Abstract
Physics-mysticism parallelism refers to the two-fold argument, following Capra’s formulation, that (a) “a consistent view of the world is beginning to emerge from modern physics which is harmonious with Eastern wisdoms”, and (b) “Eastern mysticism provides a consistent and beautiful philosophical framework which can accommodate our most advanced theories of the physical world”.1 The basic data for parallelism are common language (for example, English) statements on the nature and implications of physics and mysticism that vary in technical content. The methodology of parallelism is the comparative analysis of such statements. Similar rhetoric, imagery, and metaphoric content in such statements constitute the evidence for parallelism. The basic assumption in this approach is that if the imagery and the rhetorical and metaphoric content of statements on physics and mysticism are similar, the conceptual content must be similar, and the experience of reality must also be similar among physicists and mystics. Earlier I cited Capra’s comparison of statements by Thirring and Chang Tsai. Perhaps the most ambitious application of this method occurs in Needham’s studies on Chinese and modern science, characterized by the continuing discovery of Whiteheadian philosophy,dialectical thought,and anticipatory scientific attitudes, concepts, and methods in Chinese texts.2 This requires searching for, selecting, and translating materials for comparative analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See, for example, E. B. Cowell, F. M. Muller, and J. Takakusu (eds.), Buddhist Mahayana Texts, Dover, New York, 1969, pp. vi–x (an unabridged and unaltered reprint of Vol. XLIX in ‘The Sacred Book of the East’ series published in 1894 by the Clarendon Press at Oxford); and S. Radhakrishnan and C. A. Moore (ed.), A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1957, pp. ix–xiv.
See, for example, C. W. Rietdijk, On Waves, Particles, and Hidden Variables, Van Gorcum, Alsen, Holland, 1971, pp. i–iv; and I). Böhm, ‘Quantum Theory as an Indication of a New Order in Physics. Part A. The Development of New Orders as Shown Through the History of Physics’, and ‘Part B. Implicate and Explicate Order in Physical Law’, Foundations of Physics, Vol. I. No. 4 (1971), pp. 359-381, and Vol. 3, No. 2 (1973), pp. 139–68.
G. Scholem, ‘Mysticism and Society’, Diogenes, No. 58 (Summer), 1967, pp. 2–3.
M. Gell-Mann and Y. Ne’eman (eds. and authors). The Eightfold Way, W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1964, pp. 9–10, 117; cf. Chew, 1968, op. cit, 764; and see G. Chew, M. Gell-Mann, and A. H. Rosenfeld, ‘Strongly Interacting Particles’, Scientific American, Vol. 220, No. 2 (February), 1964, pp. 74–93.
J. Graves, The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Relativity Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1971, pp. 24–25.
Cf. J. Ravetz, Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971, p. 175; and W. T. Stace, Mysticism and Philosophy, Macmillan, London, 1961, pp. 277–306.
See D. T. Suzuki’s comments in B. L. Suzuki, Mahayana Buddhism, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1959, p. 33; for Minkowski’s remarks, sec A. Einstein et al., The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, 1923, p. 75.
C. O. Evans, ‘Attention, Meaning, and Altered States of Consciousness’, Philosophy Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La., undated mimeographed manuscript; cf. M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1964, pp. 55–65.
Quoted in M. Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley, New York, 1974, pp. 86–87.
C. A. Coulson, Christianity in an Age of Science, Oxford University Press. London, 1953; Barbour, 1974, op. cit, pp. 84–91; cf. H. A. Bedau, ‘Complementarity and the Relation Between Science and Religion’, Zygon, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, 1974, pp. 202–223; D. M. MacKay, ‘“Complementarity” in Scientific and Theological Thinking’, Zygon, Vol. 9, No. 3. September. 1974, pp. 225–244; W. H. Austin, ‘Complementarity and Theological Paradox’, Zygon, Vol. 2, No. 4, December, 1967, pp. 365–381.
Jammer, op. cit, pp. 89–90, 95; sec also Bohr, 1929, op. cit; and A. Einstein, ‘Reply to Criticisms’, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Harper and Row, New York, 1959, pp. 663–688.
See, for example. J. L. Park, ‘Complementarity Without Paradox: A Physicist’s Reply to Professor Austin’, Zygon, Vol. 2, No. 4 (December), 1967, pp. 382–388.
