| |
|
Nancho: You are perhaps still best known for bringing world attention to the confluence of quantum physics and Eastern mysticism with your book, The Tao
of Physics. Would you give us an overview of its insights?
At the beginning of this century stands the extraordinary
intellectual feat of one man: Albert Einstein, the father of
modern physics. In two articles, both published in l905, Einstein
initiated two revolutionary trends of thought. One was his
special theory of relativity, the other was a new way of looking
at electronmagnetic radiation which was to become characteristic
of quantum theory; the theory of atomic phenomena.
His framework, known as the special theory of relativity,
unified and completed the structure of classical physics, while
at the same time it involved drastic changes in the traditional
concepts of space and time and undermined one of the foundations
of the Newtonian world view.
Quantum theory has revealed a basic oneness of the universe.
It shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently
existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does
not show us any isolated "basic building blocks", but rather
appears as a complicated web of relations between the various
parts of the whole.
The high energy scattering experiments of the past decades
have shown us the dynamic and ever-changing nature of the
particle world in the most striking way. Matter has appeared in
these experiments as completely mutuable. All particles can be
transmuted into other particles, they can be created from energy
and can vanish into energy. In this world, classical concepts
like "elementary particle," "material substance" or "isolated
object" have lost their meaning. The whole universe appears as a
dynamic web of inseparable energy patterns.
Our language and thought patterns have evolved in this
three-dimensional world and therefore we find it extremely
difficult to deal with the four-dimensional reality of relative
physics. Eastern philosophy, however, has always maintained that
space and time are constructs of the mind. The Eastern mystics
treated them like all other intellectual concepts; as relative
and illusory. Being able to go beyond the ordinary state through
meditation they have realized that the conventional notions of
space and time are not the ultimate truth.
Eastern mystics, too, tell us that all things and events we
perceive are creations of the mind, arising from a particular
state of consciousness and dissolving again if this state is
transcended. Mystics seem to be able to experience a higher
dimensional reality directly and concretely. In the state of deep
meditation, they can transcend the three-dimensional world of
everyday life, and experience a totally different reality where
all opposites are unified into an organic whole. The unity and
interrelation of all things and events, a conception which is not
only the very essence of the basic elements of the Eastern world
view, is also one of the basic elements of the world view
emerging from modern physics. It becomes apparent at the atomic
level and manifests itself more and more as one penetrates deeper
into matter, down into the realm of subatomic particles.
You are recognized today as the primary spokesman for "New
Paradigm" thinking. Could you briefly describe the new paradigm
and what it implies for our collective future?
Briefly to characterize the old paradigm, you could say it
is a mechanistic world view: seeing the world as a machine;
separating mind and body; treating the human body as a machine as
western medicine does; furthermore, it includes the belief in
life being a continuous struggle, a competitive struggle for
existence - the belief in unlimited progress through material
growth, through economic and technological growth; finally, the
belief that the feminine and the female is always subsumed under
the male or should be, that a society where women are dominated
by men and where all feminine qualities are valued less than
masculine qualities is one that somehow is natural.
In contrast to this old world view and value system, the
"new paradigm" can be described as being holistic which means it
sees the world as an integrated whole, not as an assemblage of
separate parts. It can also be described as being ecological in
the sense of an awareness of the fundamental interdependence and
interconnectedness of all phenomena; an awareness that all of us
as individuals and as societies are imbedded in nature, are
imbedded in cyclical processes. And this new way of thinking and
these new values, I would
describe as a shift from domination to partnership -
domination of people, ethnic groups, nations, and domination of
nature by humans - a shift from that obsession with domination to
partnership among people, among nations and between humans and
nature.
Another aspect of new paradigm thinking would be global
awareness. An awareness that the world as a whole is
fundamentally interconnected in terms of the natural
environment, but also in terms of human society, in terms of the
world economy, the world communication systems and so on. So, we
need global cooperation to solve our problems. And in fact, our
problems, our major problems today are global problems.
