created material particles, the forces between them and the laws governing their movement. Once created, the Universe will henceforth function as a machine, which means it can be described and understood in these terms. Descartes also believed that the world exists objectively and independently of the human observer. However, for him this objectivity is based on the fact that the world is constantly perceived by God
Western science did with Newton and Descartes what Marx and Engels did with Hegel. Formulating the principles of dialectical and historical materialism, they dissected the Hegelian phenomenology of the world spirit - they left his dialectics, but replaced spirit with matter
Likewise, conceptual thinking in many disciplines offers a direct logical extension of the Newtonian-Cartesian model, but the image of divine reason that was at the core of the reasoning of these two great men has disappeared from the new picture. Following all this, systematic and radical philosophical materialism became the new ideological basis of the modern scientific worldview
In all its countless branches and applications, the Newtonian-Cartesian model has proven extremely successful in a wide variety of fields. It offered a comprehensive explanation of the fundamental mechanics of the solar system and was successfully used to understand continuous fluid motion, vibration of elastic bodies, and thermodynamics. It became the basis and driving force behind the remarkable progress of the natural sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Disciplines modeled on Newton and Descartes developed a detailed picture of the Universe as a complex of mechanical systems, a vast aggregate of passive and inert matter, evolving without the participation of consciousness or creative intelligence. From " big bang"Through the primordial expansion of galaxies before the birth of the solar system and the early geophysical processes that created our planet, cosmic evolution was supposedly driven entirely by blind mechanical forces
Download a book:

Stanislav Grof

Beyond the Brain

Preface to the Russian edition

I am very pleased to present to readers the Russian translation of my book “Beyond the Brain.” Having visited the USSR three times, I have retained many warm memories of these travels and meetings with friends and colleagues. My first visit in 1961 was a tourist one; I admired the beauty of the historical places of Kyiv, Leningrad and Moscow. The second visit took place within the framework of a professional exchange program between Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union. Then I got the opportunity to spend several weeks at the Psychoneurological Institute. V. M. Bekhterev in Leningrad, visit some psychiatric clinics and research centers in Moscow, and also take part in a program for the experimental study of neuroses in monkeys in Sukhumi. In Leningrad, I gave a presentation on the therapeutic potential of non-ordinary states of consciousness to several hundred Soviet psychologists and psychiatrists and was very touched by the warm reception.

The third visit took place in April 1989. My wife Christina and I traveled to Moscow at the invitation of the Soviet Ministry of Health to give lectures and conduct a practical workshop on holotropic breathwork, a powerful method of self-discovery and therapy that we have developed and refined in California over the past 15 years. And again we were received very warmly and cordially. Although our visit was not advertised, people came to meet us even from such remote places as the Baltic states, Leningrad, Kyiv, Armenia, Georgia. Another exciting sign of the extraordinary interest in consciousness research was the numerous requests to sign Russian translations of my books, which were distributed throughout the country in samizdat photocopies.

I'm very excited that things have changed to the point where Beyond the Brain is - and hopefully my other books will be officially published soon. I also hope that the material discussed in these books will be useful to Russian readers and will stimulate their interest in the study of consciousness and transpersonal psychology.

Best wishes, Stanislav Grof, MD, San Francisco, October 1990

Dedicated to Christina, Paul and my mother Maria

This book is the fruit of intensive and systematic research spanning nearly three decades. At all stages of this long journey, professional and personal interests were intertwined so closely that they became an inseparable whole. The process of scientifically exploring the uncharted territories of the human psyche has been for me as much a journey of personal transformation and self-discovery.

Over the years, I have received invaluable help, inspiration and encouragement from many significant people in my life, including my teachers, my friends or colleagues, and some a combination of all these roles. It is impossible to name everyone here. But in several cases the assistance was so great that it requires special mention.

Anthropologist Angeles Herrien, researcher mystical traditions Basque, became my true friend and a living example of how the feminine and masculine aspects can be integrated in the soul and how to “follow the mystical path with your own feet.”

