il

THE EMERGEN]
PARADIGM:
CHANGINGPATTERNS
O F T H O U G H TA N D B E L I E F
By
PeterSchwartz
and
James Ogilvy

A p r i l1 9 7 9

AnalyticalReport
Valuesand LifestylesProgram

X E A D O U A F T E R SO
, FFICES
AND LABORATORlES
SR! Intcrnrllonrl
M a r n O ff i c e sa n d L a b o r a t o r i e s
3 3 3 R a v e n s w o o dA v e
M e n l o P a r k ,C A 9 4 0 2 5
T e l e p h o n e : , 4 1 53 2 6 - 6 2 0 0
C a b l e :S R I I N T L M P K
TWX: 910-373-1246
Telecopier. 415 326-5512
Telex: 334463
SRI-Washington
1 6 1 1N . K e n t S t
A r l i n g t o n , VA 2 2 2 0 9
T e l e p h o n e :r7 0 3 5 2 4 - 2 0 5 3
C a b l e .S R I I N T L W D C
T e l e c o p i e r :r 7 0 3 , 5 2 4 - 3 4 7 9
S R I - N e wY o r k
3 6 0 L e x i n g t o nA v e , 2 1 s t F l o o r
N e w Y o r k ,N Y 1 0 0 1 7
T e l e p h o n e . ' 2 1 26' 6 1 - 5 3 1 3
SRI-Chicago
2 6 2 5 B u t l e r f r e l dR d
Oak Brook, lL 60521
T e l e o h o n e : 3 1 2 8 8 7- 7 7 3 0
S Rl - A l a s k a
M e n d e n h a lEl uilding
3 2 64 t h S t N o 1 1 0 4
J u n e a u .A K 9 9 8 0 1
T e l e g h o n e : , 9 0 75
' 86-2658
SRI-Hawaii
C r t y B a n k B u i l d i n g ,S u i t e 8 0 5
8 1 0 R i c h a r d sS t .
P . O .B o x 1 2 3 2
H o n o l u l u .H l 9 6 8 0 7
Telephone:,8085 , 33-3376
S R | - E u r o p c ,M l d d l c E e r t & A f r l c e S R I - S a u dAi rabia
R e g i o n a lH e a d q u a r t e r s P . O .B o x 1 8 7 1
R i y a d h ,S a u d iA r a b i a
NLA Tower
1 2 l 1 6A d d i s c o m b eR d . T e l e o h o n e s :6 9 0 0 9r S R l V i l l a t
C r o y d o n C R OO X T , E n g l a n d 23800,22816
T e l e o h o n e : , 0 16 8 1 - 1 7 5 1 ' P r o j e c tO f f i c e ,
,01 686-5555 M i n i s t r Yo f P l a n n i n g t
C a b l e :S R I I N T L R I Y A D H
Cable:SRI INTL EUR
T e l e x : S R I E U R ,C R O Y D O N T e l e x : 2 0 3 2 6P O L Y B A US J
r S R lV i l l a t
9 4 6 12 5
20075PLAN SJ
S Rl - l t a l y , P r o i e c tO f f i c er
Via CarloPoma4
2 0 1 2 9M i l a n ,l t a l Y S R I - E a r tA r l e
T e l e p h o n e :O f f i c e r 0 2 r 7 1 5 5 3 5 RegionaH l eadquarters
O f f i c e t O 2 t7 4 9 0 5 3 6 EdobashB i l d g . ,9 t h F l o o r
Home i02t72 3246 11 - 1 ,N i h o n b a s h1i - C h o m e
T e l e x :3 3 1 8 8 C h u o - K u ,T c k Y o 1 0 3 'J a P a n
SRI- FRANCESCHINI T e l e o h o n er: 0 3 r2 7 1 - 7 1 0 8
C a b l e : S R I E A ,T O K Y O
S Rl - F r a n c e Telex. SRI INTL J28447
1 0 ,R u e B e l l i n i
7 5 7 8 2- P a r i s C e d e x 1 6 , F r a n c e SRI-lndonesta
T e l e p h o n e :r 0 1r 5 5 3 9 2 3 1 SRI International
r 0 1r 5 5 3 2 8 6 6 P e r t a m i n aD i v . -
r 0 1r 7 2 7 5 3 1 9 A d v a n c e dT e c h n o l o g Y
T e l e x : 6 11 0 4 2 1 3 t h F l o o r , P e r t a m i n aT o w e r
8 , J 1M H T h a m r i n
S Rl - l b e r i a J a k a r t a ,I n d o n e s i a
O r e n s e6 2 T e l e p h o n e :3 5 3 7 2 9
M a d r i d2 0 , S p a i n 354837
T e l e o h o n e :t 0 1r 4 5 5 - 1 0 5 7 349286
C a b l e :S R I I N T L , M A D R I D T e l e x : 4 4 3 3 1P E R T A J K T
T e l e x : 4 2 6 0 4S R I E
S Rf- A u s lr a l i a / N e wZ e a l a n d
S Rl - S c a n d i n a v i a ' l ' 1 4W i l l i a mS t . ,2 1 s tF l o o r
H u m l e g a r d s g a t a4n M e l b o u r n e ,V i c t o r i a3 0 0 O
S - 1 1 44 6 S t o c k h o l m ,S w e d e n Australia
T e l e p h o n e ., 0 8 , 2 3 3 5 6 5 P . O .B o x 2 6 2 1
C a b l e :S R I S C A N D I N A V I A G . P . O .M e l b o u r n e3 0 O 1
STOCKHOLM Australia
T e l e x : 1 9 6 1 7S R I S T e l e P h o n e r: 0 3 r6 7 4 9 1 5
T e l e x :A A 3 5 1 9 3
S R I - U n i t e dK i n g d o m
5th Floor
2 4 B u c k i n g h a mG a t e
LondonSWlE 6LB, England
T e l e p h o n e :r 0 1r 8 2 8 - 7 6 4 5
SRI-Zurich
P e l i k a n s t r a s s3e7
8 0 0 1Z u r i c h , S w i t z e r l a n d
T e l e p h o n e :r 0 1r 2 1 1 0 6 3 6
C a b l e :S R I N T L C H
T e l e x : 5 5 1 3 2S R I C H
 CONTENTS

F O R E W O R D. . .

PART I - SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

2
SUMMARY
2
Introduction...'
2
P a t t e r n s a n d P r o c e s s e so f a P a r a d i g m S h i f t
5
The Support for an EmergentPattern
10
Patterns of Change

16
IMPLICATIONS.
16
M e c h a n i s m so f C h a n g e . ' . .
16
The Individual . .
19
Society
20
Politics
27
Scienceand TechnologY
22
Business
22
lr4anagement..'..
23
Personnel
l r^-!-^a^
24
MATKEIS
24
Products
25
R e g u l a t i o na n d P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s
25
Goals,
26
A Final Note on ImPlications " ' '

PART II - THE PARADIGM SHIFT IN DEPTH:

PROCESS,SUPPORT,AND PATTERN
28
WHAT IS A PARADIGM?
28
T h e D e f i n i t i o' n. ' . , . .
30
Paradigms,RealitY,and Truth
31
THE SUPPORTFOR A PARADIGM SHIFT
31
Physics
31
The Current Paradigm
32
The New Physics
34
Chemistry
 35
Brain Theory
36
Mathematics . ...
39
Biology
42
Philosophy
44
Political Theory
46
Linguistics
46
C o n s c i o u s n e s s. . '
47
Psychology
4B
Religion and SpiritualitY
49
The Arts

PARADIGM 51
OF THE EMERGENT
THE CHARACTEzuSTICS
51
Knowing
54
Ordering
56
Causing
J/
From Unity to MultiPlicitY a n d B a c k A g a i n
59
GLOSSARY
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
8
Box What is a Hologram?
11
Box Heterarchy

FIGURES
3
1 The Role of Paradigms in Human Affairs
37
2 Forms of CatastroPhe
40
3 M o d e l o f A g g r e s s i o ni n D o g s

TABLES
6
1 The Paradigm Shift in Each Area '
72
z The Support for a ParadigmShift '
13
3 The Shift in Qualities. .. '

tv
 FOREWORI)
It's oll o guestion of story. We ore in trouble iust
now becousewe do not hove o good story. We ore
in betweenstories.The OId Story -the occountot
how the world come to be ond how wefit into it -
is not functioning properly, ond we hove not
Ieorned the New Story. The OId Story sustoined
us /or o long period of time.It shoped our emo-
tionql ottitudes, provided us with life purpose,
energized oction. It consecrotedsu/fering, inte-
gruted knowledge, guided educotion. We owoke
in the morning ond knew where we were. We
could onswer the questionsof our chiJdren.We
could identify crime, punish criminols. Every-
thing wos token core o/ becouse the story wos
there. It did not rnake men good, it did not toke
awoy the poins ond stupiditiesof life, or mokefor
unfoiling wormth in humon ossociotion.But it
did provide o context in which life could function
in o meoningful monner.
Thomas Berry saysit beautifully and we 88ree:we one
between stories. In this report we call the stories
porodigms or world views, but we are saying the same
thing: a fundamental shift in basic beliefs and as-
sumptions about the nature of things and the human
condition is going on. Becausethose beliefs and as-
sumptions are among the foundations of human exis-
tence, when they change, radical shifts in individual
values and societalconditions will follow. This VALS
report presentsthe evidencefor the thesis that such a
paradigm shift is under way and explores the poten-
tial consequencesof that change.
Our purpose is to provide a framework for under-
standing one of the most potent forces for change in
our time: a shift in humanity's image of reality and
self. It is so potent becausethose images and beliefs
are the foundations from which human values arise.
Every religious, spiritual, cultural, and political sys-
tem in human history has embedded within it, either
"map" of the nature of
explicitly or implicitly, a
things and what the human role in tlat nature is. It is
not surprising, for example,to find a parallel between
the hierarchical structures of monotlteism,'political
organization based on t}re singular head of state,and
the individual psychological search for singular
identity.
"You c8:r't do just
An old systemstheory axiom states,
one thing." The point is that things change together'
When any aspect of our most basic belief structures is
altered. the other elements of that internal framework
must also adjust.
We find strong evidencethat a number of the under-
pinnings of our basicbeliefsare under challenge'That
.h"tt""g" is coming from a multifacetedrevolution of
the sort that we have experiencedonly a few times in
the course of our civilization's history: the revolution
that began more than a century ago and has gathered
momentum ever since involves as great a change as
the Copernican revolution or the emergenceof t}e
EnlighLnment. We believethat, by a systematicstudy
of thl manifestationsof that revolution, it is possible
to see the pattern of its dimensions and thereby an-
ticipate some of its consequences.
What follows will attempt to cover a Sreat deal of
ground, exploring many different areas of human
thought, inquiry, and actility. With such a scope,one
or two authors run risks of either a lack of depth or a
focus on the trivial at the expenseof the significant, or
both. We hope we have been guilty of neither'
Part I of this report presents a comprehensive sum-
mary of the process,the supporting indications, and
the pattern of the current paradigm shift; it also covers
the implications for business.Part II recapitulatesthe
substance of the analysis in depth' A glossary of
important terms and a bibliography of relevant read-
ings follow Part II.
A number of people played an important role in
helping to clarify our thinking and communication as
*ull at pointing us in useful directions' The authors
want to thank especially Arnold Mitchell, Paul
Hawken, Edward Oshins, Hewitt Crane,Willis
Harman, Walter Hahn, Jon Mclntire, Alan Tryst, Wil-
liam Snow, Donald Michael, Marie Spengler,Thomas
C. Thomas, Michael Murphy, Sam Keen, and Klaus
Krause.
 PART I

Summary and Implications

 STJMMARY

Introduction (2) The essenceof our argument has to do with a

new way of thinking about and perceiving the
The world is round: a true description of reality, but w o r l d a n d o u r s e l v e s .W e m a k e n o c l a i m t h a t w e
once such a statement would have been false, foolish, as authors have begun to think or perceive in
"fish"
and heretical. Our beliefs about what is true and real the new manner. It's somewhat like we
undergo fundamental shifts from time to time. And trying to describe what it will be like when we
w h e n o u r p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h i n g s s h i f t s ,t h e evolve to walk on land.
complex system of human life also shifts. The move-
ment toward a global society can begin only when the
earth shifts from a limited plane to a whirling sphere. Patterns and Processesof a Paradigm
Copernicus and Galileo took the rnotion of celestial
shift
bodiesout of the realm of the gods and brought it over
A civilization's fundamental view of the nature of
to the impersonal forces of nature - nature that could
things has been called t+'orld view, Zeitgeist, epis-
be understood by man. So began an era in which man,
leme, and culturol porodigm. As a convention we will
the individual, was ascendant. lVe created a politics
adopt the term porodigm. Porodigm is rtsed in two
where individual choice was at issue, not the will of
SENSES:
competing gods or divinely endowed kings. We
created a technology applying the comprehensible (1) Paradigm case: an example r re use to teach
and predictable forces of nature. We created an eco- basic concepts, which has a metaphorical na-
nomic system in which individual effort could lead to t u r e ( e . g . ,t h e f a t h e r a s t h e p a r a d i g m f o r a u t h o r -
making real progress rather than being perpetually itv).
locked in a divinely rationalized economic order.
(2) The whole pattern of such metaphors, r'r'hich
"map" of reality
When there are major shifts in the fundamental pat- leads to the internalization of a
tern of knowledge and belief, the whole of the human or a belief system.
condition will also change. Such shifts occur very
infrequently,the last being the Enlightenment in the A p a r a d i g m i n t h e b r o a d e r s e n s ei s t h e l e n s t h r o u g h
seventeenthand eighteenth centuries. We believe that which we see everything.
another such shift is now in progress, signaling a
The role of a paradigm in human affairs is short'n in
major change in human values and beliefs.The indi-
Figure 1. The interactions are undoubtedly far more
cations of such a shift are found in changes occurring
complex than shown. However, a simplified model
in the shared pattern of ideas over a broad range of
can be useful at this point. The model distinguishes
human inquiry, thought, and interest. To anticipate
three levels:
the consequences of a maior shift in the underpin-
nings of human values and beliefs, we must first o The actual - this is the world as it is' including
identify and understand the patterns of that shift in ourselves. There may be many realities or only
and among the various disciplines. one reality, but whatever they are and hou'ever
many there are is encompassed by the actual
A note of caution: What follows is difficult material world.
and will not make for good light reading. It is difficult
for two reasons: o The abstract - this is the level of the paradigm
(both formal and common ideas) which organizes
(r) We cover many disparate disciplines, many of
our understanding of the actual world'
which will be unfamiliar. We have labored to
make them comprehensible; nevertheless, even o T h e h u m a n - w e o u r s e l v e s ;o u r p e r c e p t i o n s , b e -
t o e x p e r t si n t h e v a r i o r t sd i s c i p l i n e s t h e m a t e r i a l liefs, and values.This is the level of the human
would be difficult. experience.
Flgure 1 The Role of Paradlgms In Human Atfalrs

The actualworld
The Actual
. Events
o Ourselvesand others
o Physical world
and spiritual

Common The Abstract

understandings (the level of
Formaldisciplines
(metaphors) the paradigm)
o Physics
o philosophy
o Religion

The Person
o Perception
o Beliefs The Human
e Values
The human experience
To be sure, these levels are not really separable.Hu-
mans are a part of the actual world and abstractions
are a human artifact. For the moment, however,
separating them this waY is useful.
This picture of things is a dynamic model. Physicsor
philosophy, for example, can uncover new facetsof
the actual world or new models for thinking about it.
The formal disciplines createmodels and metaphors
for the way things are. These move out of the formal
d i s c i p l i n et o s h a p eo u r c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n gas n d
often back againto be applied in a new discipline.
The physicist invents the hologram, the concept of
which becomes a part of the vernacular'The brain
theorist comes to understandthe conceptand seesin
the hologram a metaphor for the complex systemof
brain functions, leading to new avenuesof research'
Togetherthese models and metaphorsform a kind of
atlas of mental maps of the actual world. They tell us
what we know about the nature of things - what is
real, what may be false,and what to pay attentionto.
To some extent the maps are taught in school in his-
tory, science,literature,etc. To some extent they are
embedded in our language.To a great extent they
have become a part of our cultural and social systems.
We are rarely conscious of them because they are
usually implicit: paradigms tend to surface mainly
when they are changing.
But formalized knowledge is almost inevitably in-
complete; i.e., the physicist describesmolecules,but
not living beings.For the purposesof each discipline,
this incomplete descriptionis usually adequate'
W h e r e i t i s n o t , a n e w d i s c i p l i n e a r i s e s ,e . g . ,
biophysics. In contrast, the ordinary and common
paradigm is in a senEecomplete.Thereare mysterious
areas,to be sure;but we behaveas if our mental maps
were complete, as if reality were a seamlesswhole.
Yet we know that there are Sapswhere our ordinary
e x p e r i e n c e ss i m p l y d o n o t f i t t h e m o r e f o r m a l
abstractions.This dissonancebetween human experi-
ence and abstraction is an important motivator of
study in the formal disciplines.
In historical terms,until the seventeenthcentury the
Aristotelian model of organic growlh provided for
Western civilization an internally consistent world
view or paradigm. It finally began to crumble under
the onslaught of new ideas, beginning with the publi-
cation of On the Revolution of the Celestiol Spheres
by Copernicus in 1640. Newton, Bacon, Descartes,
Leibnitz, Voltaire, and others carried on into what
"Century of Genius," the En'
became known as the
lightenment, or the Age of Reason- all signifying the
triumph of the human intellect over the natural order.
To be sure, the development of the Enlightenment
was far from a smoothly ordered process. It is doubt-
ful, for example, whether Newton r"'ould have ac-
cepted what quickly came to be knorvn as the Nerrto-
n i a n w o r l d v i e w . B u t t h e r e r . l ' a sa b r o a d p a t t e r n o f
c h a n g e a c r o s st h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e sa n d t h e h u m a n i t i e s
that radically altered the existinS common under-
standing of the nature of things. The most familiar
example is the change from considering the earth as
the center of the universe to seeing it as one celestial
body among many. Ultimately, those new under-
standings were reflected in the human, social,
psychological, religious, political, and economic or-
ders. That era shattered and reformulated Western
civilization's shared pattern of beliefs. On reflection,
that pattern of change may seem like a one-time thing'
But lve shall attempt to demonstrate that such a pat-
tern of change is under way again in the twentieth
century, the old order having been shattered, at least
at the level of formal disciplines, by discoveries in the
sciences and understandings in the humanities'
This time, patterns of change have themselves
changed. Among the greatest of the changes is the
c a p a c i t y t o m a k e j u s t t h i s k i n d o f l e a p : f r o m a s e r i e so f
thoughts about phenomena on one level to an entirely
diffeient level of thought obout those thoughts on the
first level. Not just more and different thoughts on the
first level, but a meta-leap to meta-laws covering the
laws on the first order of generality: thinking about
thinking and knowing.
So, for example, organic change - growth - was the
paradigm or pattern for change for an entire epoch of
science.Aristotle is the chief ideologue of that epoch'
Nonorganic, mechanical change became the domin-
ant pattern for change during the centuries follou'ing
Galileo and Newton. In place of the acorn becoming
an oak, billiard balls, clocks, and pendulums u'ere
taken as models for the orderliness of the cosmos.
Now the pattern is changing once again. Neither the
teleological interpretation of organic growth nor the
causal account of physical mechanism is adequate
any longer. And we know it.
Further, we know that we know it. We know that we
have accomplished a break from our previous
paradigms. We know that there are such things as
paradigms. Before our era,most people didn't think of
themselves as caught within a paradigm. Having
never consciously experienced a shift of paradigms,
the very exislence of paradigms could not be per-
ceived. Now, however, not only do we appear to be on
t h e e d g e o f a n e w p a r a d i g m ,b u t i n a d d i t i o n , w e k n o w
that there ore paradigms. Precisely thot awarenessis
part of the new paradigm, that meta-leap to a self-
reflective stance on all of one's thoughts, and how it
is, finally, that thought thinks about itself.
This appreciation of the importance of the stance or
perspective of the knower or perceiver, this reflection
on the reflector, is uniquely modern. Further, this
reflective capacity evident in a kind of meta-
awareness is intimately linked to the leaps in the
conceptual conlent of scientific and intellectual dis-
ciplines, the discontinuities that are part of the new
paradigm.
Revolution is a modern pattern of change. So is what
Bateson calls deutero-learning, that is, meta-learning,
o r l e a r n i n g t o l e a r n . B a t e s o n ' sc o i r c e p t i s a n a t t e m p t t o
"Aha! experience," the
grasp the discontinuity of the
"revolution" that takes place when one ceases
private
t o r o t e - l e a r n m o r e a n d m o r e c a s e so f a s e r i e s o f e q u a -
tions, for example, and suddenly makes a break-
through to the pattern that not only binds together all
that one has learned, but makes it possible to generate
further members of the series. Although the series
itself may be continuous, the mastery of the pattern of
the series seems to involve a kind of discontinuity, a
jump hom one level to another - a different order of
abstraction.
In our culture, there are three different sequential
patterns: old, current, and emergent. The old pattern
is the Newtonian paradigm that succeeded the Aris-
totelian world view. At the common level, the old
pattern is still dominant' And, for many purposes,
Lven in the formal disciplines the old paradigm is still
valid but in a more limited way. In the formal disci-
pl:nes, the current pattern is a fracturedone, hardly a
pattern at all - more appropriately,the fragmentsof a
pattern.The emergentpattern is for the future; it is the
underpinnings of future valuesand beliefs.Its outline
is becoming visible; and, as the future paradigm be-
gins to take shapein the yearsahead,an understand-
ing of that pattern should aid us in interpreting the
mea.ring of various changesat a societaland indi-
vidual level.
The Support for an Emergent Pattern
In this section we will summarize those fragments in
the variousdisciplinesthat support the ideaof a major
shift in paradigm. We have selectedthese disciplines
becausethe evidence seems strongesthere; however'
we found nothing in our searchthat would contradict
our thesis. Some of the theories we will cile are con-
troversial and not universally accepted; some may
prove to be wrong. This is the perpetual condition at
ihe frontier of knowledge. However, it is the whole
pattern we are seeking;and this does not seemto hang
or utty one idea in one field. For our purposes it
doesnit really matter whether the new paradigm in
physics is more like David Bohm's holomovement'
i<"g"t Penrose's twistors, or David Finkelstein's
quantum logic. They are all pointing in the same
iirection. It is that direction, and its Iinks to
directions in other disciplines, we want to identify'
There are areas where we expected to find evidence
'economics' No
and didn't. Chief among these was
area of human concern seems more fraught with con-
fusion and urgency. The theoretical models no longer
lead to an ability to predict or control the economy' It
may be true, however, that a new economic paradigm
wiil become evident only after the fact' The behavior
of the economy may change,and then in retrospectwe
"discover" the new paradigm' Necessity may
will
outrun concePt.
The evolution in each areawe explored is highlighted
in Table 1.In the following we will briefly summarize
those developments' They are covered in greater
detail in Part trI'
o Physics. At the end of the nineteenth century'
physics seemed to be headed toward a kind of
.l*,lr". All the fundamental problems seemed
 From Tourard
Physics Atomistic Quantummechanical
N{echanical Holographic
Absolutespaceandtime Relativistic
Universality Complementarity
0bjective Indeterminacy
Chemistry Equililrrium(static) Non-equilibrium ( dynamic)
Reductionist Morphogenetic
Entropyincreasing Orderincreasing
Brain Theory Localized"bits" of information
Distributed"tuning"of systenl
Circuitry model Ilolographicmetaphor
Ecology Stableideal Resilience
Closedsystems Symbioticrelationship
Opensystems
Evolution "Random"
mutation Diversity
Survival and conquest Co-evolution
Adaptability
Mathematics Continuousfunctions Mappingdiscontinuities
Quantitativechange Qualitativechange
Philosophy Universaltruth Relationshipsof resemblance
Eternalessence Historicalexistence
Politics Centralhierarchy Pluralism
Authority Legitimacy
Necessity Voluntary and inventive
Psychology Identity Harmony
Individual Transactional
Conquestover the unconscious Integrationof the unconscious
Linguistics Atomistic Structural
Religion Monotheistic Polytheistic
Transcendence Immanence
Consciousness Flierarchical Heterarchical
Arts Itepresentational Abstract
Stable Fluid