Now, I have presented this shift from one kind of thinking
and values to another in a sort of abstract way as an
intellectual shift which may be exciting to a lot of people, but
you might ask, if you're not interested in that why
bother and there now I want to link it with the problems of
today. And this actually has been my starting point in this work:
to realize that the major problems of our time are all
interconnected and interdependent. Problems like the threat of
nuclear war, the devastation of the natural environment with its
many consequences whether we talk about the extinction of species
in the rain forest or the depletion of the ozone layer or the
greenhouse warming. All of these aspects can not be understood in
an isolated way or whether we talk about the persistence of
hunger and poverty around the world - all of these problems are
interlinked and we need this new way of thinking to be understood
and solved. This is why the shift to an ecological vision, to an
ecological paradigm is so important for all of us.
Do you see this shift as being something that is
evolutionarily inevitable or something that we really have to
strive at accomplishing?
Paradigm shifts are not something that
are beginning now. There have been several in the past - not too
many but maybe five or six or seven in the past in human history.
And sometimes they took a few hundred years and sometimes they
took a few decades. And we could say if the situation were not so
critical just wait and see what happens. But we cannot afford
this luxury because the situation is critical.
The extinction of
species is proceeding at the pace of one a day and the rain
forest is being cut down at the pace of the size of a football
field every second. And in one year the rain forest lost is a
tremendous area of biological potential. And the ozone depletion
is continuing and the global warming is continuing and we don't
even know the consequences of these very severe global problems.
It may already be too late. So, all we can do is work in a very
focused and hard way to solve these problems and to shift to the
new view.
What do you consider to be a realistic time frame for this to
occur?
Offering truthful information and consciousness raising are
considered powerful ways of bringing about social change. But
despite increased awareness, the problems, too, seem to be
increasing. So, it would appear that informing the public is an
insufficient means to raise consciousness. Are theories and
understanding really able to stop the momentum of destruction and
if informing is not enough, what is?
In addition to action it seems we are in need of some sort
of spiritual awakening to accompany this transition into the new
age; to set in motion the new paradigm. You say that the magical
era of the '60s had the most dramatic impact in forming your world
view. Will the '60s people or at least their values rise again?
Basically, looking back at the '60s I would say that two or
three kinds of framework have been developed during the last few
decades for expressing the alternative vision; frameworks that
were not available in the '60s. One is the feminist framework.
Feminist awareness did exist in the '60s but there was no real
framework of a really comprehensive feminist critique and
alternatives. And the other one is the ecological framework.
Again, there was already an environmental movement beginning in
the '60s but ecological awareness has really been grounded during
the whole decade of the '70s. The two also have merged to some
degree and we in America now often speak about eco-feminism as
the combined awareness of the ecological vision and the feminist
vision. And the third one I would say is global awareness, which
is younger and did not exist very much in the '70s but developed
throughout the '80s.
Another big difference to the '60s is that we now have
political manifestations of realizing this vision and applying
the values of the '60s and '70s to the politics of the '80s and '90s.
That's the "Green Movement". The Green Movement began around l980
and has spread around the world. So, we now not only have the
theoretical framework but we also have political structures which
allow us to carry out these actions.
What do you consider to be the most important ways to break down the barriers between people?
As you have observed many elements of the new paradigm seem
to correspond to ancient eastern values and the best of man's
earlier traditions. Why didn't these values have staying power
the first time around? What's going on? How are we moving in our
evolutionary direction - backwards?
It's sort of like the swing of a pendulum, it goes back
and forth. And now we have gone too far in one direction. I think
what we now call the old paradigm was very necessary in the l7th
century: the achievements of Descartes and Newton were very
necessary and were as revolutionary in their time as
ecological thinking is today. They, too, were fighting an
establishment that was holding on to outdated views. In those
days it was the church and the outdated views were the views of
Aristotle and scholasticism and so on. And so, these values tend
to fluctuate and to shift. You cannot speak of a linear
evolution.
