From Towards a Science of Consciousness 3         Section 9: Phenomenology        CogNet Proceedings

The process of evolution and growth toward wholeness can be observed to proceed through various stages of differentiation and integration. For example, cells divide and differentiate and are subsequently integrated in a complex organism. At this relatively early stage of consciousness research it therefore seems appropriate to give careful attention to differentiating objective, subjective and intersubjective approaches, with the intention of including all three in a truly integral vision.

Objective approaches study the world of objects-out there. Science provides information about an observable, material universe. Even the brain, as distinguished from mind, can only be studied as an object. Subjective approaches, on the other hand, study the invisible inner world of the psyche which can only be understood through introspection, interpretation and intersubjective dialogue. Intersubjective approaches can also be subdivided into those that are concerned with the exploration of values and meaning, those that are focused on interpersonal relationships, distinguishing between what Martin Buber characterized as I-thou rather than I-it relationships, and those that examine shared cultural values. The more subtle distinctions in the subjective and intersubjective domains may only be apparent to trained observers who have undertaken serious inner work or contemplative disciplines. Intersubjective approaches are particularly relevant to understanding cultural diversity and deepening the dialogue between researchers devoted to objective and subjective approaches.

Common ground

All claim to be empirical in the sense of being based on experience, but they do not necessarily agree on the definition of empiricism. Objective approaches that claim to be scientific rely primarily on sensory data, measurement and analysis. Since the social sciences that study subjective phenomenological descriptions of experience tend to be viewed as "soft" sciences in our culture, they also try to be objective in an effort to gain credibility.

All three approaches, objective science, subjective introspection and intersubjective discourse, are subject to injunction, verification, and confirmation by other trained observers. Each approach has its own methods of validation. In other words, we need to remember that each method requires specialized training, and expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another.

Even within the field of psychology the divisions between behavioral scientists predominantly concerned with the measurement, prediction and control of behavior, and the more introspective proponents of existential and transpersonal psychology concerned with value, meaning and purpose in human life, can be difficult to bridge. Unfortunately people often disparage what they do not fully understand or appreciate.

Objective, subjective and intersubjective approaches to studying consciousness all include rational, emotional, and intuitive modes of knowing. Although intuition and emotion are often perceived as belonging exclusively to the domain of the soft social sciences, objective sciences also rely on the subjective intuition and emotional motivation of investigators.

Any approach can be discussed in objective, descriptive language, but inquiring into the depths of inner experience calls for interpretation and intersubjective dialogue that includes feelings and intuition. Validity in this domain depends, not on objective descriptions, but on the authentic expression of subjective reality. Authenticity, truthfulness, and sincerity are necessary for intersubjective explorations of depth and mutual understanding.

Epistemological pluralism

We can begin by differentiating three basic modes of knowing: namely sensory, rational and contemplative. These correspond roughly to knowledge of body, mind and spirit. They also correspond to the eye of the flesh, the eye of the mind, and the eye of the soul. Each mode is subject to injunction, verification and confirmation by trained observers. A person trained in only one domain may be quite unaware of the training required in the other domains for adequate evaluation of truth claims.

The problem of scientism arises when scientists believe their discipline is the only valid way of knowing, while being completely ignorant of the stages of development and training required for an adequate understanding of either philosophical discourse or contemplative insight. Communication accross categories can therefore be very challenging. A scientist knows very well that we can easily be fooled by our senses. Likewise, anyone can be fooled by unschooled attempts at introspection. Even within these broad categories of epistemology people may have difficulty understanding each other. Furthermore, even within one discipline we find people who cannot communicate with each other because their expertise is so specialized. For example, I recently heard two microbiologists commenting on each other's work, each acknowledging that they did not understand what the other was doing. Certainly psychologists sometimes have difficulty understanding each other, and religious practitioners rarely try to understand other faiths. One microbiologist pointed out that while science is literal, art, aesthetics, and spirituality all require interpretation, and this is always vague and messy. He said, "As a scientist I want to know what is definite! But to be true to myself and my internal compass I have tried to develop an I-Thou relationship to my higher Self. This seems unscientific, but it has changed my life."

An integrative approach to consciousness studies calls for dialogue with others whose training and experience may be different from our own, with mutual respect and an open mind. No one of us will be able to cover all the bases. Yet the fact that we may not be trained in all three modes of knowing does not justify dismissing other modes as irrelevant or unimportant. Ken Wilber (1998) points out that the integration of art (subjective phenomenology), morals (intersubjective ethics), and science (objective, concrete occasions) requires that each be recognized in its own right. These three domains cannot be reduced to a single category.

Insofar as the scientific method consists of injunction, apprehension and confirmation, it applies not only to objective, but also to subjective and intersubjective domains. Although transpersonal psychologists have done some mapping of the inner world of consciousness, much work remains to be done in this area. Scholars such as Ken Wilber (1995), Stanislav Grof (1998), and Charles Tart (1983) have attempted to map states and stages of consciousness that transcend the ordinary waking state.

Wilber (1993) points out that it is a mistake to confuse prerational states with transrational states, the former referring to nonrational beliefs and assumptions about reality evident in magical thinking and dogmatic mythological belief systems. Transrational states, on the other hand, refer to those states that transcend and include reason. In prerational states, aesthetics, ethics and science are not yet differentiated. It is the transrational traits and states that need to be investigated further in order to deepen our understanding of the relationship between subjective, objective and intersubjective approaches to studying consciousness.

