ABSTRACT

Following Herbert Muller's elaboration on the Zero-Reference Method, his critical comments on predominant approaches in consciousness research are taken into closer examination. Concurring with Muller, objectivist claims and attitudes of conventional consciousness studies are exposed as untenable. The integration of subjective experience as valid scientific data becomes the focus of the analysis. The consequence is the suggestion to integrate deliberately induced experience of conscious processes into academia and the humanities in general, thereby providing the means to reach to, and understand, the unstructured matrix underlying all experiences: the zero-reference point.


<1>
Is the mind real ...? This is a rather crucial question, since everything - even the 'reality' of what you are reading at this moment - seems to depend on the answer. Coming from the perspective of Transpersonal Psychology, an approach integrating so called 'scientific' and supposedly 'non-scientific' ways of understanding the world, humankind, consciousness etc., the question whether anything is 'real' would immediately initiate the following meta-question: how real is 'real'? While being far from exhaustive, my comments here are intended to contribute to specific points in Muller's paper pertaining to the importance of experiential data in humanistic science; in other words: to the question how real that is which is commonly taken, or mis-taken, as 'real'.

<2>
The German word for 'real' is 'wirklich', including the verb 'wirken' which, according to the dictionary means: to knit, weave, work. This is the understanding of the Tantrikas, the insight that reality is a web of forces knitting together what we then see and call 'reality'. More appropriate in our context we could translate 'wirken' as 'to have an effect on something'. From that perspective, a preliminary answer to the question whether the mind be real is: Yes, it is real, because it has an effect on us and on everything else. But then: what understanding of 'mind' are we talking about? Is it the mind as our capacity to think and observe, or is it the mind as our exclusive identification with whatever we think we are ? Here, reality becomes a fairly volatile concept, and it seems quite uncertain whether the mind is real.

<3>
Is the mind real? It is intriguing that Herbert Muller chooses this question as a simple title without immediately proceeding to give an answer. He prepares to launch an implicit provocation towards those views that tend to make the mind, consciousness etc. 'real' as a somewhat materialistic object of scientific study. Instead of an immediate answer, he builds a thorough step by step elaboration of his 'Zero-Reference Method', which appears as nothing less than an attempt at predominant attitudes in science: objectivism and scientism, i.e.: the exclusive validity claim for the supposedly 'objective' and the supposedly 'scientific'. It is implicit from the start: the observed phenomena are real only in the sense that they are a reflection of the forces that 'knit' in the background.

<4>
The author steps 'back-stage', so to say, and proposes a method of looking at the underlying mechanisms and workings of what goes on in front of the curtain. 'Wirklichkeit' ...; what is it, actually, that has an effect on thought, and consequently on science? The well referenced and well discussed point the author is making must arguably be considered a rather irrefutable validity claim of the scientific character of experiential or first-person approaches to human knowing. This is a serious provocation because it simply means introducing subjective data as scientific. As will become clear in this comment, Muller appears to concur that precisely this step is overdue in science in general, and particularly in the humanities.

<5>
Doing what we are not supposed to do if we are scientists in the mainstream sense - that is skipping ahead to a very quick glance at the paper's last lines - we get the picture: The Descartian paradigm is 'in disrepute'. The author points out repeatedly that the mind itself cannot be made available to objective study because that would imply a belief in what he terms 'mind-independent reality'. This appears to be a pivotal argument against the Descartian paradigm. Why ...? Simply because it exposes those approaches that tend to look at whatever is observed as an object separate from the observer to be themselves grounded on a belief, not on a scientific observation. As trivial as this insight comes forth, it is devastating for objectivism. In the case of the mind we simply have to acknowledge that the idea of gathering 'objective' data, and then relying on these as the only valid information, is an illusion (see Muller[5]). Even pure logic forces us to accomodate the idea of including experiential data and first- person approaches into the study of the mind or the study of consciousness.