But I also want to add that these considerations are very
difficult and subtle questions that are not easy to answer. How
does humanity evolve? Why are certain values in the background at
certain times and in the foreground at others? Why are they in
the background in certain cultures and in the foreground in
others? Those are not easy questions to answer.
But basically aren't you hoping to move toward the kinds of
philosphies that have been preponderant in the East for centuries?
More generally, you could
say they are in agreement with the perennial philosophy that
existed around the world in various cultures. When I wrote "The
Tao of Physics" I did not understand the background, the context
of this agreement, I understand it now much better. And the
context as I have indicated before that the new world view that
is now emerging from science and is promoted in society by
various grassroots movements is a fundamentally ecological world
view. And that is also true of the world view of the perennial
philosophy.
A lot of these philosophies were richly represented in
pre-industrial Japan. What role do you see for modern, industrial technologically developed Japan in this transformation?
On the other hand,
Japan is one of the most powerful nations in the world -
economically, certainly - and therefore
has a tremendous responsibility because by applying western
science and technology, old paradigm science and old paradigm
technology, Japan, like other countries around the world
contributes to the global problems in a very strong way. And at
the same time, Japan has the power to change its ways and has
shown that dramatic changes can occur in Japan within a
relatively short time. For instance, the fight against pollution
in Japan has been very striking and exemplary. So, I think there
is a great potential in this country. So, I see quite a unique
role.
You've also been a proponent of living systems theory,
especially the global systems theory now commonly known as Gaia.
How does the Gaia concept help to promote new paradigm thinking?
So, this entire planet is a living system,
a living organism, if you want to put it in a more popular way
but that's not exactly correct because there is a difference
between an organism and other kinds of living systems. It's more
like a eco-system, a planetary living eco-system. And so, you can
show this scientifically. To understand the various processes,
planetary global processes, you need this kind of approach.
Then from a broader point of view, I think there's a very
strong emotional charge implied by the term Gaia and I think this
was consciously chosen by James Lovelock to associate the planet
with the ancient Greek earth goddess and therefore to give this
hypothesis a spiritual dimension. The reverence for nature that
is characteristic of traditional cultures, of tribal, indigenous
cultures needs to be extended to the entire planet and I think
this will give us a very powerful motivation to all of us around
the world to help save the planet and maintain its beauty.
In your book, "Uncommon Wisdom", you describe your meetings with some of the greatest
minds in a multitude of disciplines. How have you been able to
synthesize all of those different views into a single holistic way of
thinking and acting and doing?
Using Gregory Bateson's terminology you wrote about the
pattern that connects. Have you found that pattern amongst all these various people?
As far as the concepts are
concerned and the perceptions are concerned I would say the
ecological vision of the world is really what it's all about -- to
see the world as an interconnected and interdependent whole; to
see ourselves embedded in the cyclical processes in nature and
all that that it implies.
As far as values are concerned again, as I
said before it is a shift
from domination to partnership in all these various areas.
And as
far as action or practice is concerned I would say that the key
goal that we have is to build a sustainable future and that is an
extremely important concept -- the concept of sustainablity. It
has been defined by Lester Brown, the founder of the World Watch
Institute. He defined a sustainable society as a society that
satisfies its needs without diminishing the prospects of future
generations. And this is what we need.
Our society, our business
world, our economy, our politics and our various other social
institutions are driven by the concept of efficiency. Efficiency
is to maximize production with a minimal imput of time, of labor
and of money. And in this we have been very successful. But this
is precisely what is destroying the world - our success in being
efficient in that sense. So, we need to shift from efficiency to
sustainabilty.
And when it comes to sustainabilty we have to ask when we
use energy, for instance, not just how much energy we use but
where does it come from and what does it destroy or not destroy
in its production? Does it come from a renewable or non-renewable
source? When we produce other things, furniture, we ask where
does the wood come from and does it destroy part of an ecosystem
or doesn't it destroy? So, in all these questions we have to look
into the future and say what does this mean for future
generations? If we go on with a certain project for generations -
where will we end up? Is the environment in which we are working
sustainable or is it not sustainable? So, I think sustainability
is a key concept and again, I come back to this again and again,
I would add global to it. So, global sustainability is something
we have to aim for.