solved or close to resolution. The advent of
quantum and relativity theories in the first
quarter of this century fractured that closure
and opened vast new domains for experimen-
tation and theorizing. Today physics is still
very much a wide-open discipline, but it ap-
pearsto be headedtoward a radical new vision
tf physlcal reality.The old vision conceivedof
-u1t". as tiny particles - like miniature bil-
liard balls - pushed around by identifiable
 forces in the unchanging framework of space
and counted out by fixed units of time. Parti-
cles were the fundamentallevel of the universe
out of which everything else could be assem-
bled. We as observerscould stand outside and
objectively study their behavior.
The twentieth century changed all that. First,
we discovered that the nature of the observa-
tion processaffectsthe results.Predictableout-
comes were replaced by indeterminacy and
probability. On the very small (subatomic)
scale,one experimentfound particles,another
found waves; and ever more experiments
seemedto "discover" ever more particles.We
needed complementarywave and particle de.
scriptions for this elusive fundamental level.
On the very large scale, we found space and
time no longer an absolute background. In-
stead, our measurementswere determined by
the relationship between the observer and the
observed,Finally, this confusing picture ap-
pears to be headedtoward I new order, which
relies on an image of the complex interconnec-
tion of all things; indeed,all things are seento
arise from a dimension of the universe that has
so far remained hidden in our theories. The
relationship of this hidden dimension to our
ordinary reality may be analogous to the re-
Iationship of real to imaginary (or complex)
numbers. There is a shift in metaphor hom the
machine-like universe to the hologram-like
universe (seebox on holograms).
Chemistry. Chemistry has dealt largely with
relatively simple and stable subslances.They
are defined well by equationsdescribingclosed
systemsthat tended toward stability (equilib-
rium). The secondlaw of thermodynamicssays
that, left to itself, a closed system tends to
decay toward disorder(entropy).The problem
is that closedsystemsrarely occur in the actual
world; and new, more complex, more highly
ordered substancesare produced fro.m less
h i g h l y o r d e r e d , s i m p l e r s u b s t a n c e s .I l y a
Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in Chemlstry in
7977 for his theory of "dissipative structures."
That theory describeshow complex systems
evolve in an open environment from less order
to more order and from simpler toward more
complex structures.Fluctuations in a system
interact, affecting each other and causing
wholly new structures to arise. The process is
known as morphogenesis. Strict deterministic
causality is replacedby unpredictable innova-
tion arising morphogeneticallythrough mutu-
a l l y c a u s a l i n t e r a c t i o n so f f l u c t u a t i o n s . T o
completely understand something then,
requires knowing its history, which cannot be
completelyknown from its present conditions.
o Broin Theory. The common metaphor for the
brain has becometJrecomputer. Brain cells are
like the circuits and memory core of a com-
puter. There are bits of information stored at a
particular location, retrieved and operated on
by a network of brain circuitry. Research by
Karl Pribramand others suggeststlat instead of
the computer the appropriate metaphor ought
to be the hologram as in physics. Brain func-
tioning and memory are not localized but rather
are distributed throughout the brain. Interac-
tion takes place not like the flow of current
through a circuit but like that of a wave through
a medium. Thus, very complex structures
(thought,rich memories,etc.) can arise through
the very denseand complex wave interactions
rather than statisticalsumming of information
"bits."
o Mothemotics. The primary tool of mailrematics
has been differential calculus. It is useful in
describing phenomena that change smoothly
and continuously. However, the actual world
involves many phenomena - such as the for-
mation of crystals - that undergo discontinu-
ous changesfrom one qualitative condition to
another. Rene Thom, a French mathematician,
has developeda new mathematics,which he
c a l l s " c a t a s t r o p h et h e o r y . " T h e t h e o r y d e -
scribes the processby which one form gives
way to another. The shift in paradigm is the
ability to transcend the limits of continuous,
quantitative change to describe discontinuous
and qualitativechange.
o EcoIoEy.The dominant image of an ecosystem
is that it is stablebecauseit is a closed system;

What ls a Hologram?
Holographyis one ot the key concepts in
lhis n€w paradigm, yct many peoplo hcve
ditficutty undersianding what hologrsms cre
and how they work. The basic principlecan
b€ illustratod by a simple analogy of how
nature slores infomalion holographi€lly.
l m a g i n ey o u h a v e a s h a l l o wp a n o f w a t a r
into which three pebbles are dropped simul-
laneously. Each pebble is the sourc. of
waves spreadingevsnly acrossth6 pan. Tha
waves cross and interccl wilh onc anothor,
creating a complex patlcm celled an inler-
f€renc€ patlem (Drawing A). lf you now
A.
quick-froezethe surfaco of lhc watrt in thr
pan and litt or.rtthe rcsulling ripplcd short of
lce, you are then holdino 8 ccord .f th.
interferonc€pattcm of lhe wavrs. Thir is e
hologram. (Drawing B)
Coherent Light
B.
lf you illuminatelhe shcet of ic. wift r
coherent light source (light of lhe samc lra.
I
"in
qu€ncy, in which ell wav€s 8r€ step" - object. Inlomation can be €licited trom th€
e.g., a las.r) and then look through the air film by illuminating il with the same laser lighl
l o w a r dt h e l i g h t ,y o u w i l l s e s a n i m a g eo l t h e used in making the hologram. As we do that,
three pebblessuspondedin midair,and lhey
look three-dimensbnal!The rippled rce sur-
facr acts as a distodedlens in such a way as
lo locus the light to points taken up by lhe
pGbblesthat havc caused the ripples. Th€
c h a o t i c - l o o k i n igc o s u r f a c e i s a c t u a l l ya
h o l o g r a p h i ci n f o r m a t t o ns l o r a g a d e v i c e .
A m u i n g l y , i l y o u t a k e t h e s h e o to f i c € a n d
b{eak il into small Oieces,and illuminaleon€
of thc cirips,you will again see the image of
all lhrec pobbles prolecledin midair,jusl as D.
each clll in our bodies carries ell ol the
genetic informatjonnecassary to make an
we see the appl€ appear suspended in
additional exad coll of our bodies. Holog-
midair, looking very three-dimensional and
raphy is natur€'s most compact information
real. And because holograms have lh€
s t o r a g ed e v i c e .( D r s w i n gC )
property ot total distributedness, illuminating
any poce of ihe original hologram will pro-
t l t
Coherenl | | duce the entiro image ot the 8pple. (Drawing
Ltoht | ; E)
r i i
t--4
lmaoo lY{"
or eedt,rec/ \zx1 \
/ ,'^, i'r \
c. ,' t/ \\
6 & ' l e
Hrlography is aclualty I m€thod of l6ns-
l.r. th.totraphy In which lhe wave field ol
light scti.rad by sn obiect - 8n appl€, say
- is rrcorded as an inlerferoncepatiom. A
lrsrr lighl bcam is aplitinto two comPononts
by a half-mirror.Thls allowsparl of tho b€em
to continue undislurl,€d while parl ol it is
a.fl.cl.d ta anothor mirror. Both narrow Roconstruclad
Thrre-Dimensonal
belms aro sprcad oPcn by lenses.The un-
E. lmage of the ,{pple
disturbcd bcem, celbd thc referencebeam,
e r r i v o s a t I p h o l o g r a P h i cp l a t e a f t o r a n
.v.ntl.sE tlight, rnd deposils fts imprinl on Th€ imporhnt parl of making a hologra-
th. film. Th. defloctodbeam, called the phic image is the interaclionof lhe roference
worting bcrm, ancounters the obiecl and beam - a beam that is pure and untouched
than is rrflected onto tho film. (DrawingD) ln - with a workingb€am, e b€am that has had
a s.nr., the worklng b€rm tells the reter' some experiences.The magnilude ot thesc
rrrr brrm rboui lts experiencrs wilh thc expericncesis measured against lho reler-
ofecf by crrrling an interfsrenceprttom on ence beam, which serues as e baseline tol
the tilm thtt slorcs Intormrtion aboul the comparison.
, .D.in New Age Magazinc'
D r v e l o p o db y R i c k I n g r a s c i M
 i.e., it has no significant interactions with
external forces. Perturbations in the system are
damped back toward the stableideal' Of course'
trere are no truly closed systems.All bound-
aries in actual ecosystemsare arbitra4r' C. S.
Holling has developed ecological models that
replace the concept of stability with that of re-
silience. lf an ecosystemis adequatelydiverse
and there exist symbiotic(mutuallysupportive)
relationships among the diverse species,then a
system tends to be resilient. The system as a
whole can survive major perturbations,evolv-
ing toward a new condition even though the
numbersof any particularspeciesmay fluctuate
a great deal.
o Evolution. The commonly held image of
evolution is that it occursbecauseof two forces:
random mutation and competition.New pos-
sibilities are introduced by random mutation;
these are then "tested" and the fittest survive.
"chance and
JacquesMonod called the process
necessity." The change in paradigm involves
both aspects.The new view of evolutionrecoS-
nizes that evolution works on individuals with
diversegeneticmaterial.In this view, the diver-
sity among individuals - rather than mutation
- is the source of "richness" in the gene pool
of a species.Mutation merely adds to the rich-
ness. But individuals can also change them-
selves and/or their environment. More impor-
tant than the conquest of one variant over
another or one species over anolher is their
effect on each other - their ability to adapt to
one another. Through mutual adaptation they
evolve together.
o Philosophy. Philosophers since the time of
Plato have searched for eternal truths' Their
search was for universal ideas that lay behind
the seeming confusion of the world. They
searchedfor the essencethat gavesomething its
particular characterand sought to identify the
universal forms that unify our use of words and
concepts.Contemporaryphilosophy has moved
far from those ideals. Philosophy now must
account for history and detail rather than the
permanence of eternity and generality' The
search for essencehas been replaced by an
attempt to understand the meaning and nature
of e*ist".tce. Finally, the universality of forms
"family re-
is replaced by Wittgenstein's
semblances": identity givas way to re-
semblance.Philosophy has become in a sense
democratized,with analysisand specialization
replacing synthesisand insight' Now that the
- " t y s p e c i a l i z e da r e a s o f p h i l o s o p h y h a v e
beguo ti face up to the complexity and ever-
changing nature of the actual world, the disci-
pline" is held together only by the loosest of
family resemblances'
o Psychology. The movement in psychology has
beln astonishingly rapid. The focus in tradi-
tional psychology was on the singular self
attempting to masterthe contrary components
of the ptyih", including the unconscious' The
shift ii toward a mora complex interactive
model. The new paradigm is focused on
achieving a harmony of the many dimensions
of the psyche, not the suppression of any di-
mension. The aim is wholeness rather than
identity. The individual psyche, like t}re or-
g a n i s m i n a n e c o s y s t e m ,i n t e r a c t s w i t h i t s
psychologicalenvironment.These transactions
"r" " p".t of its definition of self. Finally, rather
than conquering the unconscious, tltere is an
attempt to integrateunconsciousprocessesinto
the larger self.
. Politics. The shift in political theory began
with the breakdown of authoritarian and
monarchic structuresof power' They drew their
authority from strength of arms or from the
"divine
necessityof a higher authority, as in the
right" of kings. The shift is away from cen-
tralized hierarchy and toward pluralism' Au-
thority is basedon legitimacy given by the gov-
u r . , " d . F i n a l l y , t h e n e c e s s i t yi m p o s e d b y a
higher order is replaced by a voluntary and
inventive character.We choose to participate'
and part of our participation is creating institu-
tions of politics such as modern bureauGacies'
o Linguistics. Our understandingof the nature of
la.,guagehas undergonea major change in this
century, dating from the work of Saussure'
 Words in themselvesno longer have any intrin-
sic meaning; rather, they are defined by their
location in a context.Thus, words are no longer
seen as "atoms" of meaning. To find meaning,
one needs to focus on the complex inter-
relationships that create a linguistic structure.
Religion. The shift in the nature of spiritual
belief and practice is likely to be among the
most controversial aspects of our argument.
Historically,an important shift took place cen-
t u r i e s a g o w h e n e m p i r i c a l s c i e n c e ,w i t h i t s
focus on the "one truth," took over the role of
metaphysical arbiter from rnonotheisticrelig-
ion. As the metaphysicalrole of science di-
minishes, it is not surprising to see religion
returning to center stage.But we have learned
some things along the way. As the physics we
encounter is a function of our perspectives,so
ale our gods. The current emphasis on toler-
ance (e.g.,VaticanII) is indicativeof a new kind
of polytheism. Along with that, then, comes a
return of the idea of immanence;to know the
spirit requires looking within.
Consciousness.The initial focus on the nature
of consciousnessmore than a century ago rep-
resents an imporiant step. It was an acknowl-
edgment of the fact that consciousnessis not
merely a blank slate, but that its nature affects
our encounter with the world and ourselves.
More recently, especially in split-brain re-
search, we have discoveredthat there may be a
pluralistic structure to human consciousness,
with severalquite different (but partial) systems
in the brain. Thus, rather than a hierarchy of
functions we find a "heterarchy" of guiding
principles. (See box on heterarchy.)
Arts. Modern art is a mirror of contemporary
consciousness. The fundamentalshift is the re-
bellion againstthe conceptof stableform. Thus,
once tlre aim was to present reality in a style
and form that would endure. Now art abstracts
from reality its ever-changing nature. Rather
than immortal works resisting the flow of time,
the style is fluid, anticipating the ever-
changing world and the evanescentmoods of
the artist.
10
These areas of formalized and abstractdevelopment
form the underpinnings of our case for change.The
issue for this analysis is how they will impact our
common understandings of the nature of things. In
the next section we explore how these may be trans-
formed into a pattern of belief.
Patterns of Change
In the following discussion,we attempt to clarify the
pattern that appearsto be unifying these seemingly
disparatethreads.What we seekis the emergentpat-
tern of our common understandingof the natureof the
actual world. Qualities are brought lo that common
understandingfrom the more precise and rigorous
descriptionsof the formal disciplines.Thus, we make
the statement that the world is complex rather than
simple. Physics,chemistry,etc.,teachus about com-
plexity in preciseterms.However,what we wish to do
is relate that complexity to other qualities and then to
explore the implication of that whole pattern.Table 2 i
shows the qualities to be discussedand the disci- I
plines from which they derive. I
There is a difficulty of communication that must be
noted. Describinga quality, which is itself a descrip-
tive term, is very difficutt. How do you describeblue
or big when the meaningful referentsthemselvesare
changing?Thus, a shift in color from blue towardred
is not too difficult, but blue toward big is almost
nonsensical. Not only has there been a shift in the
quality itself, but in its contexl as well. The meaning
of the new descriptionhas changed.We will describe
t h e s h i f t s i n q u a l i t y i n s e q u e n c e ;h o w e v e r , t h e i r
meaning is found in their whole pattern. Table 3
shows this shift in qualities,eachaspectof which is
discussedbelow.
From Simple Toword Complex - The task of most
knowledgeprocesses has beento reducethat which is
studied to its elements and simplest relationships'
Theseare called fundamentalsand basiclaws.F : ma
is an example in physics. Larger,more complex en'
tities are simply the result of adding up the smaller
components. If there are differences,they are taken
care of by averaging.
We can no longer treat the actualr.r'orldas simple'We
have found in physics, chemistry,ecology, linguis'
 Neurophysiologistshave discov-
Heter archy ered that somenets of neuronsare ar-
rangedlike su,'itching ms$/ith
mechaflis
the formal propertiesof the Voters'
paradox. Heterarchical nervousnets
do nothingto destroythe organization
The conceptof heterarchyprovides of the nervoussystemof whichthey are
an alternative to the simple opposition a part. Onthe contrary,heterarchical
betweenorder andchaos.If hlerarchical nervous nets may be precisel-v$/hat
order is rule by one and anarchyis rule distinguishesan lntelligent system
bynone(orby all - it amountstothe same capableof choicesfrom a thoroughly
chaos),then heterarchyis rule by some. predictableautomaton.
The formal definition of hierarchy A fourth exampleof heterarchical
describeswhat we refer to lessformally organizatronmrghtbe drawn from the-
"chain
as a of command"or "pecking ology: the pol)'theistic pantheon of
order",A over B, B over C.Cover D.and Olympiandeities. Zeusmay be first
soon. Further,the formal definition of amongthe godsand goddesses but he
hierarchy stipulates transitivity of lacksthe omnlpotenceof the monothe-
preference or command:ifA is overB and istic Lord of Lords. Within a heter-
B is over C, then A is over C. The archrcalpantheon,even lhe personifl-
distinctivefeatureof heterarchyis the cationof power and authority himseJf
denial of transitivity. The simplest turnsouttobe onepoweramongothers
heterarchical syste
"choices": m is oneconsisting of Lessthan omrupotent,Zeusacts more
three A over B,B over C,and - like a deterrent.Lesspo$/erfulthanall
surprislngly-coverA. theothergodsandgoddesses combined,
he is nonethelesssufficiently po$/erlul
Someexampleswill demonstratethe to keep any one god or goddessform
drfferencesamong heterarchy,hierar- exercisingpretentionsto supremacy.
chy,and anarchy. Takethe srmplegame Zeus'slimited pov/eris not necessarily
of paper, rock, and scissors. Paper a primitlve versionof a moredeveloped
coversrock, rock breaksscissors,scis- monotheidtichierarchy. On the con-
sors cut paper. No one choicealways trary, Zeusmaybe crucialto the main-
wlns; no one choicealwaysloses, The tenanceof the complexityof the pan-
game has invariant rules. It is not theon,Withouthim theOlympianorder
anarchical. yet there is no fixed hrerar- mightyield to the supremacyof one of
chy of one option over both others. the othergods,devolveinto the simpler
form of monotheism,and from there
A second example,the so-called into even less mysterioushierarchies.
Voters' Paradox, has received many In bureaucracy, for example,the aimis
treatments, from Condorcetto Lerr"is to constructa hierarchicaltree of deci-
Carroll. Onegroupof voters prefersA sion proceduresreducingevery deci-
over B and B over C. A secondgroup sion to an essentially unintelligent
prefersB over C and C over A. A third automaticfunction,
prefersCover A and A over B. Whenwe
countthe votes,v'e discovera preference From the formal definition of
for A over B (groups 1 and 3), and a heterachyand the concretecontentsof
preference for B overC(groupsI and2), the four examples,the following fea-
but not a preferencefor A over C. Groups tures of the heterarchical model
2 and 3 prefer C over A. Somepolrtical emerge. Heterarchrcalsystemsex-
theoristshave concludedthat the very hibit patterns of preferencethat are
possibilityof sucha prelerencepattern nontransitive,circular, and complex.
reveals an essentialinconsistencyor Unlike anarchy,heterarchy defines a
lrrationality in the mechanismsof vot- tightty constrainedlimitation on the
ing and majorityrule. Arguingfrom a rangeof possiblechoices.Unlikehier-
positionthat equatesorder with unam- archy,heterarchydoesnot yield up all
biguoushierarchy,they seethe disorder choicesto one ultimatesourceol judg-
of anarchyas the only alternativeto the ment, Heterarchyis thus a modelfor
hierarchy underminedby the Voters' leadershipthat stopsshortof omnipo-
Paradox.A third exarlplewill showwhy tence,and for intelligentchoiceanong
it is unnecessaryto infer anarchyfrom real optionswhoserangestopsshortof
the lack of a clear hterarchv. "anythinggoes."
an anarchic
f l
 zr
I
'sluaredpuerS sluarpar8ur aql are asaql
' l u a u r u o J I A u aa n l l s e J a l u l s ] !
s! lJlt{s IeluatUPPunJ aqJ
il l8q1 ' s u I S n o f , uror; Surql e aleredas o1 alqrssodrut aldteurrd ut st 1t
i,'s1u.," ; o , { 1 r u r e Jp a p u a } x a u e o 1 ' { 1 1 e u t ; 's8urq} asra^IP
ol pue :lf,eralul I{JII{^/'1o 11e ;o pasodu-roc
l8 uarPllql tprrra.,{ltureJ B ol aldnoc Palrreu B
ir pg.r.* aq1 's3urq] Jo arnleu aq] are suals'{s uado
nPIAIpul palelosl uB tuorJ sa^olu auo uaq,v\ '{}rxa1d '.{11sra^lP 'sJIl
roc Eurseanur ar{} aut8eurl
'tua1s.{s xalduor e
;o p,re ',ro,1c"ra1ur } E q t , { 8 o 1 o q c . { s dP u e
uoTSrIau
sJrlsrnSurT
LSoloqcLs6
srrlrJod
Lgdoso1196
scrl?uaql?r\l
uorlnlo,\g
l.3o1org
l,.roeglurz.rg
L.rlsrwaq3
sJrs^r{d
i
e
s b d
r n 1
o s e e S
A a S u r ^ ^
I u l q q l
1 a ^ u J d c r
T B I J E J X
a o l a J e a
d g u 1 3 . r I
s d n a o e d
J J l p l l t u
a o n u o a o
d ' \ I W I H H ]
 DominantParadrgm paradigm
Emergent

From Tovrard

Simple/probabilistic Complexand diverse

Hierarchy Heterarchy

Mechanical Holographic

Determinate Indeterminate

Linearly causal N{utua1ly

causal

Assembly N{orphogenesis

Objective Perspective

:haracleristicsand behaviorof a complex systemare
rot merely the sum of its individual elernents;as
ystems.becomemore complex,they develop unique
lroperties.
'rom
Hierorchy Toword Heterorchy - We find
reterarchyas one of the new conceptsin psychology,
rhilosophy, religion, brain theory, and physics.The
,ld conception of order was hierarchical:there exists
" p e c k i n g o r d e r , " a c h a i n o f c o m m a n d ,h i g h e r -a n d
ower-orderprinciples,and so on. The emergentorder
s heterarchical.There may be vertical orderings,but
here are many on a comparablelevel; there is no one
)erson,principle, or object at the top of everything.
'here
may be many peaks to these pyramids, and
y h i c h o n e c o m e si n t o p l a y a n d i t s r e l a t i o n s h i pt o t h e
thers depend on the situation.
Heterarchy is a shift from the rule by one lo several
rules by some. Today's political syslems of interest
g r o u p s , i n t e r l o c k i n g b u r e a u c r a c i e sa, n d m u l t i n a t i o n a l
companies seem to believe that there is a hierarchy of
power. Yet they, in fact, operate heterarchically,
creating a syslem of mutual constraintsand influence.
The whole system goes not where any one interest
lr'ould take it. Rather than merely a compromise or
a v e r a g eo f a l l t h e i n t e r e s t s , t h e r e i s a m o v e m e n t t h a t i s
unpredictable and different from those of the par-
ticular component interests.
From Mechonicol Toword Hologrophic - The re-
l a t i o n s h i p sa m o n g p a r t s o n c e w e r e f o u n d i n a n a l o g i e s
t o s i m p l e m a c h i n e s s u c h a s t h e l e v e r .F o r e x a m p l e , a n
actor at one end of a lever can lift an object by a
dou'nward push - a very simple process in n'hich
n o t h i n g e l s eh a p p e n s .H o w e v e r , i f t h e a c t u a l w o r l d i s