Jammer, op. cit, pp. 103–104; L. Rosenfeld, ‘Foundations of Quantum Theory and Complementarity’, Nature, Vol. 190 (29 April), 1961, pp. 384–388; cf., L. DeBroglic, The Revolution in Physics, Noonday Press, New York, 1953, p. 218.
See, for example, Colodny, op. cit; A. Einstein, ‘Autobiographical Notes’, in Schilpp, op. cit, pp. 3–95; P. Chambadal, Paradoxes in Physics, Transworld, London, 1973; Y. Terletskii, Paradoxes in the Theory of Relativity, Plenum Press, New York, 1968.
D. Finkelstein, ‘The Physics of Logic’, in Colodny, op. cit, p. 57; cf. D. Böhm, Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1951, pp. 142, 168.
B. D’Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, W. A. Benjamin, Menlo Park, Calif., 1971, p. 413; B. Kuznetsov, ‘Quantum-Relativistic Retrospection and the History of Classical Physics: Classical Rationalism and Nonclassical Science’, in R. McCormach (ed.), Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 3, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1971, p. 117 (on Bohr and Einstein); and Terletskii, op. cit, p. 1; cf. I. Shah, The Way of the Sufi, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1970, pp. 26–27.
G. Gale, ‘Chew’s Monadology’, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 35 (April–June), 1974, pp. 339–348.
Bohm, 1971, 1973, op. cit (esp. pp. 143-147); cf. J. Smuts, Holism and Evolution, Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., 1973 (reprint of the 1926 edition published by Macmillan Ltd., London).
Siu, 1974, op. cit, pp. 69–84.
W. TenHouten and C. D. Kaplan, Science and its Mirror Image, Harper and Row, New York, 1973, pp. 194–224.
Needleman, op. cit, pp. 104–105; T. Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends, Anchor Books, Garden City, N.Y., 1973, p. 417.
Holton, op. cit, pp. 275–280; C. A. Hooker, ‘Philosophy and Metaphilosophy of Science: Empiricism, Popperianism and Realism’, Synthese, Vol. 32, 1975, pp. 177–231; cf. C. Tart, ‘States of Consciousness and State-Specific Sciences’, in R. E. Ornstein (ed.), The Nature of Human Consciousness, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973, pp. 41–60.
R. Ravindra, ‘Experiment and Experience: A Critique of Modern Scientific Knowing’, Dalhousie Review, Vol. 55, 1975–1976, p. 670.
See J. J. C. Smart, Philosophy and Scientific Realism, Humanities Press, New York, 1963; cf. Graves, op. cit, p. 7.
Bohm, 1951, op. cit, pp. 169–171.
H. Robinson, Renascent Rationalism, Macmillan, Toronto, 1975, pp. 106–107.
L. L. Whyte, The Universe of Experience: A World View Beyond Science and Religion, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1974, pp. 64, 120, 141–142 (note 5).
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970.
P. Forman, ‘Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment’, in R. McCormach, op. cit, pp. 1–115; L. Feuer, Einstein and the Generations of Science, Basic Books, New York, 1974.
This appendix is excerpted from S. Restivo, ‘Joseph Needham and the Comparative Sociology of Chinese and Modern Science’, in R. A. Jones and H. Kuklick (eds.), Research in Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art, Vol. II, JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn., 1979, pp. 25–51. For specific citations to Needham’s work, readers are referred to the original article. References for other authors cited in this excerpt are as follows: Sivin, op. cit, and personal correspondence; W. McNeill, ‘Review of J. Needham, The Grand Titration’, Science, Vol. 67 (23 January), 1970, p. 367; D. Campbell, ‘Distinguishing Differences of Perception from Failures of Communication in Cross-Cultural Studies’, in F. Northrop and H. Livingston (eds.), Cross-Cultural Understanding: Epistemology in Anthropology, Harper and Row, New York, 1964, pp. 308–336; A. Paredes and M. Hepburn, ‘The Split Brain and the Culture and Cognition Paradox’, Current Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 9 (March), 1976, pp. 121–127.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Restivo, S. (1985). The Pitfalls of Parallelism. In: The Social Relations of Physics, Mysticism, and Mathematics. A Pallas Paperback, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7058-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7058-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-277-2084-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-7058-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive