American Buddhist Perspectives
No man ever steps in the same river twice.
– Heraclitus
In ancient Greek Philosophy, Heraclitus is the philosopher of becoming. His ideas are most clearly in contrast to those of Parmenides, the philosopher of being. The conflict between them is in relation to “ultimate reality.” For Heraclitus the seemingly static structures we encounter in life are unreal, merely our projections of stability onto a reality of flux. (for an interesting site carrying on Heraclitus’ notions into the quantum realm – click here)
Parmenides was a younger contemporary of Heraclitus, and wrote in conscious opposition to him. He held that all which may be conceived was real, that anything inconceivable was unreal, and that change (anything moving from unreal to real) was impossible. All that could be is, and that which is not, could not be.
My first Buddhist teacher told the story that if the Buddha had encountered Heraclitus, he would have corrected him thus:
Not even the same man can step in the same river twice.
Emphasizing that we are in the flux just as much as the river.
Three of my projects this spring have revolved around this notion of flux. I have managed to find and am still trying to understand the implications of that flux within the three seemingly disparate realms of thought. In Sartre the flux arose toward the end of his “Being & Nothingness” where he discusses strategies for modern man in the face of our self deceptive and self destructive society. He reminisces about Kierkegaard’s use of irony in the face of the Ultimate – you should realize how small and unimportant you really are, and then resolve to laugh at that truth. Sartre’s turn on this is to suggest a sort of playfulness in life in the face of a society deluded by it’s own seriousness.
My interpretation of Sartre is that we ought to make a project of our lives, a serious project, but to realize all the while that the nature of reality is play. We build structures, our lives, etc on an ever-shifting foundation. Our mistake is that we forget that reality is shifty: the earth will swallow up our homes, people will make us change the way we see our lives. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t build structures – developing a ‘structure’ of selfhood is inevitable – it just means that we must always recognize that what we build on is unstable. In that vein, Sartre would wholeheartedly agree with this:
Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play. – Heraclitus
My other two projects are still in progress (laziness, illness, life, etc have all gotten in the way of their completion). The one I’m working on currently is David Bohm’s interpretation of Quantum Physics and its implications in philosophy/metaphysics and morality. Briefly, the history goes as follows: Classical Physics (Newton –> Einstein) took reality to be made up of particles in some form of ultimately determinate motion, and that those particles and their motion could be known. Thus, at least theoretically, we could get enough data and know the future. Further, all other fields of knowledge (chemistry, biology, psychology) work on levels that supervene on those particles and could ultimately be reduced (eliminated?) to physics.
Then came Quantum Mechanics (QM), which, through experimental evidence completely undermined the vision of reality clung to by Classical Physicists (Einstein famously refused to accept QM). But QM itself provides no vision of ‘reality.’ Thus, those working in QM have had to interpret what QM means. There are several such interpretations, but the “Copenhagen” Interpretation is currently the leading one. In it, the notion that there even is a reality in subatomic systems is denied. Well that’s not exactly right – there is a reality there, but it is strictly probabilistic, as opposed to the reality of our experience in which things are deterministic (my computer is on this table – not 42%, not 98%, but 100% on the table). In the Copenhagen there are two realities –
- that of the probabilistic wavefunction (of any subatomic system prior to measurement) and
- that of the classical world, where, after measurement we get particles and no wavefunction.
Nice. The problem is similar to that of all such hard dualisms – how do things magically get from one reality to the other? “Measurement” is the answer given. But measurement is something people or our machines do. Are we to think that the universe existed as nothing but probabilistic wavefunctions before the evolution of conscious life? The problem can also be expressed in the famous Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment.
This is where David Bohm comes in. In 1951 he wrote the definitive text on Quantum Physics and then in 1952 he developed a powerful alternative to the “Copenhagen” interpretation of QM. In his theory the particle-nature of the world in Classical Physics is preserved, but it is simultaneously profoundly influenced by a wavefunction as the QM experiments show. Thus the reality of our world still exists at the subatomic level, there is no strange duality.
There is still a probabilistic nature in the subatomic realm, but it is just a matter of what we know – not a matter of reality itself. For the “Copenhagen” interpretation it makes no sense to ask, for instance, about the location of a particle before it is measured – there simply is no fact of where the particle is before measurement. Yet in Bohm, and in our common sense, this is ridiculous – the particle IS somewhere, even if we can’t know where without measuring it.
Where Bohm departs from Classical physics is that, in order to satisfy the experimental data, he has to accept that the particle, while being perfectly particle-like in almost every Classical way, is influenced by a wavefunction which can act on the particle from any distance, instantly. That sounds weird, but it’s exactly what Bell’s test experiments have shown to be the case.
Beyond the physics, what can we make of all this?
- There is a seamless reality, based upon particles, which moves up to the largest cosmological objects (with us somewhere in the middle).
- The particles which make us up are connected with a wavefunction which extends (in ever shrinking extent) across the universe.
- That wavefunction can cause any particle in us to move to virtually anywhere else in the universe, instantly.
- but…. the probability (remember we’re working with probabilities in wavefunctions) of the particle remaining right where it is is extremely high.
That is, our reality is reality. But if we are to see any aspect of this reality as ultimately separate from anything else we are mistaken. And if we believe anything in this reality can in any way last, unchanged, over time, we are mistaken. Reality is in flux. And there is no ultimate us (self/identity) separate from that flux.
Failing to realize this basis of reality, we take the structures (stuff made up of particles) to be all there is – we continue to follow the mistaken path of Classical Physics of thinking that if we can just know those particles we can know everything (forgetting the fact of the wave nature of matter). The adherent to the Classical view, in his frenzied attempt at reduction of everything to physics, loses sight of the realities of psychology, biology, chemistry, and so on.
Bohm holds this to be analogous to our society’s irrational dependence upon specialized ‘experts’ and the resulting fragmentation of our thought and society. It is also due to Classical notions of isolated, individual particles that we tend to think of ourselves, our communities, and so on as isolated and individual- just ‘bouncing around’ in interaction with others. Instead, what Bohm’s interpretation of QM tells us is that we are never truly separate, never truly isolated, never independent from the whole of the universe (let alone nearby people and communities).
Realizing our ultimate nature of flux and interdependence, I urge us to take on an attitude of responsibility – something which is obviously individualistic and apparently contrary to the whole reality of flux. But we see that the road from our false view of separateness and independence to the truth of reality requires a certain dilligence on our own part – as individuals. I wish our ignorance could be more easily overcome, that we could just be touched on the forehead and commanded to “Wake Up!” and it would work (go ahead and give it a try), but my gut feeling is that it won’t, in which case you’ve got work to do – ya, you.
So, as in Sartre, we must realize the underlying reality of play, flux, change, and all the rest, and then upon that build our magnificent castles of kindness, generosity, devotion to social causes, love, and all the rest. And when our castles crumble, as they always do, let us not whine or cling, but revel in our precious experience of reality, smile, and build new ones.
(note – I’ll have to get to the ‘evolution’ part some other time 🙂
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In