13
 complex and can be ordered heterarchically,then
such.simplemetaphorsmay be inappropriate.A more
useful metaphormay be the hologram.
With the holographicmetaphorcome severalimpor-
tant attributes.We find that the imagein the hologram
is created by a dynomic processof interaction and
differentation.We find that the information is distri-
buted throughout - that at each point information
aboutthe whole is containedin the part. In this sense,
everytlring is interconnectedlike a vast network of
interferencepatterns,having been generatedby the
s a m e d y n a m i c p r o c e s sa n d c o n t a i n i n gt h e w h o l e i n
the part.
From DeterminoteToword Indeterminote- The suc-
cessof the mechanisticdescriptionof the actualworld
gave I strong foundation to the argument for a deter-
ministic vierv of the world. If the world consists
wholly of particlesand fields of force whose behavior
is mathematicallydescribable, then, given sufficiently
sophisticatedcomputationalabilities,the behaviorof
w h o l e a g g r e g a t i o n s h o u l d b e p r e d i c t a b l e .E v e n i f
calculation is not possiblein practice,the system is
still strictly determined.
Those simplistic notions were laid to rest by Heisen-
b e r g ' sI n d e t e r m i n a c yP r i n c i p l e ,w h i c h t e l l su s t h a t ( 1 )
at a subatomiclevel the future stateof a particle is in
p r i n c i p l e n o t p r e d i c t a b l e ,a n d ( Z ) t h e a c t o f e x -
perimentationto find its statewill itself determinethe
observedstate.Qualitatively,the implication of this is
not that there are no causal linkages between past,
present,and future; rather, in complex systemspos-
sibilities can be known, but preciseoutcomescannot
be predicted.It meansthat ombiguity aboutthe future
is a condition of nature. Not everything is possible,
but among the possibilitieschoicesdo affect the ac-
tual outcomes.There is an analogy here in the shift
from the fixed order of divinely endowedkings to the
voluntary and evolutionary order of democracy.
From Lineor Toword Mutuol Couso.lity- The inde-
terminacy in nature is mirrored in the evolution of
causal models. The simplest causal model is linear;
t h a t i s , a s i m p l e a c t i o n l e a d sa l w a y st o t h e s a m ep r e -
dictable result: push on a chair and it moves every
14
time. Thermodynamics introduced probabilities
causality to describe the averagebehavior of whol
aggregationssuch as a gas.Cyberneticsgaveus f,
back, but with a concentrationon negative f
That means that if A causes B, then B provides
feedbacksignal to A such tbat A changesin a way
reduce or limit the magnitude of B. A heating sy
with a thermostat functions that way. Such a systern
tends toward stability.The new paradigmadds posi.
tive feedback,which meansthat the feedbacksignat
from B affectsA in a fashion such that A tendst
increase B. In the simplest and most negativeforrn
t h a t i s c a l l e d a v i c i o u s c i r c l e . H o r v e v e r , r + ' h e ni t i s o f
mutual benefit for both A and B, then it is like svm.
biosis.Both A and B evolveand changetogether,ea
affecting the other in such a way as to make the d
tinction bet'*'eencauseand effect meaningless.
From Assembly Toward Morphogenesis - Our o
metaphor for change is that of a construction
We have components being assembledaccording to
plan with a predictable outcome. Forms in natu
seem to evolve in a different lvav. There are no
p o n e n t s a n d p l a n s f o r w a v e s , p l a n t s , o r g a l a x i e s .F r
Z w i c k y u s e d t h e t e r m m o r p h o g e n e s i s t o d e s c r i b et
evolution of galactic forms out of the primordi
chaos. It is in the sense of order emerging from di
der that we use it here. If a system is complex
composedof diverse elementsthat interactby mu
ally causal and indeterminate processes - and t
system is open to external inputs, then it can chsn
morphogenetically.A new form, unpredictedby
of its parts, can arise in such a system. The form of
flower cannot be accounted for solely by the form
its component cells. However, not just any form
possible.The componentsconstrain,but they do
determine the exact form; hence, a particular kind
rosemay differ in hue, nirmberof petals,and sizef
other rosesof the same kind r.r'hilestill being
nizable as a rose.
The requirements for morphogenesis are diversilf
o p e n n e s s ,c o m p l e x i t y , m u t u a l c a u s a l i t y ,a n d i
terminacy.When these conditions exist, we havet
ingredientsfor qualitative change.That process
be describedreasonablyrigorously by Rene Thom
catastrophetheory.
 From Objective Toword Perspective - Along with the
Indeterminacy Principle,. the changes in pattern al-
ready identified lead us to one final change. Until this
century, we were taught to believe that the way to
know about the world was to stand outside it some-
h o w a n d o b s e r v e i t o b j e c t i v e l y .W e a s s u m e d t h a t o u r
m e n t a l p r o c e s s e s ,o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l i n s t r u m e n t s , a n d
our disciplines were neutral. But we've discovered
that none of tiese are neutral to the world. Our in-
struments and experiments affect the results, espe-
c i a l l y i n a t o m i c s 1 ' s t e m sa n d h u m a n s y s l e m s . O u r
culture, language, and world view affect u'hat r+'e
p e r c e i v e a n d r , r ' h a tu ' e d o n o t . F i n a l l y , t h e e v o l u t i o n o f
paradigms in disciplines such as physics shows that
the disciplines themselves are not neutral to the
world.
If objectivity is an illusion, is subjectivity the only
alternative? We suggest that perspective is a more
useful concept. ferspective connotes a vierv at a dis-
tance from a particular focus. Where we look from
affects what we see.This means that any one focus of
observation gives only a partial result; no single dis-
cipline ever gives a complete picture. A whole picture
is an image generated morphogenetically from multi-
ple perspectives.
Yet knowledge requires more than an image. But if
knowledge is not merely the sum of objective facts,
what is it? Following the same logic as above, knowl-
e d g e m a y r e q u i r e e n g a g e m e n t .I n l i n g u i s t i c s w e f o u n d
that the meaning of a word comes from its use in
context; similarly, in ecology we must view the or-
ganism in its environment. To know something
requires engagement with it so that it is seen in the
contexl of our own concerns, and multiple perspec-
lives so that we are not blinded bv our own biases.
This acknowledgment of the inescapability of
perspective is very different from the attempt to gain
objectivity by abstracting from all perspectives.
A further consequence of this shift in our process of
knowing is that the concept of reality itself changes.
There may, indeed, be an ultimate reality. However,
every time we try to discover r+'hat it is, our efforts
"absolute"
w i l l b e p a r t i a l . T h u s w e s e ea s h i f t f r o m t h e
"right" method toward a plur-
truth discovered by the
ality of kinds of knowledge explored by a multiplicity
of methods.
The New Melophor - The total pattern of change is
someu,hat like a change in melaphor from reality as a
machine toward reality as a conscious organism.
Machines are mechanical and relatively simple. They
are organized hierarchically from components, and
they function linearly and predictably. We can stand
outside them and study them.
A conscious being - say, a human being - is very
complex and unpredictable. People behave one way
now and a different way later.When they change, they
often change suddenly. They are internally intercon-
nected, consisting of many complex subsyslems.They
are externally interconnected with other people and
the world around them. When people interact they
affect each aother. Becauseof this complexity of in-
teraction, people don't always see the same things;
t h e y h a v e u n i q u e p e s p e c t i v e s .I n t h e s a m e r + ' a y , t h e
emergent paradigm of the actual world is complex,
holographic, heterarchical, indeterminate, mutually
causal, morphogenetic, and perspectival. The shift in
metaphor is from the machine to the human being. We
are like the world we see.
15
 IMPLICATIONS

In this section we want to draw out the implications of
t):e multi-facet'edrevolution summarizedin the pre-
r ious section. We will first briefly examine certain
rnechanisms of change. Then we will apply those
mechanismsto individuals, society,politics, science
and technology,and finally business'With respectto
btisiness,we are interestedboth in the direct impacts
and in those impacts that arise from changesin the
other categoriesof imPact.
the basis for man's existence,a new set of principles
for ordering society, the entirely new phenomena of
empirical ,.i".,"" and its handmaiden technology'
new language,new vistas of possibility for human-
of
kind, ani th-eidea of progressitself' Over the span
re-
two centuries these forces translatedthe abstract
will
v o l u t i o n i n t o a c o n c r e t eo n e ' S i m i l a r f o r c e s
translatethe current largely intellectual revolution
into an aclual human transformation'

We can expect that new belief s1'stems will integrate

more traditional be-
or. .r.t.r".,tunderstandingsrt'ith
N e w m e l a p h o r w
s ill
l i e f sa n d l e a d t o v a l u e c h a n g e s '
afresh' Nevv con-
permit approaching old problems
issues
ceptswili permit a similar reexaminationof old
as well ai opening new avenues o f i n q u i r y ' New
Mechanisms of Change categoriesu.ti .tl"t of evidencewill permit attention
largely
The foregoing analysis suggeststhat there is a com- ir "ip".,t of life that have been excluded or
permit dis-
mon patlern Lf de.'"lopment in diverse areasof in- ignored in the past. New languagewill
New or-
quiry. That pattern can be called a shift in paradigm' .I.arr" about heretoforeunnameableideas'
of new
the lvolution of new conceptualmaps, a change in g"niri.,g principles will permit a diversity
world view, or other similar phrases'We must now Io.-, of structure in human systems'New expecta-
The
addressthe question of how such a conceptual and tions and constraintswill motivatenew actions'
formal revolution translates into effects on human new science,of course,will lead to ne'"t'technologies'
lives. which will have their own imPact'
these
We suggest that it is not much of an exaggerationto It is not possible to say precisely how long
forces*lil take to make concrete t h e i n t e l l e ctual
consid*eithis change akin in kind, diversity' and certainly be
magnitude to the emergenceof the Enlightenmentin- transformationalreadyin progress'It will
the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies'The heart of lessthantheseveralcenturiesoftheEnlightenment.
of the
man's happiness For one thing, we are not at the beginning
the Enlightenmentwas the idea that "right to the
would result from the application of reason"to revolution, but probably somewhere closer
the human, spiritual, and natural order' Rather than -iap"i",, where'the effectsof the formal disciplines
to be-rapid
being in the ha.,ds of God alone, man was by dint of on the common understandingare likely
process is also facilitated by a
up toward and exte.tsive'The
his intellect capable of pulling himself revolu-
worldwide .orrrrn,rni.ution and information
some higher state' As in the present,the revolution education in contemporary
tion, the high levels of
was multifaceted. The Enlightenment is associated born of
with such names as Bacon, Descartes'Galileo' New- advancedsocieties,and the motive to change
of our era' It is'
ton, Wesley, Voltaire, Rousseau,Locke, Hume' Kant' the dissatisfactionsand problems
-Smith. less t h a n t h r e e d e c ades
and Adam At its rootsthe Enlightenmentwas a f ".hupr, indicative thai coioni-
;*ot;O irom the end of World War II' when
profound intellectual transformation,and few would the death
utir- ,topped being an acceptableidea' to
deny that our presenteconomic,social,political' and ours
of ce.,tur^ies-oldcolonial empires' Furlhermore'
tecinological trder are a direct result of that trans- t o r a pid
formation. To be sure, there were other factorsat work i s a t i m e t h a t i s b e c o m i n ga c c u s t o m e d
change.Theseargumentssug!estthat this intellectual
as well, but the pattern that we label the Enlighten- im'
,"uol"utionwill have its profound and multifold
ment shatteredand reformulatednearly every aspect
society fu, -ore rapidly than many people
of human existence.Out of that comple;<-of changes ;;.i;-""
might expect'
emergednew definitions of meaning, a new senseof

16

The Individual
pattern
At the level of the individual, this shifting
occur
may have a number of effects, which can
through several mechanisms. To those people for
r,r'hom personal change is already a part of life, the
cmergent pattern will provide new maps, models,
nrelaphors, and qualities. Another mechanism is the
educational system, which has an implicit image of
the goals of individual development. It can be ex-
pected that the definition of the desirable qualities to
Le developed through educationwill be enriched. As
people change,they, in turn, may become models for
others. Finally, as belief systems shift on the basis of
the emergent pattern, we can expect still more perva-
sive changes to occur.
The qualities of knowing, we have suggested,include
the need for perspective,a quality of receptivity and
engagement, and a recognition of the partiality of
knowledge. Knowing in the current paradigm, which
holds that we are dealing with an objective world
being understood through a neutral instrumentality,
requires no knowledge of self. In the emergent pat-
tern, knowing anything at all about the world does
require knowledge of self. That is, knowing requires:
o An identification of the multiple loci of our
perspective, i.e., the psychological locations
from which we view and interpret the u'orld.
o An understanding of the process by which we
participate in the world - i.e., how we affect
others and the world around us - vvhich
facilitates the qualities of receptivity and en-
gagement.
o A definition of the boundaries of our partial
knowledge, i.e.,not overextending the reason-
able application of any set of understandings.
Some contemporary psychotherapeutic modes, such
a s p s y c h o s y n t h e s i s ,u s e a m o d e l t h a t c a n b e h e l p f u l ,
T h e i d e a i s t h a t w e b e h a v ea s i f w e w e r e c o m p o s e d o f
a s e t o f s u b p e r s o n a l i t i e s .E a c h s u b p e r s o n a l i t y h a s
some particular identifiable characteristics, which
come to dominate our behavior in a particular situa-
tion; i.e., we behave as if we were only this sr.rbper-
sonality. The reader will undoubtedly recognize the
feeling of being aware that you are behaving in some
way that you don't like. The self controlling the be-
havior is the subpersonality, while the self that is
watching is a much larger self encompassing that
particular subpersonality. The process of withdraw-
ing control from that subpersonality to the larger,
m o r e c o m p l e x s e l f i s t h e p r o c e s so f d i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n '
i.e., no longer identifying with the narrow interests of
the subpersonality.
The process of self-knowledgeinvolved with the em-
ergent paradigm is akin to this model. It entails, first,
the recognition of the many dimensions of the self;
r a t h e r t h a n t h e s i m p l e h i e r a r c h i c a lm o d e l o f a s u p -
reme self, we see a larger, more complcx community
of selves. There is, for example, the instance of the
scientist who, by his or her ability to strip away the
filters of bias, can uncover a remarkable new insight'
However, that same scientist, because of his or her
security needs, might behave with an almost unbe-
lievable degree of bias when faced with the con-
t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s o f a c o l l e a g u e .I n o n e i n s t a n c e , i t i s
the
"scientist" subpersonality that is dominant, while
"hurt little child'" The
in the other it may be the
psychological process in the individual that corres-
-
p o n d s t o t h e k n o r t ' l e d g e p r o c e s si s d i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
teing both the scientist and the larger, m o r e c o m p l e x
community; denying neither and accepting b o t h ' I n
b e s e e n a s
terms of the VALS typology, this can
movement toward the Integrated stage.
Such a model of the psyche requires that we confront
anew the problem of ethical judgments. Hovv can we
deal u,ith good and evil? By acknowledging the mul-
tiple selves, have we slipped into an ethical abyss?
Erich Neumann, in his remarkable little book Depth
Psychology ond o New Ethic, deals with this question
most eloquently:
In the new ethical situalion, ego-consciousness
b e c o m e tsh e l o c u so f r e s p o n s i b i l i tfyo r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l
L e a g u eo f N a t i o n s t, o w h i c h v a r i o u sS r o u p so I s t a t e s
b e l o n g ,p r i m i t i v e a n d p r e h u m a na s w e l l a s d i f f e r e n -
t i a t e da n d m o d e r n ,a n d i n w h i c h a t h e i s t i ca n d r e l i -
g i o u s , i n s t i n c l i v e a n d s p i r i t u a l , d e s t r u c t i v ea n d
in varying
c o n s t r u c t i v ee l e m e n t sa r e r e p r e s e n l e d
d e g r e e sa n d c o e x i s tw i t h e a c ho t h e r .
A l l t h e s eS r g u p so f f o r c e sm u s tb e t a k e ni n t o c o n s i d e r -
a t i o n .s i n c eh e r e .a s i n t h e c o l l e c t i v lei f e o f n a t i o n s '
s u p p r e s s i o no r r e p r e s s i o nl e a d s t o h o s t i l er e a c t i o n s
17
 which dieturb the life of the whole community and trivial; but most individuals do mature, havipg
keep it in a state of continual unrest. worked through their childish fantasies.One can ex-
pect that, as a result, people will undergo more he'
The principal requirement of the new elhic is not that
"good," quent and more divergent changes in the major as-
the individual should be but that he should be pects of their lives (e.g.,careers,lifestyles).Fur.her,
psychologically autonomous - that is to say, healthy
this diversity and unpredictability may tend to pro-
and produclive, and yet at the same time not psycho-
duce obvious inconsistencies in people'slives - for
logically infectious. And the aulonomy of the ethical
p e r s o n a l i t y m e a n s e s s e n t i a l l yt h a t t h e a s s i m i l a t i o n example,living conventionallyin most respects,but
a n d u s e o f t h e n e g a t i v e f o r c e st o b e f o u n d i n e v e r y p s y - v e r y u n c o n v e n t i o n a l l yi n s o m e p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t .
c h i c s y s t e m t a k e s p l a c e a s f a r a s p o s s i b l ec o n s c i o u s l y , Cultivating that Iimited eccentricity may becometho
w i t h i n t h e p r o c e s s o f s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n I. n f a c t , t h e c e n - norm.
t r a l h a p p e n i n g i n t h e p r o c e s so f i n d i v i d u a l i o n i s p r e -
cisely the way in which the ego takes part in this There are two second-orderconsequencesof these
transformation of the personality,by acting, suffer- behavioralchanges.First, interpersonalcommunica-
i n g , s h a p i n g a n d b e i n g o v e r w h e l m e da t t h e s a m et i m e ' tion may becomemore difficult. Though presumably
U n d e r t h e o l d e t h i c , i t w a s a f r e q u e n t ,i f n o t a r e g u l a r ,
"ethical" the qualities of reflection will enhancepeople's abil-
occurrencethat a strong personality did not
ity to communicate,the gulf betweenindividualsmay
live out his own negative drives, but projected them
forcibly on to the weak spots in the environment, so
tend to widen. If we becomemore diverse,sharingour
t h a t t h e n e g a t i v e s u p p r e s s e d a n d r e p r e s s e dc o n t e n t s experience of the world will take greater effort, as
had to work themselves out by compensationin hie today it takes considerableeffort for an American and
immediate surroundings (the family or the collective), a Japaneseto trulY communicate.
"repressor"
without the p e r s o n a l i t yh a v i n g t h e s l i g h t -
est n o t i o n of his m o r al responsibility for these A second consequencehas been suggestedby |on
phenomena. M c l n t i r e . I n t h i s i n c r e a s i n g l ya m b i g u o u s s o c i a l
milieu, we are likely to seean increasingrelianceon
formality in manners and style, which becomesa
This leads us, then, to another emergent attribute of shortcutway to communicatecomplex ideas'Perhaps
individuals. The psychological model we are de- an analogy can be drawn to medieval Japan'In that
scribing here is heterarchicaland decentralized.As society,a very rich and complex inner life n'as not
noted earlier, complex systemsthat have these prop- masked but was communicatedby a set of highly
e r t i e s t e n d t o c h a n g e m o r p h o g e n e t i c a l l y 'S u c h a stylized gestures,rituals, dress, and language'The
change process will tend to produce more diverse ideal was to say a greatdeal with a minimum of effort'
personalitytypes among individuals and less predic-
tability within any one individual. The diversity will The new physicsleadsus lessdirectly to further con-
come from the complex interplay of the various di- ,"q.r"t."i for the individual. The consequences of the
new physics are indirect, not only because the find'
mensions of self, reaching somenew accommodation
among them, rather than repressionto conform to a ings of the physicists are far away from our everyday
limited set of socially defined norms' Perhaps the concerns; more profoundly, the new physics chal'
complexity of the VALS typology,with its peak in the lenges our commonsenseconcepts of consequence
Integrated level is, in part, a manifestationof this and individuality. So when we ask how the new
processalready at work at the unconsciouslevel. physicshas consequences for the individual, the new
physicsanswerswith findings that challengethe very
That same reduction or repressionwill also decrease terms of the question.
individual predictability.As amongthe community of
nations, there is a continuing processof negotiation Of course,a person is not an atom, and the causal
among the various "selves," leading to new condi- efficacyof one person'sshoving another will not be
tions. To be sure,the first expressionsof this multi- altered in the least by even tlie most fundamental
plicity in an individual are likely to be infantile and revolution in the physics of microparticles' But the

18
 way we think about causality and individuality - the a middle-class and upper-middle-class society. (-fhere
paradigmatic models wq employ in our imaginative are many exceptions, of course; we are not a fully
reconstructions of the order of things - are heavily homogeneous society). As people begin to discover
influenced by the physics of the last four centuries, their own internal sources of differentiation, old and
And as we think, so do we act. new differences are likely to arise in their relation-
ships to others. This will only add to the ethnic, cul-
We stress these caveats against inferring simple tural, and gender identification that has begun to
c a u s a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e n e w p h y s i c s b e c a u s e ,f o l - grow in recent years. At its extremes this process of
lowing the old paradigm, we might be inclined to differentiation may produce more cults of the sorl we
regard physics as providing the most basic causal have seenarise recently. In the vast middle, however,
account of everything. According io Bacon and De- it is more likely to take the form of some conscious
s c a r t e s ,t h e b e s t m e t h o d o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n y t h i n g i s a s s o c i a t i o nw i t h o t h e r s i n a ' * ' a y t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e st h e
t o a n a l y z e i t i n t o i t s s m a l l e s tp a r t s , u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r group from the perceived historic norm. Various
behaviors, then reconstruct the behavior of the r+'hole forums for this behavior could include religion, inter-
as a sum of the behaviors of its atomic elements. The est groups, unusual adventures,and so on. All express
a s s u m p t i o n s g u i d i n g t h e p r a c t i c eo f B a c o n i a n s c i e n c e the same underlying desire to reinforce the self-image
also served a metaphysical role, guaranteeing to of uniqueness.
physics the role of ultimate arbiter of reality. The new
physics challenges precisely the analy.tic, atomistic The current revolution in architecture is indicative of
approach at the heart of the Baconian method. It this movement toward diversity and expression of
therefore challenges the very assumption that would human qualities. The skylines of American cities for
take the smallest atomic elements as the most basic the last several decades have been the result of a
constituents of our explanations. The new physics particular design philosophy. It emphasized a rigid
abdicates the metaphysical throne occupied by the set of ideals best captured by the simple lines of the
old physics. By vindicating holism over atomism, the vertical boxes of Mies van der Rohe. The new design
new physics suggests that the theory of atoms - t u r n s a r + ' a yf r o m r i g i d i d e a l s a l t o g e t h e r , b u t n o t t o -
physics itself - can no Ionger serve as the theory of ward the extreme of eclecticism without principle.
ultimate reality. Rather, it attempts to draw from a wide reservoir of
design tools, including our past, existing designs,
Metaphysicians and theologians of every school will new materials and construction methods. and ideal
undoubtedly find much to ponder and debate in the visions of human possibility. Newsweek writer
new physics. That debate and its secular repercus- "The
Douglas Davis put it this way recently: moder-
sions will almost certainly have a profound effect on nist masters believed they were building an entirely
the spiritual life of humankind. If alienation was the ner+' society - clean, rational, efficient. Now for the
c o n s e q u e n c eo f p e r c e i v i n g t h e u n i v e r s e a s a m a c h i n e , f i r s t t i m e i n d e c a d e s ,t h e a r c h i t e c t i s a l l o w i n g h i m s e l f
perhaps comfort will be the result of perceiving the to play a more limited - a more human role."
universe as a vast network, Iike a living organism of
which we are a part, there being in each of us an That diversity which can be a positive force in design
impression of that boundless whole, which in turn m a y h a v e i t s n e g a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e sa s w e l l . P e r h a p s
bears the mark of our singular existence. t h e l e a s t s i g n i f i c a n t , b u t a n n o y i n g n e v e r t h e l e s s ,w i l l
be the conflicts that arise as neighborhoods and com-
munities that have come to expect a bland kind of
Society h o m o g e n e i t y i n d e s i g n a r e a s s a u l t e db y t h i s n e w d i -
The diversity suggestedat the individual level will be v e r s i t y . M o r e i m p o r t a n t w i l l b e t h e c o n f l i c t s t h a t a r i s e
mirrored at a social level. The past severaldecades o u t o f t h e n e w d i v e r s i t y i t s e l f , a n d t h e c o n f l i c t o f t h e
have been a time of rapid homogenizationin this n e w o r d e r w i t h t h e o l d . T h a t c o n f l i c t a r i s e sn o t m e r e l y
country. Regional,cultural,and economicdifferences b e c a u s e o f d i f f e r i n g i n t e r e s t s , b u t o u t o f a d i f f e r e n t
have diminished as economicprosperityhas made us v i e w o f r e a l i t y i t s e l f . T h e k i n d s o f s o c i a l t r o u b l e s