It is fairly easy, especially for a country like Japan, to
create a sustainable Japan at the expense of the oceans and the
forests around the world and other peoples. Of course, in the
long run it will destroy Japan also. But for the next two decades
Japan or the United States could create a sustainable society at the expense of
others. And this is what these superpowers
are doing and so we have to change from national sustainability
to global sustainability. So, I would say that global
sustainability would be the key as far as practice and action is
concerned.
Can global sustainability be achieved without a sense of
global empathy?
Do you think that having had a child changed your perception
of the urgent need for this transformation?
At the same time, of course, this is a paradox, because
having a child I have less time to do this work. I want to do it
more and I have less time because I want to spend time with my
daughter and my family. But it certainly has influenced my
motivation and the emotional charge that I bring to my work.
You often have asked yourself in your writing, how is it
possible to transcend thinking without losing your commitment to
science. Have you arrived at an answer that is satisfactory for
your life work?
Nancho Rep: Kathy Arlyn SokolCapra: The world view which was changed by the discoveries of
modern physics had been based on Newton's mechanical model of the
universe. The model constituted the solid framework of classical
physics for almost three centuries. It was a most formidable
foundation supporting all of science and providing a firm basis
for natural philosophy. In the Newtonian universe, all physical
phenomena took place on a stage of three-dimensional space, space
of classical Euclidean geometry. It was absolute space, always at
rest and unchangeable. All changes in the physical world were
described in terms of a separate dimension , called time, which
again was absolute, having no connection with the material world
and flowing from the past through the present to the future.
Capra: The 'new paradigm' has to be understood from a western
perspective. The word 'new' refers to a change of thinking vis a
vis the old thinking that emerged in the l7th century. So, what
we now call the "old paradigm" is a world view and a value system
that dominated the European and American intellectual tradition
from the l7th century into the 20th century and is still dominant
today. This however is relevant to the entire world because
western science and technology which incorporate this old
paradigm have been adopted around the world, especially in Japan,
but in other countries around the world, too. And so this change
in paradigms is relevant to the entire world.
Capra: I think that the shift is inevitable and we can see that
it is happening. But it may not happen fast enough to solve our
problems. For the first time in the history of humanity we are
now faced with extinction and if we don't work very and if we
don't bring all our passion to this work it may be too late. It's
a very serious problem.
Capra: I think it will have to occur over the next decade. If it
does not occur by around the turn of the millennium it will be too late.
And this is not my personal view, but this is the view I have
gathered as a sort of consensus from various people who really
study these problems.
Capra: No, I agree. First of all I agree that the problems have
increased and this is because when a certain type of activity has
been set in motion, has been going on for a long time, the
problem will continue to get worse even if you change your views
and your values and partly your activities. It will take a long
time and the problems will get worse for several more years
before the situation will hopefully turn around. I also agree
that education and thinking are not enough. We have to move to
action.
Capra: Well, I think they are. These values have never
disappeared. They have been eclispsed temporarily with a rather
surprising rise of materialism over the past five or ten years.
The whole "yuppie" phenomenon was that kind of materialism. And I
think this has now peaked and is on its decline and with the
dramatic rise of environmental awareness over the last few years,
I think the values of the '60s generation will come into the
foreground much stronger. But also with a big difference because
in the 60s, we had not really worked out an alternative vision.
We
were critical of society and we sort of embodied our process and
embodied the values in our lifestyles. But the lifestyles were
very largely utopian lifestyles and now we can be much more
realistic because we have decades of experience, both practical
and theoretical, and so we can really turn this vision into a
practical reality now.
Capra: I want to emphasize that spiritual awareness is at the
very center of the new paradigm. And the way I see it is that
deep ecological awareness, in its deepest essence, is spiritual
because the very essence of spiritual experience is the
experience of being connected to the cosmos as a whole and so
this sense of connectedness, this sense of embeddedness which is
also the very essence of ecological awareness constitutes the
spiritual grounding of the new paradigm.