<6>
For some, this argument might not be worth mentioning because it is 'all too clear'. Not so, if we look at the overall discussion in the field of consciousness studies. It is stunningly obvious that claims like Muller's run the risk of meeting the most fundamentalist scientism and objectivism, even in the humanities. Anybody who advocates embracing experiential approaches or the scientific validity of data from subjective experience will run into the prejudice that such an endeavor allegedly attempts to abandon logic and scientific reason. It is stunning: even if she or he repeatedly and explicitly speaks out for *integration* of subjectivity, not abandonment of objectivity - and this is precisely what Muller does - the charge of subjectivism etc. seems unavoidable (see for example Paul Jones: 'Zero Science vs. Hierarchical Science', July 16th, paragraphs <13,16,25,27> of a comment to Muller's paper; Jones completely misses the point and the possible consequences of Muller's endeavor). This is a most fascinating but altogether well-known psychological dynamic occuring here: From behind the walls of the 'pure-reason-and-logic-edifice' a voice strikes that is coming from a place of violated *beliefs*. Suddenly all objectivity is jettisoned, and the advocate of experiential approaches is hit by a solid projection: a fundamentalist, belief-based, and utterly subjective attempt to defend the strongholds of what is supposedly 'scientific'.

<7>
Ken Wilber has most clearly made this mechanism visible in what he calls a 'performative contradiction'. For example: The truth claim of objectivism is itself based on a non-objective stance, namely belief, that way contradicting its own basis and consequently losing its power to make valid assertions. Muller's version sounds like this: 'The only support for exclusive objectivism is the belief of its adherents' [17]. The result in short words: Claiming a monopoly for objectivity is neither scientific nor is it objective, nor does it comply with the basics of logic! Whether one sympathizes with Wilber's views or not, he certainly has made an important contribution to consciousness studies, or the study of the mind here. His 'Four-Quadrant-Model' is a rather final blow at the Cartesian paradigm: pure reason certainly has to be included in the study of the mind - in Wilber's model it inhabits the upper right quadrant - but it is merely a part of the whole and will only function in an undistorted form if it doesn't surpress the other parts or quadrants (Wilber 1995 and 1996). Likewise, Muller clearly speaks of 'complementing' objective brain studies, not 'replacing' them [12;32].

<8>
As Muller simply states [6]: experience, the subjective aspect of the mind, is always open for structuring. In other words: there is no way how a study of the mind can afford to dismiss subjective, experiential data; nor is there a way, as the author points out, to reduce mental processes to mind-independent objects or immaterial entities. Precisely this, however, is one of the current penchants of consciousness studies: there is a serious discussion going on about the question whether computers are on the verge of becoming conscious, whether fairly soon we will be able to 'produce' zombies, whether possibly we ourselves are zombies etc. This conversation has proceeded to a point where all sorts of neologisms (e.g.: 'mombies', 'zimboes' etc.) are entered, in order to establish entities with varying character traits and so on. And this is not the end of the line; various authors then go on to discern between human experiences and the imagined 'experiences' of a Zombie by using the superscript 'z', e.g.: human feeling versus 'feeling'-*z* (see: 'Journal of Consciousness Studies', Vol.2, No.4, 1995): a comment publicly posted on the journal's online discussion forum on July 19th reads like this: 'I think that a conscious machine could probably be made with the hardware now available'. As a play of thoughts this might be intriguing for some. We could question, however, if this endeavor is not also an extreme and grotesque reflection of the attempt to compartmentalize and to force into objectivity something that will always evade objectivist scrutiny: human experience.