19
 essociatedwith the lifestyle differencesof the 1960s
are perhaps indicative of the difficulties of coping
ruith this kind of conflict. The entire fabric of a per-
son'sexistenceis sometimesat stake;hencethe inten-
sity of the struggle.Current issuesover homosexual
and women's rights are a further indication of this
difficulty. To a true believer, homosexualityis evil
itself.To many others,it is merelya matterof a choice
that is little more value-ladenthan careerpreference'
In the long run, the emergentparadigmmay produce
a n e n h a n c e dc a p a c i t yt o c o p e w i t h s u c h c o n f l i c t s
- f r o m n a t u r a l o r t r a n s c e n d e n to r d e r t o l e g i t i m a c y
even to celebratethe diversitythat is their basis ln the
short run, however,it is far more likely that the forces
for conflict will be more powerful. \{e can expect at
least the next couple of decadesto be a time of social
turbulence and confusion, althoughto be sure, there
will be periods of relative calm. The major social
institutions, such as the family, are alreadyundergo-
ing profound change; and in the face of this newly
emeigent force, there is every reason to believe that
the foundations of our social existencewill be rocked
still further. It would not be surprising to see many
people retreatingto smaller life worlds - people try-
ing to carye out tolerablespacesin what must seeman
inireasingly alien, complex, and confusing social
system. An aspect of the movement toward voluntary
s i m p l i c i t y c a n b e s e e n a s c o n s i s t e n tw i t h t h i s
phenomenon.
On a more positive note, one can see increasing
acknowledgment of the partiality of knowledge and
the need foi engagement.'Professionalism is founded
on the notion tliat the professionalstandsat the top of
his field, masterof all he surveys.Yet in our complex
world the professional comes to cover a shrinking
domain "t ih" need for specializationSrows' Further,
the more seniorand hencetheoreticallymore adepthe
gets, the less engagedwith the practiceof his disci-
rarely
flin" he usually ii. fne medical fund-raiser
i " " t " p a t i e n t ;t h e c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n h
t a s n o t i m e to
teach. As a result, we see the rise of the paraprofes-
sional, first in medicine, then in law, and now
s p r e a d i n g t o o t h e r a r e a s .T h e m o v e m e n t t o w a r d
p".uptof"isionals seemsconsistentwith the emergent
view. Poro connotesin its original form both
"beside"
"against."
and Thus, this movement can -be seen as
workin! with the existing system to use the strength
20
of its expertise,as well as being posed againstthe
excessof a rigidly hierarchicalsystem'
Politics
The political implications of this revolution are a
public mirror of the individual and socialtransforma'
iior,r. Politics is the tool we have createdto mediate
the relationshipsamong people'As was noted in the
political theory section,the basicchangein the nature
of politics has been a move from authority derived
granted by voluntary association'
The "system" of giant public and private institutions
has largely replacedthe hierarchy based on natural
order. The institutions are treated as legitimatebe'
cause they are there; and part of their contemporary
function is to survive' even though their original
functions have become obsolete'Both recenttax re'
volts and the huge liability awards againstcorpors'
tions can be seen as reassertionsof the legitimating
power of free citizens.If our suggestionsabout per-
sonal and social plurality and decentralizationhave
any merit, then we can expectthis emergentpolitical
force to grow' The division here is not betu'eenthe
traditional right and left but between those of either
the right or ieft who would use centralizedinstitu'
tions, privare or public, to carry out their social'eco'
nomic, technological,or political goalsand thosen'ho
would withdraw as much authority as possiblefrom
those same institutions.To some extent this division
is a characteristicof the two elites discussedin ani
earlier VALS rePort.
I
toward
The scaleof today's institutions tends to work
I
n a t i o n a lh o m o g e n e i t yT. h e s a m es o l u t i o n t o a . s o c i si l
problem is implemented in urban Boston 1nd.l:tt'l
i.ito.,a despiie the geographicand historic-differ'l
ences between the two areas;supermarketsall over;
the country display almost identical arra)'s"l qtil
d u c t s . O n e p o s s i b l ee x p l a n a t i o nf o r t o d a y ' s - P o l i t i c a t ;
climate is that people are trying to push back.thel
"big system" that has encroacheol
boundariesof the
on their lives from every direction' As the forces.oll
Del
personaland social differentiationgror't"thev can
expected to add strength to the mo-t'e-ment t]ttt,lll
take tnal
evident. In its early stages this is likely to
I
I
I
II
form of a kind of simplistic localism and cynicism
toward the political system. In the end a new balance
will be struck. How long that will take is unclear.
Several aspects of the emergent paradigm may contri-
bute loward accelerating that new balance. As the
a l r e a d y g r o w i n g a \ ^ ' a r e n e s so f o u r i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s s
a n d h e n c e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e i n c r e a s e s ,w e c a n e x p e c t
two parallel developments. One will focus on the
need to span arbitrary boundaries to solve critical
problems. The development of regional special dis-
t r i c t s f o r e n v i r o n m e n t , s e w a g e ,r v a t e r ,a n d t r a n s p o r t a -
t i o n i s a n e x a m p l e .T h e s e c o n d i s a n i n t e r n a l i z i n g i n t o
d e c i s i o n s o f t h o s e a s p e c t st h a t h a v e l o n g b e e n c o n s i -
dered externals and hence ignored. Recent moves to
constrain industrial pollution are examples of this
process. Learning to both recognize and comprehend
the multiplicity of perspectives, rather than merely
interests involved in most major decisions,may aid us
in reaching speedy and equitable decisions. Until
these compensating forces become significant, how-
e v e r , w e a r e l i k e l y t o s e e p a r a l y ' s i sa n d d i v i s i o n i n t h e
political system increasefor some time to come. That
paralysis can only contribute to a further erosion of
legitimacy and to greater cynicism as the political
system remains ineffective in solving the many prob-
lems of our society. The central institutions of power,
whether U.S. or corporate presidents, have already
had their real power greatly diminished by the com-
plexity of the system. Now, almost as a matter of faith,
when people withdraw their support, the balance of
power can be expected to shift again toward the indi-
vidual.
Science and Technology
Until very recently, the most remarkable achieve-
ments of science and technology were big and bigger:
tall buildings, awesomebridges,bigger planes,giant
l a n k e r s , a n d a v a s t s 1 ' s t e mo f i n t e r s t a t e h i g h w a y s ' Y e t
a recent SRI report indicates lhat large-scale
technological projects (LSTPs) are becoming in-
creasingly difficult to launch. This is no accident.
Like the dinosaurs, LSTPs are suffering from an
evolutionary alteration in the ecology of modern soci-
ety. Their sheer size seems to be less an assetthan a
liability in our changing environment, in which we
see a shift toward small but smart in place of big and
dumb.
Miniaturization in the computer industry is both an
example of and a stimulant toward decentralization in
science and technology. Advances in microcircuitry
"smart terminals" take over more of the tasks that
let
used to be performed by centralized management in-
f r - r r m a t i o ns y s t e m s . T h e n e w D i s t r i b u t e d S y s t e m s a p -
proach to information processing permits other in-
dustries to move from a model of hierarchically cen-
tralized command tolvard heterarchical communica-
t i o n . T h a t m o v e m e n t f a c i l i t a t e s a f r . r r t h e rp r o l i f e r a t i o n
and development of nevr' (and old) technologies' In
different geographical locations and in fields as vari-
o u s a s m i n i n g a n d e d u c a t i o n , t h e r e s o u r c e so f a s i n g l e
corporation can support the in-place development of
technologies adapted to unique conditions. As we
face limitations on our natural resources, it makes
sense to forego the sometimes wasteful imposition of
uniform proceduresin favor of support for indigenous
technological resourcefulness.
Information processing provides the most dramatic
example of miniaturization leading to decentraliza-
tion, bul the computing revolution is not an isolated
case. Other scientific advances have generated
technologies that reflect a trend toward smaller rather
than bigger as an ini.lex of progress. For example,
scientific research led to new methods of steel pro-
duction that no longer require giant Bessemer con-
verters for maximum efficiencY.
Within science itself the new paradigm finds support
in the form of a new sense about the nature of scien-
tific research and discovery. Whereas the old
p a r a d i g m s t r e s s e da c o n t i n u o u s a p p r o a c h t o r ' l ' a r d o b -
jective truths quite independent of the human mind,
the new paradigm reflects a reciprocal involvement
between the knower and the known, the importance
of the knower's perspective, and consequently a
l i k e l i h o o d o f s h a r p d i s c o n t i n u i t i e sb e t w e e n s c i e n t i f i c
truths. The scope of this change is suggested in the
title of Thomas Kuhn's influential book The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions. This new sense about the
nature of scientific progressamounts to a Reformation
in rt'hat had'been the Holy Scientific Empire. One
recent philosopher of science goes so far as to suggest
2'|
 anarchy as the most fruitful guide for scientific re-
search. Try.anything, says Paul Feyerabendin his
book Agoinst Method. The conceptof paradigmshifts
opens up the possibility of an almost limitless prolif-
eration of researchprograms based on widely differ-
ing assumptions.
Scientific research,of course,takes money. A limited
economy will no more support just any hare-brained
proposalthin a limited ecologywill support just any
mutant species.So the matter of human choice be-
comes all the more important.If the ner.r'paradigmof
k n o w i n g c h a l l e n g e st h e s i m p l e a s s u m p t i o no f a c l e a r
dichotomy between the subjectiveand the objective,
then the old ideal of disinterestedsciencecomesinto
question. All knowledge is ultimately interested
knowledge,however much we may agreeto condemn
the individual researcherwho fudges his results in
the interestsof making his experimentcomeout right.
The interestsof humanity in general are at stake in
what is to count as "objective" knowledge.Likewise,
the interestsof humanity in general are at stake in
"lf
contestinga "technologicalimperative" that says,
it con be done,do it!" In place of disinterestedscience
and the old technological imperative, the new
paradigm suggestsa scienceas if people really mat-
tered, and an increasingpreoccupationwith approp-
riate technology.
Many of the trends mentioned so far are dramatically
evident in the realm of health care. In place of the
top-down, doctor-to-patient,expert-to-objectmanner
of current medicii're,the new direction emphasizes
the active role of the patient in prevention and heal-
ing. New and widely differing modalities of response
to illness need not all be quackery. To the contrary,
even some of the experts are beginning to acknowl-
edge that the guiding assumptionsbehind millions of
dollars of cancer researchmay have been mistaken,
namely, the old paradigm assumptionof a single
causethat might be conqueredwith the discoveryof a
single miracle drug. This "magic bullet" approachto
the cure of cancer may give way to a holistic health
model involving the recognition of a multiplicity of
causal conditions from nutrition and air quality to
charactertypes and levels of stress.At this point, of
course,no one knows. For our purposesit -is enough
to note that no one knows, and that the assumptions
22
guiding the researchat the edgesof our ignorance
themselves changing.
Business i
As individuals, society, government, science,and
technology adapt to the emergent world view, the
impacts on businessare likely to be extensiveandi
profound. It is the thesisof this report that the intel.l
lectual revolution we are in the midst of is one of t-he;
m o s t p o t e n t c u r r e n t f o r c e sf o r s h a p i n g t h e f u t u r e .
l n d b u s i n e s se n v i r o n m e n tW
s o c i e t aa . e c a ns p e c u l a t e '
here on the characterof the impact of that force on
business.It is likely, however,that we will not foresee
even some of the most significant of those impacts..
Taking to heartthe conceptof mutual causality,many
of the impacts will be a result of the responseof,
businessto theseemergentqualities.Obviously,there'
will be many surprisingand unpredictableaspectsto
that response.
Management
The changingpicture of causalitymay have oneof the
m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g i m p a c t s o n c o r p o r a t el i f e ' T h e
executiveat every level is the basic model for corpo"
rate life. In the model of the executive there is an
implied commandand controlhierarchy.That control
is the exerciseof hypotheticalpower, both insideand
outside the corporation,Yet if one were to ask seniot,
executiveswhether they feel powerful, most wouldj
"no." More and more a complex of,
probably reply
constraintsrestrainsthe dimensionsof their control.Ifl
power is the ability to carry out intention.,i.e.,.having'
your intentions realized, then power is an increas'i
ingly elusive phenomenon.Perhaps.wemight do ber-i
ter"to speak of impacts.A decision may indeedpro-i
duce quite noticeableresults, but these often have
little to do with what was intended.Ratherthan con';
trol or power, it may be more useful in the emergent.
conlextto focuson the conceptof influence.Influence
c o n n o t e s a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f c a u s e sf o r a n 1 'd e s i r e d
effect.The successfulexecutivemay be the one who
has the sensitivity to identify that multiplicity of
forces,and then, like the adept at aikido, helps guide
those forces into a more desirableoutcome'The old
paradigm focuseson suPpressingor resistingthose'
ior.", io ac.o-plish the aim of control. In a simpler
world, that mav have been
possible. Now, influencing zation's behavior so as to realize those objectives.
the results t h r o u g h s k i l l . a nd sensitivity will be the Having already abandoned control in favor of influ-
Sallmark of success.The
p rocess is much more like ence, what of prediction? Donald Michael, in his book
facilitation than command. On Leorning to Plon ond Plonning to Leorn, suggests
that planning ought to be conceived of as learning,
"error embracing." Michael
As the process and structure of management have which in his terms means
become more sophisticated and complex, one of the ( a l o n g w i t h P h i l l i p H . M u r v i s ) s u g g e s t st h a t
\s1, developments has been the growing reliance on t h e c o m p e l e n l p e r s o n i s o n e r v h o d e s i g n sh i s o r h e r
equally complex information systems as an aid to a c t i v i t i e st o p r o v i d et h e m o x i n r u mo m o u n to f l e e d b o c k
-"nug"-"nt. These information systems, whether a b o u tw h a t i s h a p p e n i n gi n o r d e rt o d e t e c ta n d r e s p o n d
they r e p o r t o n the external world (e.g., market sur- t o e r r o r s .C o m p e t e n c et h , e n , i s m e a s u r e dn o t b y s k i l l i n
veys) o r t h e i n t e rnal u'orkings of the company (e.g., a v o i d i n g e r r o r sb u t b y s k i l l i n d e t e c t i n gt h e m a n d i n
inventory c o n t r o l ), all serve an objectifying function. a c t i n g o n t h a t i n f o r m a t i o no p e n l y s o t h a l a l l c a n c o n -
In t h e t h e o r e t i c a l ideal, that information is trans- t i n u e l o l e a r n a b o u t r + ' h e r et h e y a r e a n d w h e r e t h e y
b y t h e r n e thods of management science into m i g h t g o - a b o u tu ' h a t k i n d o f u ' o r l d w e h a v e c r e a t e d
formed
d e c i s i o n s . T he unique role of the manager be- f o r o u r s e l v e sa n d u ' h a t w e m i g h t d o t o w a r d r e c r e a t i n g
action
it. (p.317)
gins t o d i m i n i s h . I t i s s t i l l t r u e t h a t t l - r er e a l s u c c e s si n
"error embracing" means an openness to
corporate l i f e c o m e s not from narrow adherence to Specifically,
prescribed p r o c e d u r e, but from a variety of other, a multiplicity of interpretations and theories,as in the
more t r a d i t i o n a l s k ills. Indicative of the current emergent paradigm. Furthermore, a good manager is
direction o f m a n a g e ment, however, senior manage- one who facilitates error embracing in olhers and in
ment i s i n c r e a s i n g l y coming from the ranks of the structure of the organization.
accounlants a n d l a w y e rs.
We are suggesting that the qualities of management
Many of today's businesseswere founded by entrep- consistent with the new paradigm involve three maior
reneurs. Part of their genius was a way of knowing the shifts: from control to influence, from prediction to
world that was consistent with the emergent ambiguity, and from scientific management to entre-
paradigm of knowledge. Most of all, they were so preneurship. Influence entails the delicate orchestra-
engaged with the world that they had the capacity to tion of a community of forcesto produce action. Plan-
sensea potential opportunity, yet had the perspective ning as learning requires a tolerance for error and
to be able to exploit the opportunity. The history of multiple interpretations. Entrepreneurship requires
professionalization of management has been an engagement with the world of the supplier, the cus-
attempt to transfer to the organization the necessary tomer, the politician, the production floor, and so. An
qualities of the genius entrepreneur. In times of a p p r o p r i a t e m e t a p h o r i s t h e s t e e r s m a nf l o a t i n g d o w n -
smooth grou'th and a stable environment, profes- river on a raft. In the smooth water, there are opportu-
sional managers may have been successful. If, how- nities for real control and the steersmancan stand tall
ever, the years ahead are as turbulent as appears and survey the situation. In the rapids, the degree of
likely, then perhaps the challenge will be to shift the control is diminished - the white water will not be
entrepreneurial qualities back to the individuals resisted. The task of the steersman then is to be in
rather than to the system. This is no small challenge, touch with the water to senseits sudden twists. If we
because it appears that large organizations tend to are in the rapids, then a new kind of executive is
punish just the sort of deviance (and often early fail- needed.
ure) that makes an entrepreneur.

One of the critical functions of management is plan- !ersonnel

ning. In the old management paradigm, planning The diversity that is likely to affect societyand poli-
required prediction and'control: predicting future tics is also likely to be reflecledin the structureof the
conditions and objectives and controlling the organi- work force. The difficultiesof integratingminorities

23
 and women are indicative of the problem. There will Markets
c e r t a i n l y b e a .h e i g h t e n e d n e e d t o f o c u s o n i n t e r p e r -
sonal relationships and improving communication. Probably the major impact implied by the shiftins
\\'ithout that, diversity will almost certainly result in paradigm is a movement toward market differential
conflict. Again, it is worth noting that the gap to be tion and volatility. Fewer marketswill be susceptible
bridged here is not one of slight attitudinal differ- to mass appeals.Indeed,just such a mass appealls
ences, but often of differing perceptions of reality most likely to drive away the narrov\rmarket seg-
itself. For example, in a conflict situation, because of ments.Further,theseconsumersare less likell'to dis-
d i f f e r i n g w o r l d v i e w s p e o p l e r . r ' i l lo f t e n p a y a t t e n t i o n play the kind of product loyalty that has been an
to quite different elements. Hence, they may draw important factor in the past.
radically different pictures of the situation. A more
complete picture can be found in the diversity of the It is important to point out that there is a dangers[
two, rather than in the supremacy of the ,,right" one e x a g g e r a t i n tgh i s p h e n o m e n o nm
: a s sm a r k e t sa r en o l
over the "r+'rong" one. a t h i n g o f t h e p a s t .T h i s p a r a d i g ms h i f t i s l i k e l y t o
become manifest last in those consumers rn'hoare
Incentive structures will need to reflect this emergent most susceptibleto massappeals.However,the shift
diversity. More money and a limited set of benefits is likely to be visible soonerin those smallermarkets
have long been a nearly universal set of incentives. that set the fashionsand trendsthat form the basisof
However, in a diverse rt'ork force, some people will mass markets.Thus, for quite different reasons,mar-
w a n t t o t r a d e t i m e f o r m o n e y ; s o m e r . r ' i l la c c e p t h i g h keting strategymust be sensitiveto this deeperdi-
r i s k f o r h i g h r e r + ' a r d s ;o t h e r s w i l l w a n t s e c u r i t y a b o v e mension of change, no matter which segmentsarr
all else; still others will want interesting people to sought.
work with and opportunities for learning or personal
growth. At best, the situation will be confusing and Pr oducts
will require flexibility and inventiveness on the part
of management. The product implications of new scielrc€8nd
technology are multifold; far more detailed analysis
If our morphogenetic model of changeis valid, simple would be required to spell them out. Instead, u'e will
career ladders may be less desirable to many workers. focus on severalneeds that are already evident and are
They are likely to undergo rather sudden changes of being responded to in a manner consistent u'ith the
career directions surprising even to themselves. As new paradigm. These will provide examples of the
people permit the internally diverse psyche to evolve, product opportunities associated with the neu'
different drives and interests are likely to become paradigm.
dominant at different times in their lives. Such shifts
may be as minor as moving from biology to chemistry One of the central features of our time is the growing
on the part of a scientist. More often, they will be feeling people have that they exert vanishingll' small
shifts of the magnitude of movement from a profes- degrees of control over their own lives. We have al'
sional, technical, or managerial. specialty to some- ready noted the overwhelming role that a massively
thing radically different, such as managing a complex and expertise-oriented health care system
hardware store or becoming a carpenter. This be- plays. We can add to that the role that media such as
havior is not the same as that of the person who has television play in delivering a selective,predigested
been frustrated in a particular career and has long picture of the world to a mass audience. In both in-
harbored a secret desire to do something else.Often it stances there are opposing commercial ventures
w i l l b e t h e p e r s o n w h o h a s e n j o y e d s u c c e s si n a c a r e e r under way, the primary appeal of which is resistance
who will change, because the aspects of psyche against the homogenizing, individual-diminishing
motivating that career may have played themselves f o r c e s o f t h e e x i s t i n g s y s t e m . O n e o f t h e s e r . r ' eh a v e
out. alreadv mentioned - the holistic health care movF

