Heuristic Value of Whitehead’s Cosmology
in Bridging Eastern and Western Mindsets:
A Challenge in the Globalization Process. (1)
Paper presented at the 7th International Whitehead Conference
Jan 5-9, 2009, Bangalore, India
Pattabi S. Raman, Ph.D., Ed.D.
Human Resource & Diversity Training Consultant
Center for the Promotion of Learning Abilities, Spanaway, WA. USA.
Abstract
In the coming decades the central task for leaders and entrepreneurs in corporate cultures in the multinationals will be the development of new models of co-existence in building synergistic cultures in the work environments and in learning institutions across this shrinking globe. This will involve forging the emerging global consciousness to conceptualize new models of coexistence that not only bridges but also transcends the historically divisive Western and Eastern mindsets. This mind-set dichotomy presents a serious challenge within tomorrow’s demographically diverse workplace as this global economy expands exponentially. This article traces the origin of this dichotomy in the mind-sets to the differing world views held by these cultures traditionally with respect to the concept of reality and human nature. It demonstrates the heuristic value and efficacy of the higher order principles of Whitehead’s process cosmology in bridging the dichotomy in the mindsets by validating the wisdom of the perennial philosophy of the East and yet preserving the pragmatism of empirical science of the West.
The planetization of mankind, aptly phrased by Teilhard de Chardin, is neither a utopian vision nor a matter of choice. It constitutes the next inescapable stage in the process of social and spiritual evolution, a stage towards which humanity is impelled by the unifying forces of life. Few will disagree that to “planetize mankind”, humanity needs to evolve to a greater consciousness of the “family of man” (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – envisioned in the Indian tradition) and to the understanding that the present-day institutions, whatever origin or function they have and the human beings that make them up, will have to undergo a radical transformation- an individual and collective metamorphosis. The eventual emergence of the global community reflecting the organic oneness and wholeness of humankind will necessitate several major shifts in collective human consciousness. The process engendered by present era of globalization is an inevitable prelude and represents the first such shift.
While globalization has been a boon to consumerism, economic growth and global welfare, it also has precipitated enormous unprecedented challenges in the process of social integration, multicultural appreciation and a collective meeting of the minds. This rapid globalization is a serious challenge to tomorrow’s workplace. The central task in the coming decades will be the development of new models of co-existence in building synergistic cultures in corporate environments and in learning institutions across this shrinking globe. This is particularly crucial for multinational corporations to succeed in the highly competitive markets in the interrelated economy. Consequently several management “gurus”, while thinking globally are also focused in acting locally by investing heavily in this area of human resource management at the work place. (Chawla ,1995).
In my opinion, the biggest challenge, in conceptualizing new models of coexistence centers primarily around the processes of transforming the individual and collective mind-sets of those who make up these institutions. Based on his experience in working with diplopamatic/consular missions, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations, Fisher (1997) analyses the how cultural mindsets influence decision making in international relations. However, the exponential increase in trade and commerce between the west and the newly emerging economies the east (particularly in Japan, China and India, where the economic epicenter is shifting) necessitates a greater need for ongoing research and focused understanding of the mindsets of these cultures that shapes their modes of thinking, feeling and behaving. The necessary wisdom in meeting the challenges for a new cultural maturity, as Johnston (1991) observes, lies in the bridging of dichotomies and polarities that are extant in the mindsets of these cultures.
Meeting ahead these challenges is the genuine understanding and bridging of the much broader and deep-rooted gulf between the two dominant camps, traditionally and historically understood as Western and Eastern (or say non-western) mindsets. This mind-set dichotomy that is described as a “great divide” is calling for a “deep interdisciplinary collaboration” to span the gulf. (Gueldenberg et.al, 2007). Nisbett (2003) has analyzed the differences in the mental framework of Asians and Westerners arising out of early cultural influences and cognitive styles in information processing.
Origins of the mind-set dichotomy
This dichotomy, leading to an incompatibility in the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting in these cultures, I believe, is primarily due to the divisive ontology that has hitherto shaped their respective deep tooted worldviews with respect to the concept of reality and human nature.
The western-extrovert, culture, is still permeated at the subconscious level of thought and action by the mechanistic/deterministic paradigms of the post Cartesian era and the empiricism of the scientific method. Non-western –introvert, culture is ingrained in the perennial philosophy drawn from a variety of sources, viz., the Vedantic, Buddhist (Toastic), Islamic (Sufi) traditions and wisdom, manifesting a different set off hierarchy of values and realities. I am taking the liberty of generalizing the term” non-western” to include the Native American and the African traditions and views of reality.
The following slide shows how these cultures depending on their mindsets and orientation to reality perceive, act and behave in general.