Many people have observed that humanity is at a crossroads and is undergoing a spiritual crisis. Despite incredible technological advances and a wealth of new information about the brain, we have yet to learn how to cultivate those qualities of consciousness that are sorely needed, such as wisdom, compassion, and loving kindness. In spite of a wealth of knowledge about physiology, many dimensions of consciousness remain a mystery. We have a tremendous amount of information about the biological mechanisms underlying consciousness, but very little understanding of individual conscious experience. Scientific methodologies that are well suited to the investigation of the mechanistic questions of consciousness are inadequate for investigating qualities of subjective experience. Even the distinctions betweeen the context, content, and process of consciousness are often overlooked. In a recent interview following a meeting of the European College of Consciousness Studies, the Swiss pharmacologist Albert Hoffmann commented that people need a deep spiritual basis for their lives-not dogma or belief, but experience. He said that many young people are looking for meaningful experiences. The happiness and satisfaction they seek is spiritual, not material. When there are no sanctioned paths for this exploration, they sometimes pursue experiences of nonordinary states of consciousness irresponsibly or inappropriately.

The scientific investigation of altered states of consciousness continues, despite being hampered by illicit drug use and ensuing legislation. For example, Stan Grof's work with holotropic breathing has opened a number of people to a deeper awareness of transpersonal realms of the psyche that are usually inaccessible to our ordinary waking state. The popularity of shamanic practices as well as eastern disciplines of yoga and mediation all attest to the strong and widespread interest in the subjective exploration of nonordinary states of consciousness.

To date a number of different approaches to consciousness studies have been cataloged (Wilber 1997). Among them are the following:

Cognitive science and neuropsychology.

Phenomenology and introspection.

Depth psychology and psychotherapy.

Developmental psychology.

Psychosomatic medicine and mind body healing.

Nonordinary states of consciousness.

Contemplative disciplines-East and West.

Subtle energies and quantum theories.

Distinctions

Another distinction that is becoming widely acknowledged is the distinction between spirituality and religion. Perhaps the most succinct way of differentiating them is to say that spirituality refers to subjective experience of the sacred, while religion refers primarily to tradition and organized institutions.

By directing attention to what is, science usually assumes that we inhabit a pregiven world. Claiming to gather objective data from a pregiven world, it does not tell us anything about meaning, intention or values, since these cannot be located in the external world except by inference. These require interpretation and intersubjective dialogue to be discerned. As Huston Smith has said, meaning slips through the instruments of science as the sea slips through the nets of the fisherman.

A postmodern constructivist view argues that our perceptions of the world are constructed and context dependent. This is at least partly true and certainly must be taken into account in studying consciousness. How we perceive the reality that is given, how we experience it and respond to it is largely dependent on our subjective interpretations and cultural mind set. What we believe about reality tends to be reflected and validated by our experience. Consequently experience reinforces beliefs and beliefs shape experience. We are inevitably shaped and affected by our culture, community and interpersonal expectations. We are also the shapers of that environment and culture. In psychotherapy, for example, healing often occurs as a result of new experiential learning in relationship. When the therapeutic relationship provides a safe context in which dysfunctional defenses can be dropped, new ways of seeing oneself and the world can be explored.

Objective domain

Subjective domain

In my own work as a psychotherapist, I have had the opportunity to witness the deepening of inner experience in many people's lives, and I have, time and again, observed that, not only are the body and the emotions inextricably interconnected, but that inner work can be profoundly healing. I have sometimes described my work as helping people untie the knots in their psyches. Sometimes I see it as soul work. Physical symptoms are often alleviated, but the interventions are psychological rather than biochemical. We know that physical health, including attention to diet and exercise, can have a positive effect on our emotions. Yet even when we know what we should do in this regard, we do not always do it. The motivation for change is rooted in our emotions-our desires, our hopes and fears, and our beliefs about what is possible.

Intersubjective dialogue in psychotherapy is the means of healing old emotional wounds and developing latent potentials. Inner work may be emotional, cognitive and/or spiritual. Sometimes it is a kind of remedial education that draws out subjective experience in order to reclaim and reintegrate what has been repressed or rejected and facilitate growth toward wholeness.

The idea of multiple intelligences is now widely discussed. Humans seem to develop at different rates along different lines. For example, emotional intelligence may or may not be correlated with IQ as it is usually measured. Physical, emotional, cognitive, and moral development may proceed at different rates and highly developed skills in one area are not necessarily indicative of maturity in other areas.

Howard Gardner (1993) has mapped a number of different types of intelligence and we are all aware of differences between physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual maturity. Dan Goleman's (1995) work on emotional intelligence has brought attention to its importance for psychological health and wellbeing.

Some characteristics of emotional maturity include:

The capacity to adapt to change.

The ability to deal constructively with reality and delay gratification.

Freedom from symptoms produced by tension and anxiety.

The capacity to find more satisfaction in giving than receiving.

The capacity to relate to others in a kind, consistent manner.

The capacity to sublimate and direct hostile energy into constructive outlets.

The capacity to love.

The area of spiritual intelligence is an additional domain in which very little research has been done, and yet is clearly needed in these times of spiritual hucksterism and competing religious ideologies. Emotional maturity and moral development may be necessary foundations for developing spiritual intelligence. If we are not to confuse prepersonal fusion with transpersonal integration, we need to map the full spectrum of consciousness across all domains of psychospiritual integration. We have only just begun to explore the implications of this work.

Spiritual development includes and transcends moral development and emotional development. It, too, may be preconventional, conventional, or postconventional, egocentric, sociocentric, or worldcentric. Some popular forms of spirituality use spiritual principles to satisfy ego desires, to get whatever the person desires at a given time. Most religious institutions foster conventional morality. There are also many people who feel they have outgrown traditional institutional forms of religion and yet may be deeply spiritual in their orientation toward life.

Stages of self