24
ment. Giving the rising dissatisfaction with *re costs
and effectiveness of the .health care industry, there
r+,ould already be strong support for a movement away
from industrialized health care. The new paradigm
provides both a deep motive toward selfhood, leading
io*'".d self-care, and a many-dimensional conception
of self that permits complementary roles for mind,
bodl', and spirit. Health care thal facilitates the self
and acknowledges that disease is often much more
than a collection of biological malfunctions repre-
sents both a historic redirection and an important
opPortunitY.
A second emerging area is personalized information
systems. This includes such diverse products as the
hardware of calculators and home computers and the
s o f t w a r e o f s p e c i a l t y j o u r n a l s a n d n e u ' s l e t l e r s .A s t h e
c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e r . r ' o r l di n c r e a s e s , c o m p r e h e n d i n g i t
b e c o m e s m o r e d i f f i c u l t . O n e o f t l r e f e w a s s u r a n c e so f
validity will be availing oneself of a catholicity of
perspectives. Active participation in an information
net of multiple media may begin to challenge the
passive receptor quality of television and such mass
journals as Time and Newsweek. One company, for
example, is already marketing a computer telecon-
ferencing service. Sophisticated information systems
tailored to the individual and small business are
likely to be growing markets as people try to perceive
the world as a holographic net rather than accepting
the one-dimensional version of reality presented by
lhe mass media.
Regulation and Public Attitudes
One of today's favorite business myths is that, as the
public comes to understand the costs of regulation,
somehow those regulations will, for the most part,
vanish. There is nothing to support that myth. How-
ever, support can be found in the emergent paradigm
for a shift in the nature of regulations. This arises
because of two changes in the public view of business.
The existing regulatory strategyis based on the notion
that businesses are powerful, independent entities
motivated almost entirelv bv the self-interestof their
owners. Regulation is the means by which the rest of
the system constrains the abuses of that independent
power. A more sophisticated view will be based on
the interconnectedness and mutually causal nature of
complex systems. As has been observedin politics,
"we get the leaders we deserve," so it may be that we
get the business system we deserve. Such a view
would hold that companies both shape and are
shaped by their environment. To get the business
system we want may require more subtle means than
the direct regulatory assault on institutions whose
real porver may be less than imagined.
This same view, however, may also extend the do-
m a i n o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n . A s i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s sb e -
comes more apparent, the role of the businesssystem
in structuring society may also become more evident.
Areas that are likely to be questioned are some famil-
iar ones such as scale of business, competitiveness,
and so on, and some new areassuch as the allocation
of capital, location decisions, constraints on private
innovations, compensation structures, and others.
The means by which such issues are confronted may
be more in the direction of incentivesand disincen-
tives than a regulation Per se.
Goals
There is an image of corporate goals which holds that
corporations have an unwavering devotion to the twin
gods of growth and profit. Although there is some
truth to that image, it also contains a pernicious myth.
In fact, corporations pursue multiple goals in addition
to growth and profit, including survival, innovation,
maintaining a reputation, opportunities for em-
ployees, and so on. However, these other goals are
usually justified in the name of growth and profit.
A s r e f l e c t i o n a n d s e l f - a w a r e n e s so n t h e p a r t o f i n d i -
v i d u a l s i s a s s o c i a t e dw i t h t h e n e w p a r a d i g m , s i m i -
larly, reflection on purposes and balancing among a
community of goals is the direction of corporate
change. Thus, it is likely that profit and growth will
migrate from the top of a hierarchy of goals into a
m o r e c o m p l e x r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a h e t e r a r c h i c a ls o r t : t w o
goals among others in a mutually reinforcing s1'stem.
25
 A Final Note on Implications
In the consideration of implications, it is easy to fall
into the trap of thinking in the old paradigm to de-
scribe the nature and consequences of the emergent
perspective. In this sense, the style of this report is
much more consistent with the old view than the new.
We have presented objective data in a variety of disci-
plines that range from "hard" to "soft." We have, on
the basis of that data, deduced a pattern with discer-
nible characteristics. Finally, in a step-by-step linear
f a s h i o n , w e h a v e a p p l i e d t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c sl o a
number of areas of interest. Such an approach is
comfortable, relatively undemanding, and probably
appropriate to a first attempt at depicting the overall
p r o c e s s .I t m a y b e i n s t r u c t i v e , h o w e v e r , t o i m a g i n e f o r
a moment hou'this enterprise might be approached in
the way of the neu' paradigm.
To comprehend the evidence of a shift, we would
26
consciously probe each of the disciplines ourselves,
testing them not only intellectually but far more
rigorously againstthe metric of our own experienceof
the world. We would not be very concernedwith any
apparentsequenceof the disciplines;we would sp
prehend the pattern in the complex interplay of the
diversethemesof the various disciplines.Finally,ws
would study the changethat resultsfrom introducing
I new contextual force into a complex interactive
s y s t e m .T h a t c h a n g e w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o a r i s e
through the morphogeneticevolution of elementsof
the systemmutually affectingeach other.
It is alrvaysdifficult to imaginethe kind of changethis
report describes.The implication of this difficulty is
that we will almost inevitably fail to see importantj
c o n s e q u e n c e sT. h e s h i f t m a y o c c u r i n s u r p r i s i n gj
ways, far more rapidly (or slowly) than we imagine,I
and with unanticipatedconsequencesfar more sig-|
nificant than any we have foreseen.
I
I
I
 PART II

The Paradigm Shift in Depth: Process'

Support, and Pattern
 WHAT IS A PARADIGM?

The Definition system,we may acceptthe lever or the voodoo doll as

the proper experimentalmechanismfor understand.
A paridigm is, broadly construed, the set of those ing causalefficacv.
beliefs, axioms, assumptions, givens, or fundamentals
Though Kuhn has given remarkable currency to 01s
that order and provide coherence to our picture of
concept of a paradigm, the basic insights have been
what is and how it n'orks. These beliefs are like our
around since the German philosopher Immanuel
map of reality. They are not the reality itself, but the
Kant. Kuhn's essay came as a surprise to the Anglg.
d i r e c t i o n s \ A , eu s e t o f i n d o u r 1 1 ' a )a' c r o s s t h e t e r r a i n .
A m e r i c a n t r a d i t i o n o n l y b e c a u s et h e p a r a d i g m o f d i s -
continuous paradigm shifts was part of a Europe4l
Most of this report is devoted to assembling the evi- tradition that, though two centuries old, was largely
d e n c e f o r a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e e m e r g e n c eo f a n e w u n f a m i l i a r t o E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n gs c i e n t i s t s 'T o p u t t h e
p a r a d i g m i n \ \ ' e s t e r nc i v i l i z a t i o n .T h e p r e s e n t d i s c u s - p o i n t a s p a r a c i o x i c a l l ya s p a r a d i g m s h i f t s s o m e t i m e s
s i o n s u m m a r i z . e st r r ' o c e n t u r i e s o f i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y d e m a n d , a p a r a d i g m s h i f t r t ' a s n e c e s s a r yb e f o r e t h e s e
that have led up to the concepts of paradigm and scientistscould understand the concept of a paradiSm
paradigm shift.
or a paradigm shift. The paradox is created by the fact
that the old Anglo-American paradigm of empiricism
During the past decade the term porodigm has been amounts to the view that there are no such things as
"the facts'"
bandied about in a number of disciplines.When used paradigms; the only things of interest are
in the phrase porcrdigm shift, it often carries a refer- The empiricist has a lacit theory of consciousness;
enceto Thomas Kuhn's influential book The Structure that mind is a mirror of the world and knowledge is an
o f S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s ( 1 9 6 2 ) .K u h n r e v o l u t i o n i z e d undistorted representation or picturing of things ar
our common understanding of scientific progressby t h e y r e a l l y a r e . R e c e n t a d v a n c e si n a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r '
pointing out an important distinction between u'hat e n t d i s c i p l i n e s ,h o w e v e r , h a v e p r e s e n l e da n o m a l i e so r
he called normol science, '*'hich Srows by gradual problems apparently insoluble within the old
additions to our fund of knowledge, and revo'lution- paradigm. With the passing of the empiricisl
ory science, marked by discontinuous breakthroughs paradigm of the mind as a passivemedium' more and
that seem to demand a lt'hole new perspective on, or more scientists have begun to take seriously wh
map of, the data. Normal science depends on the s o m e c o n t i n e n t a l p h i l o s o p h e r s h a v e k n o r ' r ' na l l a l o n S :
shared acceptance of a given paradigm among a n a m e l y , h o r . r 'w e s e e t h i n g s d e t e r m i n e s m u c h o f n '
community of scientists; revolutionary science we see.
requires a shift of paradigms.
Kant was the first to argue the importance of ou
Kuhn's use of porodigm is, as he later acknowledged, subiective modes of seeing and understanding ou
ambiguous. On the one hand, the word means experience. Where previous philosophers had s
"exemplary
experiment," or a set of procedures that t h e m i n d a s a b l a n k t a b l e t r e c e i v i n g i m p r e s s i o n sf
every member of the scientific community learns to t h e o u t s i d e w o r l d , K a n t d e s c r i b e d c o n s c i o u s n e s sa s
accept as definitive of scientific method' On the other active ordering of otherwise chaotic impressions'T
"the order of the worl
hand, porodigm has a much broader use associated order we experience is not
with one's entire belief system or map of reality: the passively received as through a transparent pane
is verl
l e n s e s ,a s i t n ' e r e , t h r o u g h w h i c h o n e s e e se v e r y t h i n g ' l l a s s ; i . , . r t e a d t, h e o r d e r w e e x p e r i e n c e .much
I
Thus, a paradigm shift may mean either an alteration f'unction of an activity of ordering performed by
in the set of exemplary experiments defining the edu- m i n d . T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t w e e x p e r i e n c et h e s o m e t o r

cation of a scientist, or it may mean an alteration in f r o m o u r i n d i v i d u a l p e r s p e c t i v e s ,w e a r e i n c l i n e d

the shared consciousness of a culture - or both' think of that order as the world's order' According
Clearly, the two meanings are not unrelated, for a Kant, however,we experiencethe sameorderbecau
given set of exemplary experiments contributes to our all rational creaturesorder experience using the st
general senseand understanding of the orderliness of intrinsic categories - i'e., according to a sha
the universe. And, depending on our general belief paradigm.

28

Hegel, another German philosopher, was the first to
appreciate the fundamentally different paradigms
manifested in the history of consciousness' H,is
account of a dialectical movement through different
world views was a profound statement of the concept
of paradigm shifts. Marx and his followers took up the
dialectical interpretation of paradigm shifts, but re-
jected Hegel's characterization of the dominant
paradigm as Spirit or spirit-of-the-times (Zeitgeist)'
ihe Marxisl materialist interpretation of history
placed more emphasis on economics than on intel-
lecttralhistorY'
Early in the twentieth century, thinkers from several
disciplines spawned a new area of inquiry now
known as the sociology of knowledge. This relatively
n e w d i s c i p l i n e m i g h t b e c h a r a c t e r i z e da s t h e s t u d y o f
the evolution and propagation of ideas and
ideologies: Why do some ideas take hold in their
disciplines and some fail independent of whether
they are judged to be right? In this approach ideas are
studied not in terms of their rightness in a scientific
sense,but in terms of their influence. Sociologists of
knorn'ledge study the politics of intellectual move-
ments, from the history of science to the history of
utopian movements: What sorts of social conditions
spawn the beliefs found in millenial cults? What kind
o f w o r l d v i e w r e n d e r s i n d i v i d u a l s m o s t s u s c e p t i b l et o
authoritarian movements? In each case, the focus of
interest is the ability of a given paradigm to mold the
thoughts, perceptions, and opinions of those who
share it.
More recently, the sociology of knowledge has prolif-
erated into disciplines like Ethnomethodology - a
quasi-anthropological study of the way contemporary
ethnic groups manifest fundamentally different
paradigms - and Frame Analysis - the study of the
behavioral cues we give that instruct others on which
paradigm is appropriate for interpreting our actions.
General systems theory and continuing work on arti-
f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d t o a n a w a r e n e s so f
subtleties thal communicate mind sets such as
" t h i s
a joke," is serious." Justas
puts us inlo a fictional frame, so a dog's baring of
fangs may mark a shift of frame from play to fight. We
accomplish these mini-paradigm shifts so uncon-
sciously that we become aware of them only when
they are missed by someone, as in madness, or humor,
o, *h"n a TV studio receives bottles of aspirin in the
mail because the soap opera's plot calls for the
"headaches."
heroine to have
When Lavoisier discovered oxygen, he radically re-
vised our understanding of phenomena as seemingly
d i s p a r a t ea s b r e a t h i n g , c o m b u s t i o n , a n d r u s t i n g ( o x i -
dation). Prior to Lavoisier's discovery, some of those
phenomena were described in terms of the addition or
subtraction of a hypothetical substance called
phlogiston. Though Lavoisier's discoveriesrequired a
wholesale replacement of phlogiston chemistry, many
of his colleagues were as confused about the signifi-
cance of his discoveries as were the sympathetic fans
about the proper significance of the heroine's
headaches. Lavoisier's colleagues admired his dili-
gence in discovering this new substance called oxy-
of the differ-
len, but ultimately rejected his accounts
lnt p h e n o m e n a o f o x i d a t i o n b e c a u s e h e h ad failed to
tell ihem w h a t w a s h a p p e n i n g t o t h e p h l o g iston while
all these transfers o f o x y g e n w e r e t a k i n g place' Like
the sympathetic fans, t h e y d i d n ' t q u i t e g e t the point;
they received the relevant i n f o r m a t i o n b u t p laced it in
lhe wrong frame.
Sensitivity to the role of paradigms in our perception
can be an important tool in problem solving' Once we
k n o r , , rt,h a t a i o u r p r o b l e m s c a n n o t b e s o l v e d w i t h i n
the frame of a current paradigm, then it is sometimes
possible to solve a problem by reframing its terms'
b n e t h i n k s o f t h e F r e n c h s e r g e a n tw h o w a s o r d e r e d b y
his commanding officer to clear the rabble from a
c r o w d e d , q . , " . " , a n d t o s h o o t i f n e c e s s a r y 'H i s p r o b -
"the rabble" or disobey
lem: apparently either shoot
orders. He solved this apparently insoluble dilemma
"Mesdames et
by reframing the terms of the problem'
"I have been
N , l o n s i e u r s , ' ;h e a d d r e s s e d t h e c r o w d ,
instructed to fire upon the rabble, but since I see many
lau,-abiding citizens in front of me, I would ask that
you leave tte square so that my men can fire upon the
rabble without injuring any innocent bystanders"'
"this is
"once upon a time" Other terms that have been used for the general con-
c e p t o f a p a r a d i g m i n c l u d e , a s n o t e d e a r l i e r ,Z e i t g e i s t '
rvorld view', pottern of culture, and epistemes' This
last concept is especially interesting' Michel
Foucault, a contemporary French philosopher of his-
29

