Certainly most people would agree that science is a wonderful tool for understanding
certain things about the natural world. If you need to make a car or a cell-phone
or some other work of technology, science and it's cousin, engineering, are the
right tools for the job. That said, there are certain limitations of mainstream science as
it is currently practiced, when it comes to the study of life-force energies (commonly
referred to by a variety of names, including "chi," "prana," "subtle energy," "orgone,"
and others.) This page is the second of two excerpts from our patent application, and explores
some of these limitations. You might also be interested in the first
excerpt, "Arguments
for the Existence of Chi."
Fallacy that everything important is already known by science
Skeptics frequently argue that
there is currently no way of measuring chi, i.e. the only evidence for its existence
is the experiential report of (millions of) people. The fallacy in the skeptics argument is an assumption that
science already "knows" everything that is true or useful.
People who really understand science know
that it is a tool for advancing our understanding of the natural world, that it
is an ever-expanding paradigm, and that part of this paradigm is that every
discovery just leads to more questions asked - more research to be done. Nowhere in the scientific method is there
any assertion of the completeness of that which has been discovered.
Science does not presently understand the nature of love, or of any sort of
experience
One could also argue that science
is relatively useless in terms of one of the most important aspects of human
experience - that of love. Yes,
science has isolated some mechanisms in the brain involving endorphins and such
that are involved with our experience of love. And science can talk about how love is important because it causes
parents, for example, to take care of their children, furthering the survival
of the species. But science has little
of use to say about why love is important to us as an experience. (Note that in many energy paradigms, love is
considered to be one of the highest vibrational energies there is.)
Indeed, science has little to say
about the nature of experience in general. Yes - science
can talk about experience in terms of neurological
mechanisms that correlate with pain, pleasure, and such.
But science has very little to say about who
is in there having that experience of pleasure or pain. Theoretically, you could model the
neurological mechanisms involved with various experiences on a computer. But science, so far, has no ability to
distinguish between these mechanisms running in a person's neurological systems
(in which case, someone is having an experience), and in a computer (in which
case, no-one is having an experience). Science has yet to truly understand the nature of experience.
A further point about this is that
science is a predominantly left-brained activity - rational, linear,
analytical. Perception of chi, in the
many disciplines described herein so far, is a predominantly right-brained
(intuitive) activity. In our
science-based Western culture, people with the greatest analytical
capabilities, and who are trained and practicing as scientists, are seen as the
most reliable source of truth. And they
produce many facts that are of great utility if one needs to accomplish an engineering
task such as making a car or a cell phone. And yet they have little or nothing to say about the meaning of life or
why we are here or what our purpose is, which are arguably among the most
important areas in which to determine truth.
Evolutionary processes are another source of truth, beyond science
There is another source of truth
that is highly overlooked in our culture, and that is the wisdom inherent in
the process of evolution. Evolution is
fundamentally, a vast experiment in terms of what works and what does not. If a trait or structure in an organism helps
it to survive, the organism is more likely to reproduce, and the trait or
structure is passed on to their progeny. Traits/structures that do not assist an organism in survival result in
an organism that is less likely to reproduce, in which case the
traits/structures do not get passed on to progeny, and find their way out of
the gene pool. The result is something
like what we see today in the natural world all around us - a myriad of organisms,
each highly adapted and specialized to the world in which it lives, with
traits/structures that have been tested and tested and tested, by the process
of evolution. The process of evolution
has determined with near-absolute certainty, the usefulness of the
traits/structures involved with that organism's survival.
Therefore, the process of evolution should
be considered a highly effective means of determining truth - particularly in
the area validating the usefulness of traits/structures of organisms.
This being the case, one could argue
that any complex structure or trait that appears in a highly-evolved organism
such as a human being must have applicability in terms of survival.
It is clear that complex structures such as
our intuitive right-brains would not exist if they did not have some ability to
enhance our survival, i.e. some ability to discern truth.
And yet, the types of truth that are
discerned by the right brain are vastly different from those discerned by the
left-brain. As such, one could argue
that a widely institutionalized method for determining truth, (scientific
method) that only involves left-brained processes of linear analysis, will
produce incomplete truths, at best. It
is the opinion of this inventor, that this argument accurately describes the
current relationship between mainstream science and studies of life-force
energies (by whatever name), that are easily perceived by the intuition, but
which the analytical mind is essentially blind to.
Our perception of truth is limited because intuitive people are generally
not well-respected in our culture
One further argument relating to
this is that people tend to fall on a spectrum in terms of being more
comfortable with the right-brained, intuitive, body-aware types of perceptions,
vs. being more comfortable with rational, analytical processes of the left
brain. Through many years in the
business, the inventor has had an opportunity to talk to many people at all
levels of ability at sensing and working with subtle energy.
There are people who are extremely gifted
intuitively as energy healers, but who have "12:00" flashing on their VCR
because they could not figure out how to set the clock.
At the other end of the spectrum is the
stereotype of the "absent-minded professor," that can do calculus in his head,
but can't manage to put on socks that match in the morning.
Given that our whole Western, scientific
approach to determining "truth" revolves around the latter type of person, and
that the former type of person is not generally well-respected, it is easy to
see that we could end up with incomplete truths, at best.
To summarize my arguments:
- Many individuals and cultures have postulated the
existence of "chi" or "life-force energy" - developed independently, and
over thousands of years. (See "Arguments
for the Existence of Chi.")
- There is a great deal of similarity between what
these individuals/cultures say about life-force energy.
- It is highly unlikely that such similar information
could be developed independently unless there actually was some sort of
real phenomenon that was being observed.
- Science does not yet know everything - there is a
great deal of the natural world about which the science is not yet
understood.
- Science, being primarily a left-brained analytical
process, does not take significant advantage of the intuitive gifts of the
right brain.
- The intuitive gifts of the right brain have been
validated independently of science, through the process of evolution, as
useful for determining at least certain types of truth related to
survival.
- Given that science and the scientific method make only
limited use of our right-brained intuitive capabilities (which have been
validated by evolution in terms of their usefulness), science/scientific
method can produce only incomplete truths, at best.
- It is easy to see now, that there is a huge
blind-spot in our scientific paradigm, when it comes to things that are
best perceived and worked with intuitively.
This blind spot is big enough that a phenomenon such as
chi/life-force/subtle energy, which is easily perceived by people who have
highly developed intuition, could exist and be taught by many disciplines
developed independently in many different cultures, and science (as
currently practiced) would not be able to even be certain of its
existence.
Given the above, a new criterion
needs to be established regarding subtle-energy studies.
Given that science, as it is currently
practiced in the mainstream, does not have the tools with which to develop a
useful theoretical model for subtle-energy/life-force, the role of science and
the scientific method should be relegated to the answering of one simple
question: "is it useful?"