<9>
Muller puts it simple: 'exclusive objectivism will not work as a basis for theorizing about subjective experience' [6]. His answer is the 'Zero-Reference Method', the attempt to assert as the 'root' of all mental structures an altogether unstructured matrix out of which these mental structures crystallize. According to Muller, this matrix is the reason why the mind cannot be defined [10]. Again, the author steps 'backstage' and convincingly leaves what appears as superficial behind to reach to the 'pre-conceptual level' [11] that is the source of it all. And here it is important to note that this is a process, not a once and for all condition, therefore appropriately termed 'zero-referencing'. This process is the means to leave behind the identification with what we might call 'the world of nouns', i.e.: the illusion of stable structures. We are consequently moving toward an understanding of reality which is in process, zero-referencing, emerging from the pre- conceptual.

<10>
Objectivity is allocated its place as a 'very helpful method of investigation' in a reductionist sense, that is, in order to better comprehend parcelled experiences [14]. However, as Muller clearly states, objectivity is not indispensable, 'and even less a guarantee, of truth and reality' [15]. Again, such a statement will attract serious criticism from the objectivist camp; but the Zero-Reference Method is well prepared to accomodate such criticism because it is integral: the objective method is a tool within the larger perspective of the zero-referencing process. In other words: objectivity stops being a god that we all bow to while supressing the naturally subsequent iconoclasm of the subjective; instead objectivity becomes a servant in the quest to discover that which is beyond the compartmentalized identifications. The clarity with which Muller identifies the *function* of objectivity versus the *identification* with its idol objectivism leaves nothing to be desired [16]. Moreover, the consequence of objectivism is clearly exposed as preventing the understanding of subjective experience.

<11>
It is hard to conceive how any objective scientist could maintain an objectivist stance, further precluding the data that subjective experience provides. Doesn't such a view of the world ignore thousands of years of old insights of various cultures of humanity? Doesn't it even pathologize the larger portion of history which is fraught with reports of mystical revelations, i.e. subjective experience etc? At the very least, the aggressivity of objectivism perpetuates the postmodern schizophrenia of creating a split between mind, body and experience. In the way we relate to our environment we have a clear reflection of that schizophrenia. As opposed to that, the deliberately *subjective* truth of personal experience is a way in which this schizophrenia can heal. As one of the world's foremost psychologists and consciousness researchers alive today, Stanislav Grof, puts it: the experience of being one with nature will render a person utterly changed and unable to continue living a life separated from the natural rhythms. In other words: the validity of subjective experience is irrefutable, and its integration will shed a different light on consciousness.

<12>
Consciousness itself, according to Muller, is a 'summary expression for the phenomena of experience' [21]. Here, the scientific difficulty, if we want to call it such, consists of the challenge to quantify the experiences in order to study them [23]. Admitting this difficulty can invoke the inclination to refrain from the study of experience and instead compartmentalize reported experiential units in order to make them measurable. This, however, will lead back to the objectivist stance. Clearly, that is not a viable alternative, neither logically, nor scientifically. Instead the need for a 'Working Metaphysics' [25] arises, taking into account the presupposition or 'operational characterization' [18] that mind includes the zero-origin feature. This presupposition is the notion that behind all crystallized forms stands an altogether uncrystallized stratum, realm, or dimension which constantly gives rise to experiential phenomena (Dimiter Chakalov calls this realm 'Universal Mind'; see 'The Undefinable Matrix: Is the Universal Mind Real?', July 8th, comment on Muller's paper. Chakalov wants to find the 'evidence' for this matrix [17], but his title contradicts this attempt).

<13>
To get back to the point: A working metaphysics must therefore include some sort of access to, or at the very least a recognition of this zero-reference point. When Muller identifies the idea of a mind-independent reality as the 'chief-obstacle' to understanding experience [27], then it is only logical that a working metaphysics will amplify the view and allow for the recognition of this unstructured matrix that lies at the bottom of every experience. Consequently objectivist methodology is allocated its place: it has auxiliary function [29] within a larger frame of an ongoing process of experience.