tory, coined the term to mean epistemic domains. In
t h i s c a s e ,t l e t e r m r e f e r s m a i n l y t o t h e s t r u c t u r e s e m -
bedded in the language within which the human sci-
ences (e.9., sociology, anthropology) are expressed.
Language, according to Foucault, unlike the mathe-
matics of physics,* is itself not neutral. It is a mirror of
the contemporary consciousness and so conditions,
l i n k s , a n d s h a p e st h e s t u d y o f h u m a n a f f a i r s .
Whether it is called a paradigm or a world view or
something else,there is a widely held conviction that
b e h i n d t h e s e e m i n g c h a o sa n d c o n f l i c t i n i n t e l l e c t u a l
life there is a pattern, even if temporary. Although
u n d e r s t a n d i n go f i t e v o l v e sa n d s h i f t s w i t h t i m e , t h a t
pattern, like a map, is central to underslanding how
change takesplace in a society, especially when there
are rapid and deep changesin progress.As we explore
the terrain more carefully, our maps inevitably
change. \4/hat appeared to be an island becomes a
peninsula attached to a continent. As our interests
c h a n g d a n d o u r a b i l i t i e s t o m a p i n c r e a s e ,t h e n a t u r e o f
our maps changes, becoming richer and more com-
plex. Instead of the solid earth beneath our feet, we
find floating plates colliding with earth-rending and
mountain-building force.
Paradigms, Reality, and Truth
It is possible to talk about paradigm shifts without
facing certain implications. Some talk, for instance,as
if it were only a question of a new method for ap-
proaching closer to the truth. It is as if Kuhn's dis-
tinction between normal science and revolutionary
science - between the continuous and the discon-
tinuous - ivere a merely methodological distinction.
But the implications of Kuhn's thesis are much more
radical. The point is not only that we make break-
throughs in the representationof reality, but that there
are fundamental alterations in what counts as reality.
So it will not do to think of merely methodological
differences between cumulative continuity and re-
'Strictly
speoking since molhemotics hos certoin humon-derived
slruclures embedded n,ithin it, it is not o purely neutrol medium
o/ expression:i.e.,il colors whot con be soid or computed.
30
r
volutionary discontinuity "on the way toward
real
ity," for the destinationitself - even the idea of r
singular destination- is in question.
Once we have several times altered the criteria fq
what counts as reality, the old connotationsof $
term reolity must fall away.We can no longerthink c
reality as somethingthat remainsr'r'hatit is no matte
r,r'hatpeoplethink aboutit. A roseb1'any othernam
is still a rose,but an atomby anothername may not b
what peopleusedto think they were namingby otom
W e c a n n o l o n g e rt h i n k o f r e a l i t ya s t r t t e r l vi n d e p e n
dent of human cognition.
Certainly,the commonsenseusage of reolity retain
its sense,Thinking somethingor stating an opinio:
does not necessarilymake it so. We check our opip
ions againstreality.But the publicly shareCrealityw
use to check our private opinions is nol unchangiq
as \^,eoncethought.Instead,the sharedparadigmsfs
what countsas reality shift from time to time' Parts6
an old reality take on new roles as our pe;ceptiond
reality itself alters.Think of the history of the sud
from direct objectof worship in sun cults to a slightl;
less central role in the colorful narrativesof Gre{
mythology; from the chief body in heavers rhar ri
v o l v e a b o u t t h e e a r t h t o t h e c e n t e r o f a s o l a r s y s t e mi l
w h i c h t h e e a r t h i s b u t o n e o f s e v e r a l s a t e l l i t e s .A r {
finally the sun becomes the focus of hopes as a possl
ble source of energy. These changes alcompanl
epochal shifts according to which the ull-;nate horl
zon of human experience is experienced first reliSl
ously, then scientifically or astronomically, and ||
nally ecologically.
I
c h a n g e s a n o p i n i o t * ' h e n l
Just as the individual
does not check with reality, so from time to ttnl
entire civilizations change their paradig:rs for t{
concept of reality itself. The difference tetween {
individual's altering an opinion and a ci;ilizationl
altering its paradigm is that the civilization c{
hardly check its paradigm against realitl' since il.l
p r e c i s e l y t h e p a r a d i g m t h a t d e t e r m i n e s r ' r ' h a ti s t o I
t a k e na s r e a l i t y .
I
I
I
I
 THE ST]PPORTFOR A PARADIGM
SHIFT
In this section we will explore a number of different
disciplines and areas.of inquiry into the nature of
things. Our approach is to examine the history of
ideas and to focus on the frontier developments in
each. What we seek are sharedpatternsof changeand
common thr'eadsof ideas.In someinstancestherewill
be clear anomaliesthat may require a new paradigm
for their resolution. In other areas the threads and
patterns will be found in the evolution of ideas.
Physics
One of the most basic constructs of human life is what
we believe about the nature of physical reality. What
is real and what is not? By what mechanisms does
reality function? What are its constituents? These
questions have occupied physical scientists and
metaphysicians for thousands of years. How they
answer the questions has a profound effect on human
exislence. It is one thing to believe that the night sky
is a roof overhead strewn with lights slowly spinning
by and that your fate unlo eternity is in the hands of
spiritual forces beyond your mastery. It is quite a
different thing to see the same night sky as reaching
off into infinite depth punctuated by distant stars
around which spin other worlds - and to see in that
field of stars a rocket on its way to the moon. One
perception of reality leads to a sense of a comfortable
but limited world over which you have little control
but of which you are the center. The other is a vision
of an empty and intrinsically meaningless universe
over which we are able to exert a certain mastery
through science and technology. What we believe to
be possible, especially scientifically and technologi-
cally, is very much a function of our view of reality.
That view has evolved with time, and our under-
standing appears to be in the midst of another step
forward.
The Current Paradigm
Our current view of the physical vvorld datesmainly
from the seventeenthcenturyand the work of Sir Isaac
Newton; hence it is usually called the Newtonian
world view. Of course,there have been substantial
modifications since then, especiallythe development
of thermodynamicsin the early nineteenlh century.
S e e n f r o m t h e p r e s e n t ,t h e r m o d y n a m i c sw a s t h e
opening wedge in challenging the Newtonian
paradigm. In the Newtonian view, the world is com-
posed of two fundamentalthings: matterand energy
existing in the void of absolute spaceand time. The
basicequationof Newtonianphysics,F : ma,* can be
reduced to these fundamental parameters:m, the
mass,is the measureof matter;o, tie acceleration,is
the variation over time of the rate of movement of
matter through space;F, the force, is linked to the
energy required to acceleratethe mass' By under-
standing the laws that govern thesebasic quantities,
we can understandoll of the physical universe.
Matter is composedof very small particles(atomsand
subatomicparticleslike electronsand protons),which
interact through such forcesas gravitationand mag-
netism. They are assembledinto larger and larger
collectionsuntil we find our ordinary world and ul-
t i m a t e l y t h e c o s m i c s c a l e o f p l a n e t s ,s t a r s , a n d
galaxies.The motion of eachpiece is governedby the
predictable interactions of gravitational and elec-
t r o m a g n e t i c f o r c e s ,I n m o s t r e s p e c t s ,t h e c u r r e n t
paradigm is capturedby the image of billiard balls
colliding on a table.Indeed,in most collegephysics
coursesatomic interactionsare modeled in the labo-
ratory by collisionsof macroscopicobjectsof the bil-
liard ball sort. Thermodynamics,and the concept of
e n t r o p y i n p a r t i c u l a r ,c o m p l i c a t e t h i s p i c t u r e b y
making most eventsirreversible,i.e.,simply reversing
the order of events may not take you back to your
original conditions.Nevertheless, it is fair to say that
even this amendedview can be called mechanisticin
that the analogiesused to understandthe dynamics
are simple mechanicalmetaphors.
This view, of course,led to the suppositionthat if we
knew the location, mass,and velocity of all the parti-
cles in the universeat any given instant, we could
predict the future by the laws of physics.In turn, this
paradigm supporteda deterministicmetaphysics.In
its most extremeform, this view held that sincewe are
composedonly of matterand energy,the behavior of
which is governed by the known laws of physics,
human fate is simply the inevitable result of the
'More accuralely, Newlon's equation described force as equal to the
rate of change of momentum, i.e., F : dp/dt.
31
 working out of the trajectories of the particles of
which we are composed.
Embedded within the mechanistic view of the world
are three basic assumptions. The first is that there is a
most fundamental level. of reality (i.e., the basic
building blocks) composed of the smallest particles
and the complete set of forces that govern them' Once
w e f i n d t h a t f u n d a m e n t a l l e v e l a n d t h e l a v n ' st h a t g o v -
ern it, the world will be predictable. Second is the
assumption that the laws that govern matter and en-
ergy on the very small scale must be similar, and
hopefully identical, to those that apply on the very
large scale. The governing laws thus should be uni-
versal, so that u'e ought to be able to build a picture of
planets moving about the sun out of an understanding
of the particles of r+'hich matter is composed. Finally,
t h e r e i s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t \ { ' e , & s o b s e r v e r s ,c a n b e
isolated from the experiments and the world we are
"objective" description. All of
studying to produce an
these basic assumptions are now being challenged by
theoretical and experimental findings.
The notion of a fundamental level of reality is being
challenged in several ways. The searchfor the elusive
most fundamental particle continues to uncover ever
more particles. Rather than a simple billiard ball
structure, a far more complex ecology of subatomic
structures seems to be emerging in which a single
particle observed in different ways transforms into a
variety of new particles. The very notion of particle
begins to break down, to be replaced by far more
complex descriptions of field interactions. This in
turn leads to a breakdown of simple models of causal-
ity. If billiard balls no longer collide in predictable
patterns, then the direct causal linkages are less ap-
parent. There appears to be a complex of mutually
interacting causes leading to a particular outcome.
Einstein's theory of relativity was one of the first
major steps in the direction of a new paradigm in
physics. But after setting out the theory, Einstein
spent the rest of his life in an unsuccessful quest for
the pinciples that would unify our description of the
very large r.r'iththat of [he very small. The goal was to
return to the elegance of a universal model as in the
Newtonian paradigrr,. However, it was Eipstein him-
self who closed the door on universality by bringing
32
in the perspective of the observer' The results s1
particular observation are a function of the relati
scale and velocity of the observing and observed51
tems. Space and time, the absolute background
human affairs, lose aspectsof their differenceto
"basi
come the space-time continuum, and the
building blocks" of matter and energy n o u
mere reflections of each other in the famous equat
E : mc2.
The objectivity of the observer broke dorn'nfurth
rt'ith Heisenberg's discovery of the Indeterminac
Principle. The central idea was that at the submicrs-
scopic level any act of measurement - even mert
looking r+'ith light rays - disturbs the thing bei
studied. More recently, the Russian mathematicia
Kalmagaroffhas shown that, at leastin theory,uncet
tainty applied not only to atomic particlesbut to tlr
macroscopic domain of ordinary events.
Thus, our old and enduring picture of physicalrealit
is breaking down. We have particles that refuse
b e h a v e a s s i m p l e p a r t i c l e s , d o m a i n s t h a t r e f u s et o
reduced one into the other, and laws that appll'on
scale but not another. Most important' vve can n
longer leave ourselves out of the equations: what
do affects the results.
Such profound rifts in our world view can be resolve
in one of two ways. One is the accumulationof sma
advancesthat lead to patchesin the cracks \'luch
physics in the last half-centuryhas been devoted
patching the old paradigm - without much succe
A second way is to accept the cracks as indications
fundamental flaws in that world view. This approac
implies the need for a radical restructuring of the so
that occurred when we moved from a geocertric to
heliocentric view or from the mechanical ur:iverse
Newton to the relativistic universe of Einsiein'
current leading edge seems to favor this mo:e radi
way.
The New Physics
Our emergentpicture of reality is found in tte cu
work of such physicistsas David Bohn, Dav
Finkelstein,G. F. Chew, Roger Penrose,and )ohn
Bell. They are making more rigorous what was only
h i n t e d a t b y t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r ss u c h a s B o h r , H e i s e n -
berg, and even Einstein, each of whom made major
contributions to twentieth-century physics and yet
remained dissatisfied with the picture of reality that
resulted. One foundation of the emergent paradigm is
known as Bell's Theorem, after John Bell, its
"No theory of reality
originator. The theorem states,
compatible with quantum theory can requirespatially
separated events to be independent." In other words,
i t i s a m i s c o n c e p t i o n t o s e et h e u n i v e r s e a s m a d e u p o f
independenl separateparts. Rather, it must be seen as
an interconnected network, an indivisible rt'hole. For
many purposes, such as dealing with the world of
normal human perception, it is useful to consider
them as separate, but that does not make them so.
Though their interactions on this level are usually
immeasurably small, all events are interconnected.
David Bohm makes the distinction between manifest
and nonmanifest orders. The manifest order of parti-
cles is what we observe under ordinary conditions.
The nonmanifest order - the fundamental network of
interconnections - is a domain like the interference
patterns in a hologram. Holography, conceived math-
ematically by Dennis Gabor, who won the Nobel Prize
f o r h i s d i s c o v e r y , i s a l e n s l e s sm e t h o d o f p h o t o g r a p h y
that uses the
"coherent" light of a laser beam reflect-
ing off the object to be photographed (see box on
h o l o g r a m s ) .T h e i m a g e o f r e a l i t y w e a r e n o v n ' b u i l d i n g
toward is in some ways like a hologram. In this view,
particles are the result of an underlying structure of
interference patterns. Thus, particles are really the
visible tip of a very complex, vibrating domain of
interference patterns; so that u'hen we observe them
in some ways, they appear to be wavelike, u'hile in
other forms of observation they display particle-like
behavior. Also, every time we interact with particles,
"interfere" in new
including by observing them, we
ways, hence new particles are found. But in the
paradigm, particles can no longer be considered mere
points of matter; and they are interconnected in Bell's
sense in that they have the same origin, the hidden
domain of nonmanifest reality that we are now only
beginning to explore. Whether we come to call this
nonmanifest reality another dimension, another level,
or another aspect of reality, it is a discovery new to
Western science.
An important aspect of this theory is that not only can
the part be found in the entirety, but the entire reality
can also be found in the part' David Bohm, who has
"A total
explicitly adopted this view, puts it this way:
o.ie. is-contained in some implicit sense, in each
region of space and time." This enfolding of all of
"implicate order,"
r""hty into each point he calls the
anottrer name for the nonmanifest reality' Our ordi-
nary reality is the unfolding of that dimension into its
"explicate" forms - atoms, molecules, and so on'
"explicate order." Bohm, of course, was
This is the
n o t t h e f i r s t t o s e et h i s d u a l v i e w o f r e a l i t y ' P l a n c k , t h e
father of quantum theory, and Heisenberg described
it, but less rigorously. One can even see it in the
philosophy of A.tut"goras in ancient Greece, who
"homoeomery"' The chemist Ilya Prigogine
ialled it
and others have suggested that this description also
corresponds to the vision of many poets and mystics'
This picture of a complex implicate dimension of
reality has not yet been applied to the very large scale
o f t h e c o s m o s : W h y i s i t t h a t s t a r s a n d g a l a x i e sb e h a v e
as they do? We may find in this approach the resolu-
tion oi such strange cosmic phenomena as black holes
and the curvature of space. More generally, the
theoretical r'r'ork of David Finkelstein is leading to-
ward a more rigorous description in a mathematical
formalism he calls Quantum Logic, which may lead
toward a precise model for the way in which our
ordinary reality is generated.
The universality that Einstein sought may thus again
b e r e s t o r e d ,b u t t h e r e i s n o n e c e s s a r yr e a s o n t o b e l i e v e
so. The situation is at least as likely to be as Rene
Thom, the French mathematician, suggests:
T o e a c h p a r t i a l s y s t e m ,r e l a t i v e l y i n d e p e n d e n to f t h e
e n v i r o n m e n t ,w e a s s i g n a I o c a l m o d e l t h a t a c c o u n t s
q u a l i t a t i v e l ya n d , i n t h e b e s tc a s e sq, u a n t i t a t i v e l fyo r i t s
b e h a v i o r .B u t v r ' ec a n n o th o p e , a p r i o r i , t o i n t e g r a t ea l l
t h e s el o c a l m o d e l s i n t o a g l o b a l s y s t e m .I t i t w e r e p o s -
s i b l e t o m a k e s u c h a s y n t h e s i s ,m a n c o u l d j u s t i f i a b l y
s a yt h a t h e k n e w t h e u l t i m a t e n a t u r eo f r e a l i t y ,f o r t h e r e
c o u l d e x i s l n o b e t t e rg l o b a l m o d e l ' F o r m y s e l f ,I t h i n k
t h a t t h i s w o u l d b e e x t r a v a g a n tp r e t e n s i o n t; h e e r a o f
g r a n d c o s m i c s y n t h e s i s e n d e d , v e r y p r o b a b l y ,w i t h
t h a ta n y b o d y
! " . , " . a 1 r e l a t i v i t y ,a n d i t i s m o s t d o u b t f u l
w i l l r e s t a r ti t , n o r w o u l d i t s e e mt o b e u s e f u lt o a t t e m p t
to do so.
33
 ,{nother characteristic results from t}re complex, net-
like picture of.causality that is emerging: we are a part
of the net. What we do affects the other parts, includ-
ing what we wish to study. This means that any de-
scription of reality must always be partial. We may be
able to experience the world as it is, but when we try
t o d e s c r i b e i t w e a r b i t r a r i l y i s o l a t e o u r s e l v e sa n d t h a t
which we would describe. We always lose something
in the process of establishing those boundaries.
Hence, no description, model, or theory is ever com-
plete. What is required is a multiplicity of such
perspectives, each of r+'hich enriches and comple-
ments the others.
The new physics, if confirmed, provides us with a
radical revision of our image of physical reality. The
old view u'as captured by the image of little bits of
matter floating in space and interacting by forces. The
entirety of existence could be built out of such bits
and forces. In both principle and practice, we, as hu-
mans, could stand somehow objectively outside to
predict and even control the behavior of this material
"holographic"
universe. The emergent view sees the
interconnection of all things. The new physics uncov-
ers a ne$' nonmanifest aspect to reality, in which
matter is the tip of the hidden iceberg. No theory is
considered most fundamental: each theory describes
only a portion of a larger, interconnected reality. Fi-
nally, \'e are part of that reality, not somehou'discon-
nected from it,
Chemistry
In 7977 Ilya Prigogine was awarded the Nobel Prize in
C h e m i s t r y f o r h i s t h e o r y o f d i s s i p a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s .H i s
ground-breaking work has moved us much closer to
an understanding of an age-old question: How can a
n e w o r d e r ( e . g . ,c h e m i c a l s t r u c t u r e s ) e m e r g e o u t o f a n
apparently chaotic, homogeneous old order?
Prigogine has shown in chemistry (and to some extent
in biology) that fluctuations in a system are not
merely random errors or deviations from the signifi-
cant average: rather, such fluctuations can be the
source of a new order.
Prigogine's theory was developed to describe very
complex chemical reactions such as the forming of
polymers that go into plastics. Though it has been
34
possible to carry out such chemical processes for
some time, their nature has been mysterious. The
existing chemical thermodynamics describe
adequately how, in a relatively simple polymerization
reaction, there can be a movement hom a staiionary
state of low polymer density t.oanother stationaa state
of higher polymer density. However, in more ccnplex
reactions, the possibilities are more extersive.
Prigogine's theory describes how in such a rtaction
the creation of a new substance (a fluctuation in the
solution) leads to an increasing rate of polymel.zation
and more complexity through feedback amcrg the
newly evolving structures.
A biological example taken from Prigogine can be
helpful. Insects such as termites iue very lim:ted in
the kinds of behaviors they can exhibit, especially
compared to man and the higher animals- Yet,
employing only such simple behaviors termiies are
able to build complex and large structures, s'rch as
nests that can weigh several tons' They firsl erect
pillars, which are connected to become arch:s and
then closed to become walls. The work of co:struc-
tion begins with what appears to be uncoori-nated
and random behavior. The termites swarm aro-nd on
their construction surface depositing little l.les of
building material. To that material they also give a
slight scent. When one of the piles of mater::l gets
large enough to have a higher intensity of sce:t than
the piles around it, the behavior of the termil.s near
that pile changes. They start adding material to the
pile to build first a pillar and then an arch.
This process can be described mathematically in sev-
eral equations, which account for both the nndom
behavior of insects and their coalescencetoward a
new order. In chemical terms, the random b.havior
corresponds to a homogeneous solution in eluilib-
rium. From a slightly larger pile or a slightll'higher
concentration, a pillar can begin to appear. Tl'e fluc-
tuation is being amplified. The new order appears
through the accretion and assembly of such Luctua-
tions.
Classical chemical thermodynamics dals pr:rarily
with equilibrium structures - structures thei have
persisted for a long time in an isolated sls';m' A
chemical solution in a beaker that has sat for i while
and a crystal are examples of such equilibrium struc-
tures. However, there are few (if any) truly isolated
systems in reality. Interactions with outside environ-
ments can introduce new material, energy, or ideas (in
the human world), which become fluctuations in the
equilibrium state leading to a new order. Fluctuations
in equilibrium chemistry are deviations that become
damped toward a statistical average. In Prigogine's
model, fluctuations become the essential element
leading to dynamics, chanSe, and evolution.
The key notion here for the history of ideas is that
difference (fluctuation) produces change. Differentia-
t i o n a r i s e s f r o m m u t u a l l y c a u s a l p r o c e s s e s .T e r m i t e s
build piles that attract more termites, which scceler-
ates the growth and amplifies the differences leading
to a new structure. This process can be called mor-
phogenetic, in that new and different (heterogeneous)
structures arise out of the old structure through a
complex process that amplifies deviation. It relies on
reciprocal causality (positive feedback) and interac-
tions with the surrounding environment. It does not
rely on a hierarchy of simple causesand determined
effects, but rather on a hierarchy of multiple causes
and unpredictable innovations. In systems theory,
"law of requisite variety,"
Gordon Ashby devised the
which shows why this sort of diversity is needed for
evolution.
Out of what appears to be an undifferentiated and
static situation, a deviation - if large enough and
replicated elsewhere in the system - can lead to a
dynamic and different order. In this way, the infusion
of new ideas into an old culture can lead to social
change, so that Prigogine's chemical model provides a
metaphor for the kind of societal change *tis report is
about. The frontiers of knowledge represent the fluc-
tuations in the solution. When there are enough of
them and they are large enough, a r,r'hole new order
can arise.
Brain Theory
The last two decadeshave been an especiallyrich
p e r i o d f o r i n c r e a s i n g o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n go f t h e
biological basis for mental functioning. The analogy
for understanding the brain in recent years has been
the computer.In this model, which is associatedwith
the behaviorist school of thought, mental activity is
the result of electrical impulses moving through a
neural network in linear sequences.A neuron (a brain
cell) is stimulated electrically by impulses from pre-
vious cells in the sequenceand in turn sendsan elec-
"on" in the binary
trical impulse (the equivalent of
mechanismof a computer) to stimulate appropriate
neurons downstream.The problem with such a
mechanicalmodel is that it cannot describe,let alone
explain,suchcommon mentalfunctionsas memory or
learning.
For a long time the theory was that somewherein the
brain there were physical memory traces called en-
grams, u'hich representedthe location and substance
of -"-o.y, as magnetic patternsrepresentmusic on a
piece of rlcording tape.If one cuts a piece out of the
iape, there will be a gap in the music. Similarly, that
th""ry said that cutting a piece out of the brain ought
to removesomethinglearned.Karl Lashley,a pioneer
in brain research,did just that with animals for 30
years.The anomaly in the experimentswas that he
iorrnd that he could not selectively destroywhat had
beenlearned,That model of mentalfunctioningrelies
on the idea,believedto be true then, that brain cells
are sensitiveonly to on-off signals.Hence,informa-
tion could be built up only out of such a limited code'
In the last15 years,Karl Pribramand othersuncovered
two other aspectsof the nature of brain cells' First,
brain cells are sensitivenot only to the exislenceor
nonexistence of a pulse (on-off),they arealsosensitive
to the rate of changeof the pulse or its frequency'This
enormously increasesthe amount of information a
pulsecan."try. Second,they identifiedthefunction of
" fin" fiber network linking brain cells in parallel in
addition to their normal sequential linkage' Thus a
wave,like a light wave, can be propagatedinside the
brain. A complex wave can carry a great deal of in-
formation (seebox on hclograms)'Those waves in
turn can interfereto produce an even more complex
pattern, leading to the distribution of functions
ihroughout the biain' Thus, the simple notion of cells
firing in sequenceand memory located in a single
cellJar location,which cannotcopewith the subtlety
and richnessof human mental phenomena'gives way
to a more complex model of a field of thought built
35
 out of the interactionsand interplay of waves moving often attribute the quality of explanation to it, some-
through and.distributed throughout the neural struc- times going so far as to call it a natural law. The
ture of the brain. primary mathematicaltool for the past tlree centuries
has been differential calculus.The main constraintin
Pribram has shifted the analogy from the computer to applying differential calculus is that the phenomena
t}le hologram. Information is distributed throughout it describesmust changesmoothly and continuously.
the brain, henceremoving a piece of brain eliminates In many instances,even somewhatrough and discon-
little information. Furthermore,the density of infor- tinuous phenomenacan be approximatedby differ-
mation can be much greater tlan under the simpler e n t i a l e q u a t i o n s .H o w e v e r , t h e r e a r e m a n y m o r e
model becausea complex interferencepattern can be phenomenathat undergosudden and apparentlyun-
d e c o m p o s e di n t o I v e r y l a r g e n u m b e r o f b i t s o f predictable changes to a qualitatively nert' order.
information. Through the lens of differential calculus such
p h e n o m e n aa p p e a rc h a o t i c .Y e t , a s T h o m p o i n t s o u t
The similarity of Pribram's brain model to Bohm's in the introductionto his book,the world is obviously
quantum physical model has led to a great deal of
not chaos.Regularityof form is evident every-u'here:
interestingspeculation.Perhapsaltered statesof con-
in the similarity of each of the endlesssuccessionof
sciousnessare different levels and kinds of vibratory
wavesbreakingon the shore,the cellular structuresof
patterns in the brain, as in the different brain wave
an organism,and so on. Discontinuouschange,ac-
patternsmeasuredby an EEG.In such statesit may be
cording to Thom, can be treated as the successionof
possible to be in direct contact with the underlying forms - one structuregiving way to another.This is a
vibratory strucfure of the universe as described by
shift from quantitative to qualitative change. Thom
Bohm. If so, perhaps that may provide a model for
h a s b e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y s u c c e s s f u la t a p p l f i n g h i s
how various psychic phenomenacould occur.
theory to biological problems,especiallycell growth
in embryos.
There is also a link here to the morphogeneticmodel
of change proposedby Prigogine.How do new Thom has derived sevenelementaryforms of sudden
thoughts arise? Perhaps,as new chemical structures changeor morphogenesis- how one condition gives
arisein complexchemicalreactions,existing patterns "catas-
rise to a wholly new one.Theseforms he calls
may interactin a complexbut orderedway to produce "catastrophe theory'."The
trophes," thus the name
new and unpredictablepatternsor thoughts - new sevenare shown in Figure 2. Only the fold and the
ideas literally bubbling up out of the old. cusp cen be drawn in their entirety.The othersentail
more than three dimensionsand hence cannolbe rep-
Mathematics resentedon a flat surface.The theory itself is not very
If the ideas presentedin the previous few sections complex,though its proof is very difficult. (Thebasic
were amenableonly to the imprecise sort of descrip- ideahas been widely accepted,though the pmof that
tion used in this report, they would lack a great deal. thesesevenare the only possiblecatastrophesis still
Fortunately, new matlematical ideas have recently controversial.) Essentiallyit statesthat if a processis
emerged which permit a far more rigorous matle- controlled by some functional relationship (called
matical treatment.They are in themselvesa paradigm maximizing or minimizing functions) of up to four
break in mathematicsT . hese ideas are best repre- factors and its behavior variesalong no more than two
sented in the " c a t a s t r o p h etheory" work of Rene d i m e n s i o n s t
, h e n t h e d e s c r i p t i c no f a l l p o s s : b l eb e -
Thom, describedin his much heralded book Struct- havioral outcomes of a process can be representedby
urol Stobility ond Morphogenesis. one of the seven catastrophes. (ln theory, more com-
plex phenomenacan be built out of assemblages of
In most areasof science (and now even in analy'tic these elements,)The simplest catastrophe, the fold,
philosophy),the principal tool of description is some has one control dimension and one behaviordimen-
formal model, usually mathematical.{f- the model sion; the cusp catastropheadds another control di-
works well in its primary test of prediction, scientists mension and so on up to the parabolic catastrophe,

36
 Flgure2 Forms of CatastroPhe

SWALLOWTAIL
FOLD

(f

>
I
U
(D

HYPERBOLIC
UMBILIC E L L I P T I CU M B I L I C

37
 Flgure 2 Forms of Catastrophe(continued)

\\\\h\\\\\hh

38
which has the maximum of four control dimensions
and two behavior dimensions.
An application developed by E. C. Zeeman will help
clarify the power of this new tool. If a dog is angered
or enraged, it will usually attack. Conversely, if it is
frightened, it will usually retreat. However, if it is
b o t h e n r a g e d a n d f r i g h t e n e d , a s i n t h e n o r m a l c a s e ,i t
may suddenly shift its behavior from fight to flight or
the reverse. This can be described by a cusp catas-
trophe (see Figure 3). If a dog is enraged and then
increasingly frightened, its behavior r,r'ill follor,r'a
path along the upper ("attack") srtrface tou'ard the
edge of the cusp. When it reaches the edge, the next
increment of fear will push the enraged dog over the
edge to the lower surfaceand it will suddenly begin to
retreat. If, however, the dog is at first frightened and
then successively angered, it will begin by retreating.
But its behavior will move along the lower surface
toward the fold in the cusp. At that point its anger will
be sufficient to overcome the fear and its behavior will
jump to the upper surface, where it will turn and
attack. As was suggested earlier, such models are
useful in that they provide insight into behavior. They
are not. however, theories of behavior that have
explanatory power, despite claims to the contrary.
The historic significance of catastrophe theory is,
first, in its shift from continuous to discontinuous
phenomena and, second, in its ability to describe
q u a l i t a t i v e c h a n g e , T h e p o w e r o f c a t a s t r o p h et h e o r y i s
its potential generalizability. As earlier sections have
shown, there are new classes of theories in a r+'ide
variety of disciplines, each of which entail complex
and suddenly changing structural phenomena.
Catastrophe theory may be a tool that will lead to a
more precise description of mental phenomena in
Pribram's brain theory, or how physical structures
arise from the underlying vibratory pattern in Bohm's
quantum model. These other developments might
have remained in the class of interesting but not use-
ful speculations without the availability of the tool of
catastrophe theory.
Biology
In two subdisciplinesof biology, aspectsof the emer-
gent paradigm are visible at the frontiers. The model
of the process of evolution has itself evolved since
Darwin and today is different in several important
respects. Similarly, our understanding of the nature of
ecosystems has been extended from a static equilib-
rium view toward one of ecological evolution, which
more closely corresponds to the ever-changing
character of the natural world.
Though much progress has been made since Darwin,
the commonly held image of the evolutionary process
is almost unchanged. In this view evolution occurs
b e c a u s eo f t r v o f a c t o r s : ( 1 ) r a n d o m m u t a t i o n s o f g e n e s ,
u'hich introduce new characteristics into an or-
ganism; (2) interactions with the environment that
naturally select those genes most favorable to survi-
"chance and
val. |acques Monod called this process
necessity." There is here I very simple causal model'
N e w c h a r a c t e r i s t i c sa r i s e b y c h a n c e . T h e y a r e t r i e d i n
the real world, and if they make the species in some
way more successful, the population of organisms
with those characteristics tends to expand at the ex-
pense of those without them.
Several developments in recent years led to some im-
portant changes in that slmple model, pushing us
toward a more subtle and complex model. The ex-
perimental work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in the
rgeor led to one such development. The old model
implied that all the organisms in a given population
have almost the same genetic structure; mutation of a
gene lhen introduces a vector for change. Dobzhansky
discovered that the genetic variation among individu-
als is actually quite great' Thus, a population can be
"pool" of genes,
conceived of as possessing a large
with any individual having some particular subset'
The evolutionary forces hom the environment act,
then on a very diverse set of genetic characteristics
already in existence. Mutation merely increases the
richness of the gene pool in relatively minor ways. Far
more important is the diversity of individuals.
The second concept that modifies the common image
of evolution is that of the interaction of the individual
organism with the real world' That organism can be
called a phenotype (the assembly of genetic charac-
teristics that biologically define an individual) in that
i t p o s s e s s e sa s p e c i f i c s e t o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( h a i r c o l o r ,
skin tone, etc.) due to its genetic makeup. Earlier
39
 Flgure 3 Model of AggresslonIn Dogs

BEHAVIOR
qI IFIFAr:F
AVOIDING
CATASTROPHE

FLIGHT
CATASTROPHE

RETREATING

BEHAVIOR

40
evolutionary theory dealt with change at a level in a Consider, for example, fishing in the Great Lakes.
statistical fashion. However, the forces of the envi- There were problems even before the massive intro-
ronment act on whole organisms, not genes. When duction of pollutants. Before 1930,a variety of species
that view is taken, a somewhat different picture were intensivelyfished.This, of course,led to a rapid
emerges of the interactive role of environment and decline in their population. When fishing pressure
organism.Some organisms, e s p e c i a l l ym a n , c a n eased, the theory would suggest,the fish should have
modify their environmentsor move to new ones. They come back. Yet their decline continued.The particu-
can becomeadaptedin particularways to their envi- lar ecos5'stem had been shifted from a stableequilib-'
-
ronment (e.g., grow strongerfrom use of muscles). rium domain to a collapsingcondition.Though it had
Adapting to environmental stress then becomes an been stable,the systemwas not very resilient in that it
underlying force for evolution. Though particular could not recoverfrom a large disturbance.Resilience
adaptationsare not transmittedfrom one generation is a new concept,then, counterposedto stability'
to the next, adaptabilitybecomesa meta-characteristic
in that sense. Resilienceresultsfrom a combinationof adequatedi-
versity (heterogeneity), mutually supportiverelation-
Conrad Waddington, the evolutionary biologist, re- ships (symbiosis), and open subsystemsthat are capa-
cently put it this way: ble of sudden evolutions to new regimes. Thus, a
survivableecosystemis not necessarilyone that is
Once r,r'econsider evolution in lerms of the selection of
phenotypes which are produced by the deveiopment of stable.Highly stablesystems- ones with only small
a sample of genes dra'"r'nfrom a large gene pool, under fluctuations- tend to have narrow and often shrink-
the influence of an environment v''hich is both selected ing domains of stability. Sudden perturbationscan
b y t h e o r g a n i s m a n d t h e n s e l e c t st h e o r g a n i s m , w e f i n d push them over a threshold toward extinction or a
ourselves forced to conclude that biological evolution,
new state.This was the case with the closed' highly
even al the subhuman level, is a matter of interlocking
s e r i e s o f o p e n - e n d e d , c y b e r n e t i c ,o r c i r c u l a r p r o c e s s e s . * stable system of the Great Lakes' Up to a point, the
impact of fishing was tolerable;but beyond that, in
In other words, biological systems evolve through concertwith new predators (the lamprey), com-
complex, mutually causal processes. The question of petitors (the alewife),and pollutants,fishing pushed
how species evolve from one qualitative condition to the formerly stable system toward extinction.
another can best be seen in the theory of ecology.
Holling uses the example of the budworm to de-
In understandingecosystems, we again find that the monstratet}le concept of resilience.
c o m m o n i m a g e i s a t v a r i a n c ew i t h c o n t e m p o r a r y There have been six outbreaks of the spruce budworm
findings. Our cumentimage is that an ecosystemhas since the early 1700s (Baskerville, 1971), and between
some optimal stable condition. If a properly func- the outbreaks the budworm has been an exceedingly
tioning ecosystem is disturbed, forces from within the r a r e s p e c i e s .W h e n t h e o u t b r e a k s o c c u r t h e r e i s a m a j o r
system will act to return the system to its optimal destruction of balsam fir in all the mature forests, leav'
stablestate.The obviousexample is the predator and i ng only the lesssusceptible spruce, lhe nonsusceptible
the prey. The predatoroverfeedsand its food supply white birch, and a dense regeneration of fir and spruce'
The more immature stands suffer less damageand more
diminishes. Then its numbers in turn diminish, at
fir survives. Between outbreaks, the young balsam
least locally. Some move on, some starve,and so on,
grow, together with spruce and birch, to form dense
allowing the prey to flourish again.The cycle is then itands in which the spruce and birch, in particular,
repeatedendlesslyaround that stableoptimum. Un- suffer from crowding. This process evolves to produce
fortunately, that image does not always match the stands of mature and overmature trees with fir a pre-
reality. dominant feature.