Anne and Jim Armstrong taught me much about the nature of true mediumship and the evolutionary potential of transpersonal crises. Their fearless enthusiasm for exploring the human psyche is a unique example of a joint journey into unknown areas of consciousness.

Gregory Bateson, with whom I had the good fortune to spend many hours of intense personal and intellectual interaction during the two and a half years when we both worked at the Esalen Institute in California, became my kind teacher and beloved friend. His insightful critique of mechanistic thinking in science and his creative synthesis of cybernetics, computer science and systems theory, psychiatry and anthropology had a profound influence on my development.

Joseph Campbell, a brilliant thinker, masterful mentor, and dear friend, taught me invaluable lessons about the central importance of mythology to psychiatry and our everyday lives. Its influence on my personal life was equally profound.

The work of Fridtjof Capra played a key role in my own intellectual development and scientific pursuits. It was his book, The Tao of Physics, that convinced me that the extraordinary data of modern consciousness research would certainly one day be integrated into a new, comprehensive scientific worldview. Our long-term friendship and rich exchange of information during the time he wrote The Turning Point helped me greatly in working on this book.

Swami Muktknanda Paramahamsa, the recently deceased spiritual master and head of the Siddha Yoga lineage, with whom I met many times over the years, provided me with a unique opportunity to observe and experience the powerful influence of the life-giving mystical tradition.

Ralph Metzner, who combines solid education, an inquisitive mind and an adventurous spirit in an unsurpassed way, became my close friend and colleague.

Rupert Sheldrake has been able to highlight with extraordinary clarity and poignancy the limitations of mechanistic thinking in the natural sciences that I myself have been thinking about for many years. His work greatly helped free me from the straitjacket of beliefs imposed on me during my professional training.

Anthony Sutich and Abraham Maslow, the initiators of two new directions in psychology - humanistic and transpersonal - became a real source of inspiration for me. They gave concrete form to some of my dreams and hopes for the future of psychology, and, of course, I will never forget that I was with them at the origins of the transpersonal movement.

Arthur Young's process theory is one of the most exciting concepts I have ever encountered. The deeper I delve into its meaning, the more inclined I am to see it as a scientific metaparadigm of the future.

The discovery of holonomic principles opened up a whole new world of possibilities for theoretical reasoning and practical applications for me. Special thanks to David Bohm, Karl Pribram and Hugo Zucarelli for this.

Clinical work with psychedelics played a crucial role in sparking my still ongoing interest in consciousness research; This is where the most important data discussed in the book is collected. This would not have been possible without Albert Hofmann's epoch-making discoveries. I would like to express my deep respect for his work, which has had such a profound impact on my professional and personal life.

The stimulating atmosphere of the Esalen Institute and the natural beauty of the Big Sur coast provided a unique setting for writing the book. I want to thank my Esalen friends, Dick and Chris Price, Michael and Dulcie Murphy, and Rick and Hader Tarnas for their support over the years. Rick also taught me a lot about the relationship between astronomical processes and the dynamics of archetypes. Kathleen O'Shaughnessy deserves special thanks for her dedicated and sensitive assistance in preparing the manuscript.

I express my deepest gratitude to all members of my family - my mother Maria, brother Paul and wife Christina. They were the first to suffer on the roller coaster (intellectual, philosophical and spiritual) of my many years of unconventional research. Christina, my closest friend and research companion, shared her personal and professional life with me. Together we developed and practiced the holotropic therapy technique described in this book. From her dramatic personal journey, I learned many lessons that can only be taught by life itself. She was also the main inspiration behind Spiritual Emergency Services, a project she and I started in Big Sur, California.

INTRODUCTION

In these pages I have attempted to condense into one volume the results of almost thirty years of study of extraordinary states of consciousness caused by the use of psychedelic drugs or the use of various non-pharmacological methods. This book documents my efforts to organize and organize research data that has challenged my scientific beliefs and common sense on a daily basis for many years. Trying to cope with the avalanche of confusing data, I repeatedly corrected and rechecked my conceptual schemes, patching them with hypotheses that were acceptable at the time - and each time only to see the urgent need to rework them again.