<14>
Having thus far staked the ground, the question demanding some sort of answer is: how do we direct our attention to that unstructured matrix, to that zero-reference point? Muller gives hints; an interesting one comes along rather casually: 'mind- nature experience as it occurs, ... is the unconditional (and unstructured to start with) source' [35]. Then: Empathy is the only way to access another person's experience, and the same is true for our own minds [38]. And finally comes the pivotal assertion: We 'have to investigate beyond the 'as-if'', which only looks at the perceptions; instead we must go 'back to original experience, when we want to study the mind in its entirety' [39]. This is nothing less but a beacon call, a foghorn leading the way of the ship called 'humanities' which will then find its way through the thick mist and delusion - through the 'consensus trance' (Charles Tart) - of objectivism.

<15>
In one of his excruciating but brilliant endnotes to an elaboration on consciousness studies, Ken Wilber (1997) points out in a rather marginalized manner what we could consider to be the key here: In order to get the full picture on human consciousness and mind it is indispensable that the consciousness researchers themselves undergo a personal transformation (p.376). This is a critical challenge, but there seems to be no choice. Muller makes clear why: we fail to reconstruct original experience, and therefore land ourselves in illusions (see Achilles and the turtle [41]). As opposed to that, the Zero-Reference Method makes subjective experience its essential focus, whereas object-concepts are the tools that will serve the observation [46]. We have to go 'back to before the subject/object split', and the Zero-Reference Method is the appropriate epistemology that we should utilize [51].

<16>
We could, in other words, say: inquiring into conscious experiencing itself will present us with at least a reflection of the zero-reference point, if not - over time - with that unstructured matrix at the source of all our experiences. Buddhist tradition calls this the 'original face'; its discovery is enlightenment. Translated for consciousness research this would mean: also striving to *experience* this matrix instead of only talking about it. The latter is certainly appropriate in our discussion, but there can be no doubt: If the humanities don't want to lose their ability to make valid assertions about the mind, consciousness, evolution, and the human being, then the deliberate induction of experiential processes must be integrated into academia, into consciousness research, into the attempts to inquire into the deeper workings of the mind.

<17>
Is the mind real ...? ... Making the mind an object of observation and assigning these observations mind- independent reality renders the mind unreal. Applying the Zero-Reference Method, and accessing the unstructured matrix underlying all experience renders the mind real. Why ...? ... Because we will find the ground from which - recall the initial suggestion how to interpret 'real' - effects are exerted. It comes as no surprise that the age-old experiential rituals of human inquiry into consciousness are trendy, and reenter the public mind. They hold the promise of finding what's 'really real', something these words here can merely hint at.


REFERENCES

Wilber, Ken (1995) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality - The Spirit of Evolution. Boston & London: Shambala.

Wilber, Ken (1997) The Eye of Spirit - An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad. Boston & London: Shambala.


additional commentators suggested: Barron Burrow
<maximus@dircon.co.uk>


[ Identifying information about the commentator:

Mark Seelig, born 1957, university lecturer for "Project Meditation" at the faculty for Protestant Theology at the University of Frankfurt-Main, Germany in 1995. Facilitator of workshops for meditation and consciousness research. Holistic psychotherapist. Encounter with Indian mysticism. Book (1995): "Das Selbst als Ort der Gotteserfahrung" ["The Self as the Realm of Spiritual Experience"], Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1995. Publications about meditation, and about the dialogue between Comparative Religion, Theology and Transpersonal Psychology. Studying Transpersonal Psychology and Holotropic Breathwork with Stanislav Grof in California. Faculty Mentor at Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California. Member of the Association for Transpersonal Psychology, the Association of Humanistic Psychology, and the International Association for Near-Death Studies. ]


Mark Seelig, Ph.D.
- Transpersonal Psychotherapy -
2050 32nd Ave. Feldbergring 15
San Francisco, CA 94116 37249 Neu-Eichenberg
Ph.: (415) 273-1513 Germany
Fax: (415) 681-6485 Ph. + Fax: ++49-5504-1956
web:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/amaresh
e-mail: amaresh@compuserve.com