Western Mindset Non Western Mindset
Analyses phenomenon Perceives phenomenon
Attempts to possess Thinks to appreciate
Thinks to solve problems Thinks to increase one’s vision
and conquer the unknown and yield to the unknown
Tries to civilize the world by Tries to civilize the world by
controlling it accommodating itself to it
Is glued to the “here and now” Sees and waits for the end of things
Time is critical Time is relative
and viewed as eternal and viewed as a process temporal
Knowledge is explicit Knowledge can also be tacit
Unsettled by the Accommodates the
“Unknowns and Unknowables” “Unknowns and Unknowables”
Seeks objectivity in experience Allows subjectivity in experience
Values Independence and autonomy Values relationships,
. interconnectedness, and interdependence
A new vision of Reality for Bridging Mindsets
In the final analysis, the challenge comes to finding a way not only to bridge the divided mind-sets but also to empower these cultures to transcend the respective worldviews that were Heuristic Value of Whitehead’s Cosmology hitherto held inviolable or as sacred. In other words we need an overarching philosophical and theoretical framework that has the power integrate these views. Since it is not possible to change the core beliefs in the “ancient and perennial wisdom”, any attempt at such integration must necessarily involve changes in the philosophy of western science. In fact science need not oppose perennial wisdom (or religion) at any time but can be used to winnow out its errors, superstitions and dogmas while preserving its spiritual import. As Groff (1984) questions, “is it possible to change the basic assumptions of science while preserving its formidable pragmatic power? The challenge then is to formulate or articulate a theory or a paradigm that is broad enough to incorporate basic assumptions of perennial philosophy (weaned out of its superstitions & dogmas) and yet preserving the pragmatic power of empirical science. This is precisely what the higher order principles of Whitehead’s process ontology have the power to achieve.
Furthermore, Whitehead (1979, p 3.) himself redefined the role of speculative philosophy as “an endeavor to frame a coherent, logical and necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted. No item of experience (conscious, unconscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed or thought) should be incapable of being interpreted in this framework”. Given this, reality has to be understood both in terms of actual and non-actual entities as defined by Whitehead (1979). The major tenets of his cosmology, further corroborated by Laszlo’s (1996) systems view of the world are enunciated in the following two figures.
Fig 1: REALITY HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BOTH IN TERMS OF
Actual (material) and Non-actual (non-material) forms of entities
Actual: Non-actual:
Measured objectively, Predicted Cannot be predicted or controlled
Quantified, Propelled in space Non quantifiable factors, Chaotic
Single Cause and sequential Multiple Causality, (cyclical)
Controlled, Orderly Value laden, (subjective)
Follows logical reasoning Non-logical, intuitive
. Involves a sense of purpose, hope, belief
. Inspiration, Vision, Myth, Truth, Beauty,
. Faith, Intuition
Fig 2: Fundamental Postulates of the Systems (9) / Process view of Reality
• Reality of an entity inheres (is inherent) in its process of its becoming.
• Reality includes both “actualized” and “nonactualiszed” potential.
• Causality includes both efficient cause and final cause.
• The universe is a web of interrelated entties constantly evolving in a direction
of organized complexity and integration leading to novel structures.
• In the ultimate analysis the locus of control of change in an open
system lies within the system.
• In an open system the sum of the parts are greater that the whole
in terms of its viability and thus giving rise to synergy.
• The process of becoming has a direction from an internal sense of purpose called
“subjective aim” (or teleological purpose).
A refreshing and central characteristic of science is the recognition that scientific theories and paradigms are but conceptual models of organizing the data about reality available at that given time. Scientific theories are but close approximations to reality and should not be mistaken for correct descriptions of reality itself. Herein is precisely where the heuristic value of Whitehead’s cosmology lies in changing the basic assumptions of the nature of reality (fig 1) and its effect on the philosophy of western science. It is well acknowledged that Fractal geometry is a new way of looking at the world and questioning the basic assumptions and axioms of Euclidian geometry. Heuristic is used here as an adjective, using a general proposition that serves to guide investigation. The twentieth century has seen major shifts in paradigms in post-modern science starting with the significant bridging of the dichotomy between matter and energy. This change is largely due to the basic set of assumptions on the nature of reality held at the outset by the investigators prior to the inquiry, has resulted in the following propositions in quantum physics: Pauli’s “exclusion” principle, Heisenberger’s “uncertainity”, Niels Bohr’s “complimentarity”, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, and Bell’s Theorem. (Capra, 1984.)