Stanislav Grof

Beyond the Brain

Preface to the Russian edition

I am very pleased to present to readers the Russian translation of my book “Beyond the Brain.” Having visited the USSR three times, I have retained many warm memories of these travels and meetings with friends and colleagues. My first visit in 1961 was a tourist one; I admired the beauty of the historical places of Kyiv, Leningrad and Moscow. The second visit took place within the framework of a professional exchange program between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. Then I got the opportunity to spend several weeks at the Psychoneurological Institute. V. M. Bekhterev in Leningrad, visit some psychiatric clinics and research centers in Moscow, and also take part in a program for the experimental study of neuroses in monkeys in Sukhumi. In Leningrad, I gave a presentation on the therapeutic potential of non-ordinary states of consciousness to several hundred Soviet psychologists and psychiatrists and was very touched by the warm reception.

Best wishes, Stanislav Grof, MD, San Francisco, October 1990

Dedicated to Christina, Paul and my mother Maria

Anthropologist Angeles Herrien, a researcher of the mystical traditions of the Basques, became a true friend and a living example of how the feminine and masculine aspects of the soul can be integrated and how to “walk the mystical path with your own feet.”

Ralph Metzner, who combines solid education, an inquisitive mind and an adventurous spirit in an unsurpassed way, became my close friend and colleague.

The book "BEYOND THE BRAIN" sums up the author's thirty years of research in the field of transpersonal psychology and therapy. In the course of studying unusual states of consciousness, Stanislav Grof comes to the conclusion that there is a significant gap in modern scientific theories of consciousness and psyche, which do not take into account the importance of prebiographical (prenatal and perinatal) and transpersonal (transpersonal) levels. He offers a new, expanded cartography of the psyche that includes modern psychological and ancient mystical descriptions. The author challenges traditional approaches to psychopathology, viewing it as a spiritual crisis. The psychotherapeutic approaches he proposes are based on the use of the human body’s original abilities for self-healing. The book unfolds a panorama of the emergence and development of transpersonal psychology as a new science, based on the latest discoveries of physics, chaos theory, cybernetics, psychology and many other disciplines.

Over the years of clinical work with psychedelics, it has become increasingly clear to me that neither the nature of the experiences in LSD sessions nor the numerous observations during psychedelic therapy can be adequately explained in terms of the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, the mechanistic approach to the universe, and especially in the context of existing neurophysiological models brain After for long years theoretical searches and misconceptions, I came to the conclusion that the data from experiments with LSD require a radical revision of the paradigms existing in psychology, psychiatry, medicine and, perhaps, in science in general. Today I have little doubt that the modern understanding of the universe, nature, reality and man is superficial, incorrect and incomplete.

Let me briefly highlight the most important observations from LSD psychotherapy, which I consider a serious challenge to modern psychiatric theory, existing medical beliefs and the mechanistic model of the Universe based on the views of Newton and Descartes. Some of these observations relate to certain formal characteristics of psychedelic states, others to their content, and some to unusual connections between them and the structure of external reality. Here I want to emphasize again that the following discussion concerns not only psychedelic states, but also various non-ordinary states of consciousness that arise spontaneously or are induced by non-drug means. Thus, all this topic is significant for understanding the human mind in both its healthy and painful manifestations.

Let me begin by briefly describing the formal characteristics of non-ordinary states of consciousness. In psychedelic sessions and other types of unusual experiences, dramatic episodes of all kinds can be experienced with vividness, reality, and intensity comparable to or greater than the ordinary experience of the material world. Although the visual aspect of these episodes is perhaps in the first place, it must be said that quite realistic experiences can occur in all other sensory areas. Sometimes single powerful sounds, human or animal voices, entire musical sequences, intense physical pain and other somatic sensations, or distinct tastes and smells may dominate or play an important role in the experience. The ability to form concepts can be strongly influenced, and the intellect can create interpretations of reality that are not characteristic of a given person in the usual state of consciousness. No description of the essential experiential elements of non-ordinary states of consciousness would be complete without mention of the range of powerful emotions that are their standard components.

Many psychedelic experiences share a common quality with everyday life, with its successive events occurring in three-dimensional space and linear time. However, additional measures and empirical alternatives are also common and available. The psychedelic state carries with it a multi-layered and multi-dimensional quality, and Newtonian-Cartesian sequences of internal events seem to be arbitrary insertions in a complex continuum of infinite possibilities. At the same time, they have all the characteristics that we associate with the perception of the material world of “objective reality”. Although participants in LSD sessions often talk about images, these images do not have the quality of frozen photographs. They are in constant dynamic movement and usually convey some dramatic events and actions. But the term “inner cinema,” which so often appears in reports of LSD sessions, does not quite correctly describe their nature. In cinematography, the three-dimensionality of a scene is artificially simulated by camera movement. Perception of space must be subtracted from the two-dimensional display, and ultimately it depends on the viewer's interpretation.

A psychedelic visions are truly three-dimensional and have all the qualities of ordinary perception (at least they may have them in some types of LSD experiences). They appear to occur in a specific location and can be perceived from various directions and angles with fairly clear parallax. Enlargement of the image and selective focus on various levels and planes of the empirical continuum, perception or reconstruction are possible thin structure, vision through a transparent medium of represented objects - such as a cell, the body of an embryo, parts of a plant or a gemstone. An arbitrary shift of focus is only one of the mechanisms for erasing and clarifying images. Pictures can also become clearer when distortions caused by fear, defense and resistance are removed, or when content is allowed to develop in the continuum of linear time.

An important characteristic of the psychedelic experience is the transcendence of space and time, in which the linear continuum between the microcosmic world and the macrocosm, which seems absolutely necessary in the ordinary state of consciousness, is seemingly not taken into account. The size of perceived objects covers the entire possible range - from atoms, molecules and individual cells to giant celestial bodies, solar systems and galaxies. Phenomena from the "mid-dimensional zone" that are directly perceived by our sensory organs appear on the same empirical continuum as those that usually require sophisticated technology such as microscopes and telescopes to perceive. From an empirical point of view, the distinction between microcosm and macrocosm is arbitrary: they can coexist in the same experience and be interchangeable. A participant in an LSD session may experience himself as a single cell, an embryo, and a galaxy, and these three states can occur simultaneously or alternately due to a simple shift in focus.

In the same way in non-ordinary states of consciousness, the linearity of time sequences is transcended. Scenes from different historical contexts may appear at the same time, and they may appear significantly related in their empirical characteristics. Thus, traumatic experiences from childhood, a painful episode of biological birth, and what appears to be a memory of tragic events from previous incarnations can arise simultaneously as parts of one complex experiential picture. And again the individual has the choice of selective focusing ; he can stop at any of these scenes. Experience them all at the same time or perceive them alternately, discovering the semantic connections between them. The linear time interval that dominates everyday experience is not relevant here, and events from different historical contexts appear in groups if they contain the same type of strong emotion or intense bodily sensation. Psychedelic states offer many experiential alternatives to the linear time and three-dimensional space that characterize our everyday existence. Events from the recent and distant past or from the future can be experienced in extraordinary states with such vividness and complexity that everyday consciousness can only record in the present moment. In some psychedelic experiences, time seems to slow down or unusually accelerate, in others it flows in the opposite direction or is completely transcended and stops flowing. It may appear to be moving in a circle, or circular and linear at once, or may follow a spiral path or peculiar patterns of deflection and distortion. Quite often, time is transcended as an independent dimension and acquires spatial characteristics: past, present and future overlap one another and coexist in the present moment. Sometimes people under the influence of LSD experience various forms of time travel - returning to historical times, passing through time loops, or jumping out of the time dimension altogether and again ending up at another point in history.

The perception of space can undergo similar changes: non-ordinary states of consciousness clearly demonstrate the narrowness and limitation of the space of three coordinates. People under the influence of LSD often report feeling that space and the universe are curved, closed in on themselves, and that they are able to perceive worlds that have four, five, or more dimensions. Others feel like a dimensionless point of consciousness. It is possible to see space as an arbitrary construct, as a projection of the mind, having no objective existence at all. Under certain circumstances, any number of interpenetrating universes of different orders can be seen in holographic coexistence. As with time travel, it is possible to experience mental spatial travel with a linear transfer to another location, direct and immediate movement through a spatial loop, or a complete exit from the spatial dimension and appearing in another location.

One more important characteristic psychedelic states is the transcendence of the differences between matter, energy and consciousness. Inner visions can be so realistic that they become successful imitation of phenomena in the material world., and conversely, what in everyday life appears as solid and tangible “stuff” can crumble into patterns of energy, into a cosmic dance of vibrations or into the play of consciousness. Instead of a world of individuals and objects, an undifferentiated receptacle of energy patterns or consciousness may appear in which different kinds and the levels of delimitation are conditional and arbitrary. He who initially sees in matter the basis of existence, and in mind its derivative, is able to discover for the first time that consciousness is an independent principle in the sense of psychophysical dualism, and, ultimately, accept it as the only reality. In universal and all-encompassing states of mind, the very dichotomy between existence and non-existence is transcended; form and emptiness appear equivalent and interchangeable.

A very interesting and important aspect of psychedelic states is the emergence of complex experiences with condensed or composite content. During LSD psychotherapy, some experiences could be deciphered as polysemantic symbolic formations in which emotionally and thematically related elements from a variety of areas were combined in the most creative way. There is a clear parallel between these dynamic structures and dream images as analyzed by Sigmund Freud (1953). Other complex experiences are much more homogeneous: rather than reflecting multiple themes and levels of meaning (including those that are contradictory in nature), such phenomena present a plurality of contents in a unified form by summing up different elements. Experiences of dual unity with another person (that is, a feeling of one’s own identity and at the same time unity, inseparability with another person), the consciousness of a group of individuals, the entire population of the country (India, Tsarist Russia, Nazi Germany) or all of humanity belong precisely to this category. Also worth mentioning are the archetypal experiences of the Great and Terrible Mother, Man, Woman, Father, Lover, Cosmic Man or the universality of Life as a cosmic phenomenon. The tendency to create composite images does not only appear in the internal context of the psychedelic experience. It is responsible for another common phenomenon - the illusory transformation of the physical environment or people present at a psychedelic session when unconscious material is released in a person experiencing the effects of LSD with his eyes open. And in this case, experiences represent complex layers in which perception outside world combined with the projection of elements formed in the unconscious. The therapist can be simultaneously perceived in his everyday form and in the role of a parent, executioner, archetypal being or character from some previous incarnation. The room where the séance takes place can illusorily transform into a child's bedroom, a confinement womb, a prison, a death row, a brothel, a native's hut, etc., while at the same time maintaining its normal appearance on another level.

The last characteristic of non-ordinary states of consciousness worth mentioning is transcendence of the difference between the Ego and the elements of the external world or, generally speaking, between the part and the whole. In an LSD session it is possible to experience oneself as someone or something else- either with preservation of the original identity, or without it. Experiencing oneself as an infinitesimal part of the universe does not seem at all incompatible with experiencing oneself at the same time as any other part of it or as the totality of everything that exists. The LSD user may experience different forms of identity simultaneously or alternately. One extreme is complete identification with a separate, limited and alienated biological being living in a material body or actually being this body. The individual is different from everything else and represents only an infinitesimal and, ultimately, insignificant particle of the whole. The other extreme is complete experiential identification with the undifferentiated consciousness of the Universal Mind or Void and thus with the entire cosmic network and totality of existence. This experience has a paradoxical property: it is meaningless and at the same time all-containing; nothing exists in it in a concrete form, but, at the same time, everything that exists seems to be represented or appears in a potential, embryonic form.

The content of extraordinary experiences poses an even more acute challenge to the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm than their formal characteristics. Any open-minded therapist who takes part in a few psychedelic sessions will be confronted with an avalanche of facts that do not correspond in any way to existing scientific structures. In many cases, there are no explanations not only due to a lack of information about possible causal relationships - they are theoretically impossible if we adhere to the postulates of mechanistic science. Working with LSD, I decided long ago that the constant flow of surprising data could not be ignored simply because it was inconsistent with basic assumptions. modern science. I also had to put an end to the self-deception that there were some reasonable explanations for these data, despite my inability to imagine these explanations in my wildest fantasies. I was open to the fact that our modern scientific worldview may turn out to be superficial, inaccurate and inadequate, like many of its historical predecessors. From this point on, I began to carefully record all puzzling and controversial observations without making judgments or trying to explain them. It was only as I shed my dependence on old concepts and became a mere participant observer of the process that I gradually learned that both in ancient and Eastern philosophy and in modern Western science there are serious models with exciting and promising theoretical alternatives.

In my books, I have detailed the most important observations from LSD research that pose a decisive challenge to the mechanistic worldview. In this chapter I will only briefly outline the most interesting findings and refer interested readers to the original sources.

In analyzing the content of LSD phenomena, I found it useful to distinguish four main types of psychedelic experiences. The most superficial of them (in the sense of being easily accessible to the average person) are abstract or aesthetic experiences. They have no special symbolic content associated with personality, and can be explained in the language of anatomy and physiology of the senses, as is done in medical textbooks. I have not found anything at this level of psychedelic states that would negate their interpretation in strict Newtonian-Cartesian language.

The next level of psychedelic experiences - psychodynamic or biographical. It includes a complex of relived emotionally significant memories from different periods of an individual’s life and symbolic experiences, which can be deciphered as variations or recombinations of biographical elements - similar to dream images as described by psychoanalysts. Freud's theoretical framework has proven extremely useful in dealing with phenomena at this level; most of these experiences leave the Newtonian-Cartesian model intact. This is not surprising, since Freud himself quite clearly used the principles of Newtonian mechanics when he formulated the conceptual scheme of psychoanalysis. What is truly surprising is the possibility in some cases relive memories of the first days or weeks of life with almost photographic accuracy. In addition, memories of severe physical injuries, when a person drowned, was hurt, had accidents, suffered operations and illnesses, turned out to be extremely important. Apparently they more important than memory psychological traumas that psychologists and psychiatrists are now focusing on. Memories of physical trauma appear to play a direct role in the development of emotional and psychosomatic disorders. This is true even for memories of experiences associated with operations that took place under general anesthesia. However, no matter how amazingly new some of these findings are for medicine and psychiatry, they have very little value as indications of the need for a shift in the leading paradigm.

More serious conceptual problems arise with the third type of psychedelic experience, which I have called perinatal . Clinical observations from LSD psychotherapy suggest that the human unconscious contains stores or matrices, the activation of which leads to reliving biological birth and to a serious confrontation with death. This process of death and rebirth is generally associated with the opening of inner spiritual realms in human consciousness, independent of racial, cultural and educational background. This type of psychedelic experience poses important theoretical problems.

In the perinatal experience, LSD users can re-experience elements of their biological birth in all their complexity and sometimes in subjectively verifiable detail. When conditions were favorable, I was able to verify the accuracy of many such reports; Often people did not know the circumstances of their birth before the session. They were able to remember the features and anomalies of the uterine position, the detailed mechanics of childbirth, the nature of obstetric intervention and postpartum care. Experiences associated with breech presentation, placenta previa, the umbilical cord wrapped around the neck, the use of castor oil, the use of forceps, various obstetric techniques, anesthesia and resuscitation procedures are just a few examples of phenomena observed in perinatal psychedelic experiences.

Apparently, the memory of these events spreads to the tissues and cells of the body. The process of reliving a birth trauma may be associated with a psychosomatic recreation of all relevant physiological symptoms - such as increased heart rate, asphyxia with a noticeable change in skin color, hypersecretion of saliva or mucus, excessive muscle tension with energetic discharge, specific postures and movements, the appearance of bruises and traces of birth injuries . There are also indications that the experience of birth in LSD sessions is associated with biological changes in the body that replicate the situation of actual birth, for example, low oxygen saturation of the blood, biochemical signs of stress and specific characteristics of carbohydrate metabolism. Such a complex restoration of the birth situation, extending to intracellular processes and chains of biochemical reactions, seems to be a difficult task for traditional scientific models.