This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the

'See appearance of an outbreak; outbreaks occur only when
) a n t s c h and l{addington in t}re Bibliography. The quote is
from p. 15. there is also a sequence of unusually dry years [We]-

41
 lington, 1952).Until this sequence occurs, it is argued of truth, Plato's Diologues introduced the ldeas or
(l''lorris, 19.63) that various natural enemies with lim- Forms representingthe common characteristicsof all
ited numerical responses maintain the budworm membersof a given kind. Whether one was talking
p o p u l a t i o n s a r o u n d a l o w e q u i l i b r i u m . I f a s e q u e n c eo f about horsesor about justice,the standardfor what it
dry years occurs when there are mature stands of fir, the
is to be a horse,or what it is to be just, was presumed
b u d w o r m p o p u l a t i o n s r a p i d l y i n c r e a s e a n d e s c a p et h e
to be a unifying Idea or universolheld in commonby
control by predators and parasites. Their continued
increase eventually causes enough tree mortality to
all particularhorses,or by all instancesof iustice.The
force a collapse of the populations and the reinstate-
task of the philosopherwas to gain accessto those
ment of control around the lower equilibrium. In brief, eternalForms,for then he would know, first' the eter-
between outbreaks the fir tends to be favored in compe- nal standardsof an unchanging Truth; second,the
tition with spruce and birch, whereas during an out- essencesbehind historical existence;and third, the
b r e a k s p r u c e a n d b i r c h a r e f a v o r e d b e c a u s et h e y a r e l e s s unifying formulasfor all classesof things and virtues.
susceptible to budr+'orm attack. This interplay with the
budworm thus maintains the spruce and birch, r'r'hich All that has changed,in three ways that *e might
o t h e r w i s e r , r ' o u l db e e x c l u d e d t h r o u g h c o m p e t i t i o n . T h e call:
fir persists because of its regenerative powers and the
interplay of forest growth rates and climatic conditions o From Eternity to History
t h a t d e t e r m i n e t h e t i m i n g o f b u d w o r m o u t b r e a k s .I f w e . From Essentialismto Existentialism
view tle budworm only in relation to its associated o From Forms to Family Resemblances'
p r e d a t o r s a n d p a r a s i t e s ,w e m i g h t a r g u e t h a t i t i s h i g h l y
u n s t a b l e i n t h e s e n s et h a t p o p u l a t i o n s f l u c t u a t e w i d e l y .
But these very fluctuations are essential features that From Eternity to History - The sense of almost in-
evitable progressthat we take for granted \\'asvirtu'
m a i n t a i n p e r s i s t e n c eo f t h e b u d w o r m , t o g e t h e r w i t h i t s
ally unknown to the ancients.Certainly, there were
n a t u r a l e n e m i e s a n d i t s h o s t a n d a s s o c i a t e dt r e e s . B y s o
fluctuating, successive generations of forests are re- cycles of growth and decay,but the standardsof per'
placed, assuring a continued food supply for future fection - the Forms - were unchangingand thought
g e n e r a t i o n s o f b u d w o r m a n d t h e p e r s i s t e n c eo f t h e s y s - to be the same for everyone everywhere' Of course,
tem. * t h e r e w e r e h e r e t i c a l e x c e p t i o n s ,b u t n o t u n t i l t h e
nineteenth century did mainstreamphilcsophers
The old biological paradigm concentrated on the roles fully appreciatethe import of historical chargein the
"chance and necessity" in evolution and of stability
of structureof rationalityitself.Though Vico ar-dHerder
in ecosystems.In the new paradigm, both evolution had begun to order history in distinct epochs,at the
and survival are a function of interacting diversity, end of the eighteenthcentury Immanuel Kant could
f l u c t u a t i o n , a d a p t a b i l i t y ,o p e n n e s s ,a n d r e s i l i e n c e . s t i l l a c c e p t A r i s t o t l e ' s l i s t o f t h e f u n i a m e n t a l
Ecosystemsevolve through the complex of mutually categoriesof cognition' But the importanceof subjec-
causalprocesses. Indeed,current studiesof speciesin tive perspectivewas appreciatedby Kant. His con'
major nature preserves tend to confirm this non- tribution to the theory of knowledge consistedin
equilibrium view of ecosystems.In those preserves, showing that the forms manifestin experiencederive
which are not very large, evolution seems to be at a from subjective consciousness,not from some Sreal
standstill and the very survival of the affectedspecies blueprint in the sky, not from some distant realm ol
is in doubt. Platonic Forms. Kant accounted for our perceptual
agreementsby appealing to universally sharedsub'
Philosophy jective categoriesin place of the objectivePlatonit
Forms. As statedearlier,in a senseit was Kant whc
The word philosophy derives from Greek roots first realizedthe importanceof a paradigm asa way ol
meaningthe love of wisdom. Philosopherswere those seeing that determineswhot is seen'
who sought after eternal truths. As eternalstandards
But Kant still thought himself to be uncoiering an
'/ontsch ond Woddington, pp. 8O-87 eternalparadigm,albeit within human consciousness

42
 It was Hegel who first appreciated the importance of the works of Heideggerand Sartre,meansthat our acts
paradigmshifts or, in hii phrase,"conversionsof con- and our achievements- our relationshipsin the his-
s c i o u s n e s s . "F o r H e g e l , h i s t o r y i s m o r e t h a n a torical present - do more to determine our natures
sequenceof events.History shows us an evolution in than do any indwelling essences.We do not find
the very consciousnessthat participates in those ourselves;we creote our lives hom the little we can
events,e.g., from Athenian culture to Christian cul- find in the "rag and bone shop of the heart."
ture, from religious superstitionto the rationalistEn-
l i g h t e n m e n t .W e c a n n o t a s s u m e ,a s K a n t d i d . t h a t Like history conceived as progress,individual lives
modern consciousness obeysthe samerules observed may produce novelties undreamt of when time was
and classifiedby Aristotle. viewed as the "moving image and poor copy of eter-
nity." Existentialismis thus a microcosmicexpres-
WhereasHegel historicized Kant's eternal paradigm
sion of the macrocosmicperspectivismrevealedin
into the lumbering movementof a World Spirit, Marx historical conversionsof consciousness.
and Nietzschefurther radicalizedthe fall from eternal fust as an-
cient, consciousnessmay differ from modern con-
F o r m s . H e g e l s a w d i f f e r e n c e so f c o n s c i o u s n e s s
sciousness,so my childhood consciousness is not a
breaking down into broad epochs;Marx saw similar
fixed essence determining my adult existence.Exis-
differenceswithin the same epoch: "class conscious-
tenceprecedesessence.I will make myselfwho I am.
n e s s " i s a w a y o f s e e i n gt h i n g s - a p a r a d i g m .T h e
perspectiveof the ruling class is such that it can see From Formsto Fomily Resemblonces - Of the several
somethings but must remain blind to others;likewise functions served by Platonic Forms, one remained
for the proletariat.Hence the phrase..falseconscious- unchallenged as late as t}le twentieth century. Kant
ness,"or what Gunnar Myrdal, in his analysisof good undermined the objectivity of the Forms by finding
Christian slave owners, calls "selective objectivity." formal structureswithin subjective consciousness.
For Nietzschethis shatteringof a universal order ex- Hegel and his more radical followers challengedthe
tends beyond epochs (Hegel) and classes(Marx) to eternalstabilityof the Forms by drawing attentionto
even smallergroups,even to individual perspectives. conversionsof consciousness in collectivehistory as
His so-calledperspectivismushers in the movement w e l l a s i n i n d i v i d u a l b i o g r a p h y . B u t L u d w i g
known as Existentialism. W i t t g e n s t e i nd e a l t t h e f i n a l b l o w t o t h e p l a t o n i c
paradigm by questioningthe universolity ostensibly
From Essentiolismto Existentiolism - Whereasplato provided by the Forms.
pointed toward abstract Ideas that stand apart from
t h e i r p h y s i c a l i n s t a n c e s ,A r i s t o t l e q u e s t i o n e dt h e Though a strongodor of Socraticirony hangsover the
separability of form from matter. He stressedin- relevantdialogues,Plato'smore orthodox interpreters
dwelling essences.Like the Forms, however, these take him to have intended the Forms as universalsin
unchanging essencesgive characteristicform to their the sensethat eachForm unified a classof particulars
respectivematerial instances.The paradigm case is by specifyingone thing they all had in common.The
organic growth, e.g., from acorn to oak; or, as the Form of Rednesswould be the unifying elementheld
words from The Fontosticksput it, ,,planta carrot,get in commonby all red things; the Form of Man would
a camot,not a brussel sprout." be the one thing sharedby all men; and so on. Two
thrngs could be said to resemble one another by
As the singer,a father,goeson to lament,children are p a r t a k i n go f t h e s a m e F o r m . A l t h o u g h m a n y p h i -
less predictable.Unlike acorns or carrots, children losophersdisagreedover the precise definition of
cannot be counted on to replicate their parents.De- a given Form, say the Form of Justice,most accepted
spite obvious biological inheritances,human charac- enough of the Platonic argument to grant that some
ter does not seem to follow from indwelling eternal sort of universals,whether objective or subjective,
essences;instead, in the words of the fundamental eternal or historical,must be available to unify the
a x i o m o f E x i s t e n t i a l i s m , " E x i s t e n c e p r e c e d e se s - many usesof the same word or concept.Hon' could
sence."This saying,found in various formulationsin w e u n d e r s t a n do n e a n o t h e r i f t h e r e w a s n ' t s o m e

43
 single meaning of friendship, for example, some
single reference for the many uses of tho word friend?
\\'ittgenstein iook a different tack. Instead of assum-
ing that there hod to be a single element, known or
unknown but nonetheless common to all uses of the
same word or concept, he argued that the several uses
of a single word might be tied together by nothing
stronger than a series of what he called fomily re'
s e m b l o n c e s .E v e r y g a m e , f o r e x a m p l e , m i g h t r e s e m b l e
s o m e o t h e r g a m e s i n s o m e r e s p e c t s ,b u t t h e r e s e e m s t o
be no single feature shared by all games.Rather than
appeal to a uniff ing Form to find the meaning of a
rvord. we do better to look at the severalusesto which
a u'ord may be put. Those uses may resemble one
another; indeed, they may revolve around one or sev-
eral
"paradigm
c a s e s . " B u t p a r a d i g m c a s e sp r o v i d e a
much looser unity to a class - as different from the
Forms as resemblance is different from identity. No
longer need trvo things share the some element to
rightfully claim membership in the same class; now
r e s e m b J o n c et o r e l e v a n t o r r e l a t e d p a r a d i g m c a s e s i s
sufficient. One might say that class membership has
been democratized from the fiat of the Forms.
Philosophy *as once regarded as the handmaid of
theology. In the hands of defenders of the faith, phi-
l o s o p h y c o u l d b o a s t i t s a c c e s st o u l t i m a t e t r u t h s . T h e
Platonic-Christian tradition presented the universe as
an ordered hierarchy. The dominion of the Lord of
Lords stood as a model for secularIdeas of ldeas.Plato
wrote of a realm of Ideas or Forms providing a kind of
eternal blueprint in the sky for all earthly things, from
tables and chairs to virtue and justice. The task of the
philosopher was to move beyond the many things
e v i d e n t t o t h e s e n s e s ;h e w a s t o a s c e n d a s t a i r w a y o f
abstraction to reach the ldeas. ]ust as the Idea of cir-
cularity would provide a unified standard of perfec-
tion for many imperfect circles, so every other class or
kind would be unified by an Idea to which the mind of
the philosopher rvould find access.
If monotheistic theology provided a paradigm for
Platonic-Christian philosophy, Wittgenstein's family
resemblances provide a comparably influential and
opposed paradigm for contemporary philosophy. No
longer does one hear of vast systems designed to
M
climb an orderedhierarchy of Ideas.Instead,tle work
of philosophers has become more modest and more
closely tied to the manifest multiplicity evident to the
s e n s e s .M o d e r n p h i l o s o p h y h a s s u r r e n d e r e di t s
quasi-theological aspirationsof findi ng eternaltruths.
One seeksthe key to the universe, the fabled
philosophers'stone,only when one retainsan image
of knowledge as sealed by a single lock. Now lan-
guagesare regardedas holding a vast multiplicity of
tangles to be unraveled by philosopherstrained in
logic and linguistics. Patient analysis has replaced
g r a n d s y n t h e s i s .P r o f e s s i o n a sl p e c i a l i z a t i o nh a s
p u s h e da s i d ei n s p i r e di n s i g h t .R a t h e rt h a n s e e kg e n -
eral truths, conternporaryphilosophersrest content
with exposing specific confusions.A philosopheris
more likely to build a repulation for understanding
the deep structure of the use of adverbsthan for any-
thing as grand as wisdom. Consequently, professional
philosophy,like many other disciplines,has become
decentralizedinto a variety of specializedstudies
held togetherby the loosestof family resemblances'
No longer the handmaid of theologypresidingover a
hierarchyof disciplines,philosophy,like the Platonic
Forms, has been democratized.
Political Theory
Political power, according to Max Weber, rests with
those who have a monopoly on the legitimate use of
violence within I commonwealth' The question
arises: by what authority do political leaders claim
legitimacy in their exerciseof power? The question of
legitimacy yields a series of answers demonstrating
the shift of paradigms.
One might be inclined to consider brute force as the
first answer to the question of legitimacy' But brute
force need not claim legitimacy, only the strergth to
"legitimate" or not' Primitive conquest
have its way,
or association does not become politics, strictly
speaking, until leaders can claim legitimacy for their
authority, The divine right of kings, for example, was
an early and elegant - even if currently unconvinc-
ing - answer to the question of legitimacy' The tra-
dition of noturol right follows divine right as closely
a s A r i s t o t l e ' s i m m a n d n t e s s e n c e sf o l l o w P l a t o ' s t r a n s -
cendent Forms. Legitimacy derived from natural right
rests on a real and eternal order in the nature of
things, while divine right appeals to a transcedent
order for legitimacy. And, just as eternal essences
gave way to historical existencein philosophy, so in
political theory statutoryfiats for all time gaveway to
a common-law tradition in which there is a recogni-
tion of a history of growing and slowly altering
earthly precedents,such as the series of paradigm
casesin which the courtshave been called on to alter
precedents for the proper definition of equal oppor-
tunity and human rights.The timelessorder of gods,
m o n a r c h s , a n d p a t r i a r c h s i s d e m o c r a t i z e d .T h e
paradigm of down-from-the-top authority yieldsto an
order in which legitimacyderivesfrom participation,
representation,and consentof the governed.
Though political theory hardly bears a perfect corre-
spondence with political fact, it is nonethelesswortl
noting hop sharply the ideals of liberal democracy
and Marxism alike differ from the dominantconcepts
of authority prior to the age of revolution.Until the
time of Rousseau. the universewas divided into Earth
and Heaven, or sublunary and celestial (Aristotle),or
the realm of Becomingand the realm of Being [Plato).
In each case,the blueprint of the "higher" was fixed
and only darkly evidentin the "lower." To legitimate
authority was to turn one'sback on ih" Io*u, and, like
a priest or oracle,seek authoritative counsel from on
h i g h . A l l t h a t h a s c h a n g e d .N o w t h e u n i v e r s e i s
divided, not betweenthe lower and the higher, but
between the natural order whose laws are fixed and a
historical order whose laws are subject to human
freedom. We are making up the order as we go along.
Therefore, the sourcesof political legitimacy cannot
be traced to any singular origin, whether a divine
authority or a natural order. Instead, legitimacy
derives from the tacit contractsforged in relationships
among the governed.Politics is like a gamethat sim-
ply does not exist unless enough people are playing
by the rules. The voluntary and inventive characterof
games replaces the necessaryand fixed order of the
cosmcs as the dominantparadigmfor postrevolution-
ary politics - at least according to theory.
In fact, the ancient paradigm of down-from-the-top
authority persistsin dictatorshipsand totalitarian re-
gimes. More subtly, when we forget the voluntary
aspect of tacit contracts,we experiencethe invented
institutions of politics once sgain as parts of a fixed
order of nature. This relapseinto the old paradigm is
not solely a matter of "forgetfulness." As the institu-
tions grow and bureaucraciesbecomeentrenched,the
inventive and vol;r,.. y origins become ossified or
petrified like living growth turned to stone. Although
this is not the place to attemptthe grand solution to
the problem of institutionalossification,we note the
problem to account for the otherwise confusing ap-
pearanceof a mix of paradigmsin contemporarypoli-
tics. The ancient paradigm of down-from-the-topau-
thority has been challengedby a relationalparadigm
featuring voluntary associationin invented institu-
tions. Becausefreely evolving historiesof human re-
lationshipsmay collectivelyinvenl different institu-
tions, liberal politics is inherently pluralistic. Once
liberated from the uniformity of nature, human his-
tories may evolve in several (though not all)
d i r e c t i o n s ,B o t h i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c a n d c o l l e c t i v i s t i c
societieshave their strengthsand weaknesses.What
we gain in individual liberty we lose in capacity for
l o n g - r a n g ep l a n n i n g , a n d v i c e v e r s a f o r s o c i a l i s t
societies.The attempt to settle the matter of which
societyis "better" may be as foolish as the attempt to
resolve,once and for all, the relative merits of team
sports over individual competition.|ust as there are
severalgamesrelatedby family resemblances, and no
one Form of the Perfect Game, so political organiza-
tions proliferate. If these organizations ossify, we
sometimesforget that their plurality is an index of
freedom. We are then inclined to revert to the old
paradigm and aspire to the Platonic Form of a Perfect
Politics that would homogenize all our bothersome
differences.
That searchfor a PerfectPolitics is associatedwith the
forces for centralizationand authoritarianism. The
contemporary decentralistthrust, along with the ac-
tive resistanceto entrenched authority in its current
form of the tax revolt, may representa new attempt to
recreatethe voluntary and participatory nature of the
new political paradigm.The shift in paradigm is from
politics that rest on a static ideal (ideology)based.on
some necessaryorder found in the nature of things
toward a politics based on voluntary associationin
evolving forms.
4=
 uniqueness of
tures of Ianguage that reflect the
Linguistics cultures.
dramatic
The paradiSm shift in linguistics is more
in philoso-
,f-t.r ift" more gradual evolution observed
oni "* politiclaltheory. The
breakthrough dates from Consciousness
the end of the
ih" *o.t of Ferdinand de Saussureat Recent attention to consciousness is
evidence in itself
linguists had for con-
nineteenth century. Prior to Saussure' ;i;t;tf, in paradigms' When the Paradigm
been mainly preoccupiedwith deriving etymologies:
-ttt" sciousness was a t l a n t < t a b l e t ( t o b u l o r o s o )' con-
they traced ttirto.i"s of rvords' As for the origins of ;;i;;;""tt seemed less interesting than
contents
theiirst words, the obscurityof prehistoryencouraged recorded on its passive s u r f a c e ' N o w ' h o w e ver' we
on
a silencebroken only occasionallyby speculations have become aware of the fact
that consciousness is
"bow-*ow hyiothesis": that primitive words i s i n s t e a d m o r e l i k e a
the not some passive medium but
-iigfrf
gainedtheir meani.,gsf'om sound-alikeresemblances v selective filter that
allows only certain kinds of
bark
I o t h e n o n l i n g u i s t i ci n t i t i e s t h e l ' n a m e d 'e ' g ' ' t h e
information t o e n t e r a w a r e n e s s 'C o n s c i o u s n e s si s a l -
of a dog. Saussure changed all that' ":t take in every-
ways partial or perspectival: we.d"
portion of the avail-
tf,irrg, Uut only a p,"p'og.r"-med
I n p l a c e o f o n e - t o - o n ec o r r e s p o n d e n c e s
b e t w e e n c o n s c i ousness is
able information. Furthermore'
word and are
words and r,r'hatthey named, or between a plural in the sense that several consciousnesses
w o r d s at the
i t s h i s t o r i c a l r o o t s , S a u s s u r es h o w e d h o w different ways
often processing information in
derived their meaning from their relational context
same time.
lhe
within an entire l".tgt,""ge'Rot (in German) means "sounds
same as red (in E.tgilttt-),not becauseeither Both the partiality and the plurality
of consciousness
like" the color red, ot becausethey have a common "." -unii"st in the -"t'o"t'-ic
order of social sys-
red; both
root that somehow sounds like or names ;;;t ; well as in the microcosmic
order of individual
used
mean red becauseboth play similar roles or are practitioners of sociol-
b r a i n s . I n t h e s o c i a l o r d e r ' t h" fea i s e .
similarly in their ,"rp".ii"" linguistic and behavioral consciousness"'by
of red .rV .f knowledge speak of
contexts.As Wittgensteinwould put it' the use which they m e a n a m i n d - s e t t h a t i s so entrenched in a
resemblesthe use of rot' Their uses fit into relational things hom
;j;;; ;;; of thinking that it-cannot see
dif-
structures. Those structures are similar' despite Itoth". ioint of ,,i"'"i rnit charge of
partiality is' of
terms - German on the one
ferencesin the linguistic course,mutual;eachpointofviewdeclaresopposed
posits the
hand, English on ihu other' Saussurethus perspectivesguilty of false consciousness'
"arbitrariiess of the sign": the spoken sound or writ-
to its
ten shape of a word is arbitrary with respect minds' there
a word is lo- Similarly, within the workings of single
*"".rirrg. What determinesmeaning of rationality
the is a tradition that regardslinear-deductive
cation in a conlext. Structural relations constitute anothertradition
from as the only correctway to think; and
meaning of a term; i.e', a word draws its meaning wholes rather than
stressesthe intuitiu" g'"'p of
its relafionship to other elements of a linguistic suggests(1)
otomism analysis into parts. Recentbrain research
sbucture,such as a sentenceor a phrase'The differently
and built up secondary rela- that the two halves of the brain function
tlat began v,'ith terms serviceof both analytic and
now yields to a structurolism (not better o, *orrlj in the
tions airong the terms and (2) the entire
holistic consciousness(Ornstein);
for which tf,e physical form of the terms is arbitrary' bits locatedin
brain storesinformation,not in discrete
The relationsare primary' Thus' we see in linguistics fashion (Pribram)'
in rp".ifi" cells, but in a distributed
a phenomenon similai to the paradigm shift are different states
longer an isolated atom; it Cjth", researchsuggeststhat there
physics.The particle is no different
of relationships with of conscionr.,"rr"i"hich are qualitatively
i", U""r, replacedby a complex may be arrange.d
visible from each other (Tart) and that these
other particles a.td with a deeper' even less like the electromagnetic
from its ir, ,o-" sort of ,p""tt'*'
ieality. Similarly, the word draws its meaning
struc- spectrum (Wilber)'
interactions wiih other words and the deeper