Based on the narrow concepts of reality, “classical physics could explain phenomena within only a limited range. A new door had suddenly opened into the study of both the minute constituents of the universe and its large cosmological systems, a change, whose effects went far beyond physics, shaking the very foundations of a worldview that had dominated scientific thinking for centuries. Gone forever were the images of a mechanical universe run like a clock and a presumed separation between observer and observed, between mind and matter. Against the background of the far-reaching studies thus made possible, theoretical science now begins to address the possibility that purpose and intelligence are indeed intrinsic to the nature and operation of the universe”. (1999)
The chief and distinguishing characteristic of Whitehead’s cosmology is the reintroduction of teleology and subjective aim as an integral part of realty. This major element in the new metaphysics is a great comfort for the easterner’s mindset while challenging the western mind and a great suspect for reductionists. “Teleology,” said the noted biologist, Hans Selye, “is a lady without whom no biologist can live. It is like having a “secret date” but the biologist is ashamed to show himself with her in public and in office parties.” Teleology for a psychologist is still a more disreputable concept and teleological language for them is regressing into the fallacy of anthropomorphism. Each spin of a subatomic particle, every command for the biosynthesis of an enzyme in a cell, every pulse in a synaptic transmission, each tiny step in the walking or babbling of a toddler, each stroke of an artist’s brush or every scribble in a composer’s manuscript, testifies and legitimizes teleology (and subjective aim) as an integral and essential part of reality. Complementing this is the welcome dialog for the harmony and convergence of the hitherto assumed parallel paths of ancient wisdom and modern science that have been convincingly documented. (Rhee, 1997; Bateson, 1979). These are indeed major landmarks in the needed shift in the consciousness of mankind and are being slowly but surely internalized and accepted by the intelligentsia and the academia.
Prospect and Retrospect
The words of Charles Hartshorne, (1972) the only American philosopher who fully recognized Whitehead’s creative genius while Whitehead was still alive, asserts that, “the basic principles of our knowledge and experience-physical, biological, sociological, aesthetic, religious – are in this (Whitehead’s) philosophy given intellectual integration such as only a thousand or ten thousand years of reflection and inquiry seem likely to exhaust or adequately evaluate its wide relevance and comparative accuracy”. Since then, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Whitehedean perspective on the nature of reality enables one in not only bridging but also in the transcending of the two sides of a mutually interdependent reality.
Heuristic Value of Whitehead’s Cosmology
Whitehead (1979, p 7.) himself remarks that “ The philosophy of organism seems to approximate more to some strains of Indian or Chinese thought than to western Asiatic or European thought”; In light of this, needless to emphasize that the cosmology of Whitehead serves as a large umbrella under which the eastern and western mindsets can take comfortable shelter.
I am sanguine that the spirit infused by the Whitheadean cosmology in this and forthcoming conferences, will not stay just at the dry philosophical level or as exercises of futility but will permeate at a much deeper level of thinking and acting in the Demings, Coveys and Senges of the on-coming generations, in bridging the mindsets of both the east and west. There are many, still clinging tenaciously to the sentiment openly expressed by Rudyard Kipling in his famous ballad, “East is East and West is West / and never the twain shall meet”, hold that ideological and cultural differences between the east and the west are absolute and unbridgeable. In contrast to Kipling, a common Buddhist saying is “in the sky there is no distinction between East and West; people create distinctions out of their own minds and believe them to be true”, which is also the exclaimed “view” of a recent cosmonaut executing a space walk.
Notes
1. Paper presented at the 7th International Whitehead Conference- Jan 5-9, 2009, Bangalore India.
2. This dual nature of reality orientation is similar to the difference in the male and female brains or left and right modes of cerebral dominance. Though in my experience I have seen how these two extremes merge together increasingly in the first-and second generation of children born out of mixed marriages of these cultures.
References
The Baha’i International Community. (1999).
Who is Writing the Future? (Sec 2, p. 8).
London: Baha’i Publishing Trust.
Bateson G. (1979).
Steps to Ecology of Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity.
NY: E.P. Dutton.
Capra, Fritjof. (1984).
The New vision of Reality:
Toward a synthesis of Eastern Wisdom and Western Science.
In Groff, Stanislav, (ed).
Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science (Ch.13).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chawla, Sarita and Renesch, John. (eds) (1995).
Learning Organizations:
Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’ Workplace.
NY: Productivity Press.
Fisher, Glen. (1997).
Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations.
Boston: Intercultural Press, Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Groff, Stanislav. (Ed) (1984).
Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gueldenberg, Stefan and Helting, Holger. (2007).
Bridging ‘The Great Divide’:
Nonaka’s Synthesis of ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ Knowledge Concepts Reassessed
Organization. 14 (1): 101-122.
Hartshorne, Charles. (1972).
Whitehead’s Philosophy: Selected Essays
Lincoln: U of Nebraska Press. p.19.
Johnston, Charles M. (1991).
Necessary Wisdom.
Seattle, WA: ICD Press.
Laszlo, Ervin. (1996).
The Systems View of the World:
A Holistic Vision of Our Time.
NJ: Hampton, Press.
Nisbett, Richard, E. (2003).
The Geography of thought:
How Asians and Westerners Think Differently, and Why.
NY: Free Press.
Rhee, Yong P. (1997).
Synthetic Systems Theory:
Linkage between Western Theory of Physics and Eastern Thought
Sys. Res. Behav. Sci., 14 (3), 211-219.
Whitehead, Alfred, N, (1979 – corrected edition).
Process & Reality.
NY: The Free Press. p. 3 & 7.