It is even more difficult to explain other aspects of the death-rebirth process, most notably the symbolic images that accompany dying and birth, even if the relevant mythological themes are unknown to the individual. They belong to many different cultures. Sometimes this includes not only the well-known symbols of death-rebirth from the Judeo-Christian tradition (the humiliation and torture of Christ, death on the cross and resurrection), but also details of the legend of Isis and Osiris, the myths of Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Orpheus, Mithras or the Nordic god Baldur, their little-known variants from the pre-Columbian cultures of America. The wealth of information that is released in this process for some people under the influence of LSD is truly amazing.

The most serious challenge to the Newtonian-Cartesian mechanistic model of the universe comes from the last category of psychedelic phenomena - the whole spectrum of experiences for which I have chosen a term transpersonal . The common denominator of this rich and extensive group of unusual experiences is the individual's feeling that his consciousness has expanded beyond the ego and transcended the boundaries of time and space.

Dedicated

Christina, Paul and my mother Maria

BEYOND THE BRAIN

BIRTH, DEATH AND TRANSCENDENCE IN PSYCHOTHERARY

State University of New York Press

Translation from English by Alexander Kiselev

Scientific edition of PhD in Philosophy. n. Vladimir Maykov

Preface to the Russian edition

I am very pleased to present to readers the Russian translation of my book “Beyond the Brain.” Having visited the USSR three times, I have retained many warm memories of these travels and meetings with friends and colleagues. My first visit in 1961 was a tourist one; I admired the beauty of the historical places of Kyiv, Leningrad and Moscow. The second visit took place within the framework of a professional exchange program between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. Then I got the opportunity to spend several weeks at the Psychoneurological Institute. V. M. Bekhterev in Leningrad, visit some psychiatric clinics and research centers in Moscow, and also take part in a program for the experimental study of neuroses in monkeys in Sukhumi. In Leningrad, I gave a presentation on the therapeutic potential of non-ordinary states of consciousness to several hundred Soviet psychologists and psychiatrists and was very touched by the warm reception.

The third visit took place in April 1989. My wife Kristina and I traveled to Moscow at the invitation of the Soviet Ministry of Health to give lectures and conduct a practical workshop on holotropic breathwork, a powerful method of self-discovery and therapy that we have developed and refined in California over the past 15 years. And again we were received very warmly and cordially. Although our visit was not advertised, people came to meet us even from such remote places as the Baltic states, Leningrad, Kyiv, Armenia, Georgia. Another exciting sign of the extraordinary interest in consciousness research was the numerous requests to sign Russian translations of my books, which were distributed throughout the country in samizdat photocopies.

I'm very excited that the situation has changed to the point that Beyond the Brain - and hopefully my other books soon - will be officially published. I also hope that the material discussed in these books will be useful to Russian readers and will stimulate their interest in the study of consciousness and transpersonal psychology.

Best wishes, Stanislav Grof, MD, San Francisco, October 1990

Gregory Bateson, with whom I had the good fortune to spend many hours of intense personal and intellectual interaction during the two and a half years that we both worked at the Esalen Institute in California, became my kind teacher and beloved friend. His insightful critique of mechanistic thinking in science and his creative synthesis of cybernetics, computer science and systems theory, psychiatry and anthropology had a profound influence on my development.

Ralph Metzner, who combines solid education, an inquisitive mind and an adventurous spirit in an unsurpassed way, became my close friend and colleague.

Clinical work with psychedelics played a crucial role in sparking my still ongoing interest in consciousness research; This is where the most important data discussed in the book is collected. This would not have been possible without the epoch-making discoveries of Albert Hofmann. I would like to express my deep respect for his work, which has had such a profound impact on my professional and personal life.