Capra: No, I think that evolution, human evolution, human
cultural evolution is not a linear process. It's a process that
goes in cycles and there are many historians who have studied
those cycles - Arnold Toynbee, for instance, is one of them or
Patiram Saroken is another one, Spengler is another one, Hegel,
of course in philosophy - there are many people who have studied
this and who agree that cultural evolution occurs in these
cycles.
Capra: Yes, absolutely. That's how I started my work. In "The
Tao of Physics" I connected contemporary physics and Taoism,
Buddhism and Hinduism, to show the concepts of the new paradigm
in physics are in remarkable agreement with the basic concepts of
these ancient, spiritual traditions.
Capra: I see a key role for Japan because the more holistic,
ecological traditions were not just presented in pre-industrial
Japan but are still existent in Japan to some degree, to a
stronger degree than they are in the West. I would say in
America, the equivalent or similar traditions would be the Native
American traditions - the traditions of American Indians. But
they are much more cut off from the mainstream and are also much
weaker today unfortunately. And so, it is more difficult for
Americans to gain access to their own native traditions,
indigenous traditions than it is for Japanese.
Capra: First of all there are two aspects. There is a scientific
aspect to it and then there is a broader, emotional and spiritual
aspect. The scientific aspect is a theory, a hypothesis that says
we can understand the planet as a whole only if we can understand
it as a living system.
Capra: Well, this has been a long process and in the book I also
describe this process - I describe the difficulties, the
challenges, the work over many years that it took me to
synthesize their views and I have the kind of mind that is
interested in doing just that - synthesizing views, making
connections between various ideas and various traditions and I
have worked on this now for over fifteen years. It's a very long
concentrated work that is continuing. I am fortunate to
continue to be able to meet very outstanding people and to be
able to again synthesize their views. But I want to emphasize also to the readers of my book, "Uncommon Wisdom" that most of
the work that I do is, you know, hard work at home. I don't
always sit around in beautiful restaurants with interesting
people and have exciting conversations. I'm fortunate to do this
some of the time but the overwhelming part of my time is spent in
hard work at home.
Capra: Yes, absolutely. That really is my work to show
connecting patterns and to show the communality of the views and
values they present.
Now, of course, I expect you to ask, what is this
pattern and I would say it is the ecological vision of the world
and you can summarize it by saying that as far as...maybe I
should interrupt myself here and say what I mean by a paradigm.
We have been talking about a paradigm and a change of paradigm
and I use it in a similar way to using world view but it's more
than a world view. It's a world view, a value system and also a
set of practices. So, it's a constellation of perceptions,
concepts, values and practices.
Capra: No. That is very important. And I think we have sort of
gone around the whole area and all of these aspects that we
touched on in this conversation are of equal importance. You
cannot have sustainability without ecological awareness. You
cannot have that ultimately without a spiritual grounding which
has empathy as its emotional component. In Buddhism, it is called
compassion. That is the emotional, the empathical component of
ecological awareness. So, all of these various aspects imply one
another and are interdependent.
Capra: Yes, it has. I wouldn't say it has changed the
perception. I had this perception already before but it has
changed my engagement and my emotional involvement. And also it
has changed my style of presentation because I often say in my
lectures now that when I talk about sustainability that what
we're trying to do is to build a world for our children and their
children. Or when I talk about the critical nature of the
problems I often say that I would like my daughter to be able to
breathe when she is twenty. And that really captures the crucial
urgency of the problems of today. So, having a child has changed
my engagement very much.
Capra: Yes, I have been able over the last 20 years to function
in modes of consciousness that transcend, clearly transcend
thinking. I wouldn't say that I have gone
very far in this direction but certainly I am able to function in
modes that do not involve analytical reasoning. I always go back
to analytical reasoning and so I can shift back and forth between
these states of consciousnes. And when I speak or write or when I
do my work of public education, I very much do it with the mind
of a scientist. But I also do it as I just said with an emotional
charge and with more than just the rational mind.
 |  |  |