46
The neurophysiology of the brain thus provides a
kind of microcosmic hologram for the macrocosmic
study of consciousness in social systems. In both or-
ders, the old hierarchies - based on claims to a single
"correct" and "objective" consciousness - have
given way to acknowledgments of a plurality of dif-
ferentiated, partial, and possibly complemenlary con-
sciousnesses. Neurophysiologist Warren McCulloch
suggests the term heterorchy to describe such sys-
temi, in which severalprinciples (orchoi) combine in
processing information' Although the displacement
of hierarchy often provokes fears of anarchy, the point
i s t h a t t h e r e i s a m i d d l e g r o u n d . I t i s n o t n e c e s s a r yt o
choose between
"anything goes" (anarchy), and fal-
ling back on the old paradigm of one highest principle
( h i e r a r c h y ) ; i n s t e a d , a h e t e r a r c h y p r o c e s s e si n f o r m a -
tion according to several guiding principles on a par
with one another.
If all work and no play makes fack a dull boy, so all
play and no work makes |ill a dumb bunny' Similarly,
the exclusive cultivation of analytic ability leaves one
blind to the synthetic workings of whole systems,
while the exclusive cultivation of tle larger vision
may leave one blind to specifics.Though we are here
straying beyond the specifics of consciousness re-
search, we can hardly find a better example of the
workings of analytic and synthetic consciousnesses
than that presented by the contrast between Keynes-
ian and Marxist economics, respectively. Marxism
offers an integrated vision of the entire sociocultural
system, but never quite reaches the finer points of
microeconomic pricing theory. Keynes and Samuel-
son tell us all we want to know about the dynamics of
supply and demand, but leave us in need of a
Schumacher to remind us of an
"economics as if
people really mattered."
Psychology
The paradigm shift in contemporarypsychologytakes
the ftrm of a challengeto the age-oldmetaphorof the
self or psyche as a singular
"captain of the ship"'
Freud, the father of modern psychology,likened the
ego to a charioteer trying to control the contrary
wishes of two horses:the instinctual demandsof the
i d , a n d t h e s o c i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l er e s t r a i n t s o f t h e
supereSo.Though Freud's ego-psychologythus con-
formed in some respectsto the classic paradigm of a
single inner steersmanstruggling for control' Freud's
o*i dir"ouery of unconscious influences on behavior
already op".rld a large chink in the armor of con-
scious self-control'
The singular self is, perhaps,analogous to the simple
causesof Newtonian-physics. It is not surprisingthat
psychology, having adopted this mechanical
-"t"pho.,-iocused on behavioral and experimental
directions. Traditional psychology ignores subjective
experience,claimingthat only that which is objective
- i.e., behavior - is subiectto meaningful study'
Along with the entire subjectivecontents of the mind
is buried the unconscious,to be treated as a barbarian
in need of taming'
Recentyearshave seena proliferation of psychologies
that abandonthe classicalmodel of singular selfhood
in favor of more decentralizedmodels' Jung was the
first to challenge ego-psychologyby speaking of a
multiplicity of archetypes - unconscious scripts or
programs, any one of which might take control given
the appropriatecues.
TransactionalAnalysis ('IA) uses game theory to de'
scribe the way we shift players in our relationships
with others and with ourselves'In place of archetypes
modeled on the roles manifest in Greek mythology'
TA adopts a model of the self as a triumvirate includ-
ing a parent, an adult, and a child' Each assumesa
peispective suggestedby its title, and behaves ac-
cotdi.tg to its predictable preferences'Rather than
asking whether the self is in control, TA seeks to
undeitand apparentlyincoherentbehaviorby asking
which self is in control in which behaviors'and how
the severalselvesrelate to one another' The approach
is at once perspectivaland relational'
Psychosynthesis,another school of contemporary
therapy, similarly divides the self into a multiplicity
of ,.riiur.onalities. Again, the attemptis to articulate
eu.h p".sonality not merely as a part of the self but as
a self-containei and fairly complete personality with
its own persPective'
The therapeuticefforts of these and other contempor-
ary psychologiesare increasingly oriented toward a
t7
 "field t}eory" of psychic disturbances' Rather than role of self-expectationsand expectations of others
in affecting performance,and on the improvement
regarding piychoses and neuroses as somehow lo-
of p"rfo.m"nce level through enhancingself-image'
..i.d *lthin separate,atomistic psyches,the newer On the sociallevel researchfindings are buttressing
therapies stress the transpersonal sspects of com- the intuitive wisdom that one of the most important
munication. Information theory contributes a model itself
characteristicsof any society is its vision of " o r -
of selfhood as an open rather than a closed system' and its future, what Boulding (196a) calls
i.e.,as engagedin a contextwhich suppliespart of the ganizing images."The validity of the self-fulfiliing
"self." The locus of mental health is no image appearsto
meaning of i.oph"& and the self-realizing
longer the individual, or even the family, but a net- grow steadilYin confirmation'
woik extending to community and culture' Modern
psychology thul manifests the significant featuresof Religion and SPiritualitY
ifr" .r"* faradigm' it is a field theory that stressesthe "As above,so below," goesbackto the
d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o no f p s y c h e i n t o a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f The statement,
West
selves,each maintaining its own perspectiveon an ancient Vedic tradition and survives in the
and Hermetic cults' Needless to
experience that is ever subject to differing inter- through the Gnostic
r"V, ifttt" cults and their alchemical descendants
pretations. to the
i t l " " " " l " y e d o n l y h e r e t i c a l s t a t u - sn e x t
Platonic-bhristian "rt"blith-"nt' In the hierarchical
Thus, we see a movement from a relatively simple' what is
"above"
mechanisticparadigm limited by a need for objectiv- order of Platonism and Christianity' "below'"
diff"., radically from what is To claim
ity toward " *o." subtle, complex, and relational cosmic hierarchy had a
p a r a d i g m . W i l l i s H a r m a n h a s s u g g e s t e dt h a t t h i s oth".*ise is blasphemy.The
its proper place; and
th"ngJl""ds to a very different image of the human pi".u fo. each a.td pui each in
one' The Holy
psyche: there was room at the top for only
that
Roman Empire was I living expression of
pyramidal cormic order' Monotheism and nodern
( a ) T h e p o t e n t i a l i t i e so f t h e i n d i v i d u a l h u m a n b e i n g hipoth-
are far greater, in extent and diversity' than we ,.i".r." both do away with apparentlyod hoc
but super-
ordinariiy imagine them to be, and far greaterthan eses,from Ptolemaic epicyclesto colorful
is uneeces-
currently in-vogue models of man would lead us to fluous gods and goddesses'Polytheism
wonen as
think possible. sary to"" c,tltrr.e that regardsall men-and
casl
(b) A far greater portion of significant human experi- imierfect copiesof the sameForm of Man' a Forrr
ence than we ordinarily feel or assumeto be so
is in the image of a single God'
comprised of unconscious processes This includes
been a
not only the sort of repressedmemories and mes- Since the fall of the Roman Empire' there has
LeeRe-
sagesfamiliar to us through psychotherapy' It in- ;;"Jy erosion of theological auster^ity:first'
sects'
for-Jtio., spawned a proliferation of Protestar:l
"the wisdom of the body" and those
clJdes also
mysterious realms of experience we refer to with in the New World further
lhet ,eligious fre"dom
"intuition" and creativity"' Accessto
such words as liberalizel the questionof belief' Now our spiituality
these unconscious processesis apparently facili- it-"",fti"g shoi of poly'theistic,not only
in the sense
tated by a wide variety of factors' including atten- "free that different cults woiship different gods' but in the
tion to feelings and emotions,inner attention'
sensethatsomeoftheincreasinglypopulalbelie|
a s s o c i a t i o n , "h y p n o s i s , s e n s o r y d e p r i v a t i o n ' h a l -
systemsare explicitly poll'theistic'
l u c i n o g e n i ca n d p s y c h e d e l i cd r u g s ' a n d o t h e r s '
(c) Included in thesepartly or largely unconsciouspro- From the perspectiveof the old paradigm'
poll-theism
cesses are self-expectations'internalized expecta- is the .r-,rr" of thu heathen;within the new
pa:adigm'
tions of others,imagesof the self and limitations of polytheism is a spiritual manifestation of
p3rspec'
the self, and images of the future' which play a a p-urality
l"it*. That is, polytheismacknowledges
p r e d o m i n a n tr o l e i n l i m i t i n g o r e n h a n c i n ga c t u a l i - s t a n c e s ' a n d e x celiences
zation of one's capacities' These tehd to be self-
of divine p"rrp".iiues,
Polytheisrn demonstrates the important disiinction
fulfilling. Much recent researchhas focused on the

€
retween relational perspectivism and pernicious tions between polytheism and the new paradigm:
elativism. Polytheism is not omnitheism: it is not the pluralism, perspectivism,tolerance, and the mirror-
-
ase that oll is permitted. Only some but more than ing of the macrocosmin the microcosm adds up to a
Ine - are sacred.The distinction is important. With- pattern showing why those who worry about
'ut it the first step away from the monotheistic genocide also object to pesticides. A consciousness
raradigm looks like a step out onto a slippery slope that thinks it can do away with pests in the name of
hat leads into the depths of an insipid relativism agricultural perfection may be tempted to do away
"You like what you with certain people in the name of human perfection.
levoid of any standardswhatever:
ike, I like what I like." As polytheism demonstrates, But the problem is deeper than a question of which
"pests" "wrong people."
rerspectivismneed not slide into that slough. There organismsare or who are the
re many ways up to Mt. Olympus, and room at the The problem concernsour paradigm for perfection:an
op for more than one; but the top is still quite differ- austereorder or a rich ecology?It is a choice between
nt hom sea level in its intensitiesof excellence.The l e a r n i n g t o l i v e w i t h p l u r a l i t y a n d o t h e r n e s s ,o r
tatement "As above, so below" is not a leveling attempting to eradicate differences by regimenting
aanifesto,not a denial of distinctions.The point is uniform adherenceto a single ideal Form.
ather to acknowledge the humon characterof what-
ver is sacred for humans. In their dramas and in- The Arts
rigues the polytheistic deities sanctify human life by
The paradigm shift is nowhere more evident than in
iving it themselves,but on a level toward which
the arts, both in the content of particular arts and in
rortals can only aspire.
the politics, so to speak,of the art world, The esthetic
principles and movementsthat guide the art world aro
n addition to perspectivismand the manifestationof
"As shapedby and help shapethe intellectual revolutions
acred macrocosmin human microcosm in above,
discussed earlier. Modernism is an across-the-board
o below," polytheism demonstratesa third feature or
battle against establishedforms, and against the in-
orollary of the new paradigm, namely, a kind of
stitutions that would educate and pass iudgment on
cologically sensitive tolerancefor difference which,
aspiring artists. It is not a denial of the greatnessand
gain, is not equivalent to "Anything goes." Histori-
enduring beauty of the works of Shakespeare,Rem-
ally, the most vicious religious wars have been
brandt, or Bach. The nature of the art we createis a
rught by monotheistic cultures for whom total con-
reflection of our times as theirs was of their own
uest (reflecting a total intolerancefor difference)was
periods in history.
te only satisfactory solution. Polytheistic cultures
ray trade the dream of perpetual peacefor occasional The sonataform that dominated musical composition
order skirmishes,but at leastthey are not perpetually in the eighteenthand nineteenth centuriesflourished
:mpted into wars to end all wars. in the relatively stable context of courtly patronage'
The strict progressionsof tonal changesand return to
lonotheism leads to an image of the spirit as some- the tonic or home key reflectedthe aristocraticorder
row "out there." We imperfect humans may be
of the context.When composerslike Mahler, Wagner,
ouched by that spirit, but we are not the spirit or part and Stravinski began to monkey with odd tonalities,
,f it. It is therefore not surprising that, along with a
their audienceswere moved to riot' Finally, Schoen-
urning away from the objectified, mechanical uni- berg abandonedthe entire conceptof a tonic or central
erse, there is a turning to inner spiritual sources. key around which harmonic progressionsmight re-
'his
focus on immanence is found both in the expe- *roiu" ", around a fixed center' Today the different
iential religions and in the traditions that focus on schools and genres of music are so varied one can
aeditation as the route to the divine. hardly imagine t}e scorecard'much less follow the
score.
o summary, the contemporary revival of polytheism
; not to be dismissed as a regressionto prescientific Similarly with literature:there was a time not too long
uperstition. A closer look reveals systematicconnec- ago when there were relatively few cenhal works of

49
 literature. Their unquestioned greatnessestablisheda water Arc), and the desert (Michael Heizer's excava-
corrunon fund'of images to which the literate could tions in the Mojave).
allude with confidence that their readers or hearers
could draw from the same well. All that has changed, In 1969 Samuel Beckett, the Irish playwright and
as any collegeteachercan tell. The fund of imagesin a poet, was awarded the Nobel Prize. His best-k'rown
freshman English class is an utterly unpredictable work is Woiting for Godot, a play in which literally
mix drawn from the Bible and Bob Dylan, Mark Twain nothing happens;Godot never shows up' Th: two
and SesameStreet,Kurt Vonnegut, Milton, and yes- main charactersdon't even know why they are wait-
terday's newspaper. And any of the above may be ing for him. It is not reachingtoo far to draw a paiallel
missing from any individual's repertoire.Nor is this with Heisenberg'sIndeterminacy Principle - man
diffusion restricted to freshmen. Among seasoned stumbling along in a world guided only by the acci-
professionalsone finds a proliferation of cults, little dents of probability rather than by lransce-dent
m a g a z i n e s ,a n d s p e c i a l i z e d s o c i e t i e s ,a n y o n e o f meanings.Both the form and the contentof this mas-
which may worship literary deities altogetherdiffer- terwork of twentieth-centuryliterature are a ma-rifes-
ent hom any other. Is it any wonder, then, that an tation of the breakdown of the old paradigm.
aspiring author or poet can feel free to 8o it on his or
her own, invent new forms, or experiment with It would be a mistake to regard oll the odd devel-
formlessness?The sonnet has gone the way of the opments in the art world as faddish manifestati:nsof
sonata.Rhymes,like tonic cadences,are almost em- the far-out for the far-out's sake.Though surell'there
barrassingin a world t}lat does not permit such simple is enough tomfoolery to keep Tom Wolfe busy (c' The
closures.No longer atomic and self-contained,the PointeJWord), current changesin the srts are,i: fact,
boundariesof what counts as poem and song, like the very much of a piece with changestaking place:n the
boundaries of our lives. trail off into an indefinite brolder culture, and are significant as such.The point
distance . . . is not simply that we see new forms emerginl' but
that the very concept of stable Form in gener:l has
As for the plastic arts, painting and sculpture, con- given way to an explosion of happenings,inver'-ions,
sider Cristo's "Running Fence" trailing off into the ind events of ephemeral and ambiguous crea'ivity'
sea.Far beyond any attempts at simple representation, Processis replacing substance,free form is rep'acing
twentieth-centuryart has broken the boundariesof the Form, the very dimensions of time and spa:e are
jraw-
canvas,the frame,even t}te museum. Like theaterthat straining against works which, like Escher's
is e clear
breaksout of t}reproscenium and goesinto the streets, ings, leave us wondering whether there
artists abandonthe studio and museum for the streets diiferencebetween up and down. As above,so ielow,
(wall painting),the oce€ut(PeterHutchinson'sunder- but which is which?

50
 TFIE CHARACTERISTICSOF THE
EMERGENTPARADIGM
The approach of this report until now has been analy-
tic. In this section we will attempt to syrthesize a
pattern underlying the disparateelementspresented
in the previous section. That pattern is what orders
our deepestbelief structures,and those structuresan-
swer the questions:
o How do we klow something is true? What is the
nature of the knowledge process?
o How is the world put together, i.e., what is the
order (or possible order) of things?
o Why do things happen as they do, i.e.,r+'hatis the
nature of causation?
Such concerns lie behind many aspectsof ordinary
experience.An example may help. Let us supposea
corporatepresident makesa decisionto buy another
company. Further, let's suppose that some of his
employees at some organizationaldistancefrom the
decision view it as a real blunder. Using a simple
mechanical model of causalityin trying to com-
prehend this "foolish" act, they might attribute cer-
tain motives to the president.Perhapshe has some
self-interest at stake.Or maybe he's inept. Or perhaps
some advisors have misled him. And so on. A deeper
investigation of the reality often leads-toa different
conclusion. The simple motives imputed hom a dis-
tance rarely match the complex of causesacting at the
Iocus of decision. Most often a president makes a
choice for a variety of reasons,often involving trade-
offs among conflicting goals.A simple causal model
in this instance leads not only to a wrong conclusion
but to mistrust as well. Action basedon simple causal
models may be based on a naive desirefor certainty.A
more thorough and subtlemoiiel consideringthe con-
straintson the decision may lead to greatertolerance,
to greater appreciation of ambiguity; on the other
hand, it can also lead to paralysis and indecision
based on uncertainty.
In what follows we are not concernedwith the issues
of knowing, ordering, and causing in a scientific or
p h i l o s o p h i c s e n s e . W e a r e n o t , f o r e x a m p l e ,v e r y
m u c h c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e s c i e n t i f i c s t a n d a r d so f
proof. Rather, we €Ireconcernedwith an understand-
ing of how the developments analyzed earlier can
enrich and illuminate the ordinary world of human
affairs. We wish to focus on what those manv disci-
plines tell us about the nature of things, not on how
those disciplines themselvesare to be conducted.
In the various disciplines covered in the previous
section,we discovereda number of characteristics,as
shown earlier in Table 3. Before covering these in
detail,.a brief summary of the pattern of characteris-
tics may be useful:
o Knowing - Historicsllytherehas existeda tension
modesand the
(solipsist)
betweenthe subjective/active
(empiricist)modesof knowing'The
obiective/passive
emergent mode is toward perspective/receptive,
acknou'ledging the role and place of the observer, yet
k e e p i n g s o m e u s e f u l d i s t a n c e .T h i s l e a d st o a p r o c e s s o f
knowledge that is more interpretive, inevitably am-
biguous, and partial. The process has rules, but they are
rules for engagement rather than for objectifying.
o Ordering - The old ordering principles are atomistic,
mechanical, and hierarchical. The image of the holo-
gram is a central one to the new view, connoting the
complex network of interconnections among events
and the containment of the entire order within a par-
ticular one. Alongside is the heterarchical' decen-
tralized, and many-dimensional structure. The change
process is morphogenetic - that is, innovative struc-
tures arise out of fluctualions in the old order.
o Causing - Cause and effect has been considered a
relatively simple one-to-one process. The movement in
the new.view is from the simple to the more complex,
from single agents to multiple sources, hom unidirec-
tional to mutual, from determinate or probabilistic out-
comes to innovation, and from control to influence.
"unpack" and clarify
In this section we will try to
these somewhat cryptic summariesby focusing s€pa-
rately on each of three domains of concern.We con-
clude this section with a note on a theme that cuts
acrossall three domains.
Knowing
Our interest in the nature of knowledge arises not
from philosophic concerns,as in epistemology,but
from the fact that human choice and action depend, to
a great extent, on what the person choosing or acting
knows. The main issues are what counts as knowl-
edge and how something comesto be knowledge -
questionsof substanceand process,respectively'
5r
 The historical tendency has been to assumethat in the Physicsand, later, chemistry servedas the idral image
nature of things there is some singular, ultimate truth' of Lowledge. In those domains, at least until re-
That truth may be as cosmic as the origin of the uni- cently, it seemed possible to erect a unifiel reduc-
verse or as mundane as the level of air pollution that tionist world view. However, the attempt tr explain
causesdisease.According to the old paradigm,we more complex phenomena(e'8', biologicalsystems)
conceived of science and other knowledge processes as nothing more than the sum of their par: caused
as taking us ever closer in an asymptotic fashionto the continuing controversy.Even now in phlsics and
one
"truth." The measureof successwas how close chemistry,as Bohm and Prigoginehave so :legantly
we could come to that asymptote of ultimate truth' demonstiated,we must speakof an ecologrof parti-
cles and new forms that transcendtheir cor::onents'
was remarkably successfuli' sorting
This assumptionof ultimate truth is analogousto the Reductionism
reductionist assumption of science.That view held out the parts and their relationships;in this :?spectit
por+'erfuland useful conceptua.tool' As
(and for many still holds) that, if properly understood, has been a
perceptionnow becomesmore subtle,v': needto
anything can be divided into parts whose behavior our
the limits of that conceptualtool n aiding
a.ri .rature will determine the behavior of the lr'hole' understand
Reduction proceedsuntil we reach the so-calledmost our further explorations into the nature of lings'
fundamental subatomic particles' As noted earlier,
does all of this tell us about the humin condi-
however, that fundamental level increasingly appears What
to be an insubstantialfoundation on which to build a tion of knowing?Perhapsat the root of the clangeis a
"one truth" dr;covered
the extreme of the
world view. In physics,the fundamentalparticlemay shift from "one method" toward a plurality oi kinds of
turn out to be a chimera,to be replacedby a complex by the
exploredby a multiplicity of aF:roaches'
ecology of particles in which the act of searching knowledge
influences what is found. In almoslevery real-lifesituation we will f:rd multi-
ple truths, eachrevealedby a different pers;ectiveor
The basic flaw in the view that ultimate building upp.o""h. This is not to deny that there nay be an
blocks can be found is also evident elsewhere'Nearly ,ritim"t" truth. It is simply to say that for hunan needs
two centuriesago there began a quest to reduce the there are many truths and many ways ol knowing
functioning of all organisms, especially human them. One kind of knowledgeis spiritual krowledge'
physiology, to ttt" level of complex chemical and and the diversespiritual traditionsof humarkindrep-
physical structures and processes' This attempt in- resentmany routesto that knowledge' Anlrher kind
is that of the natural order re:resented
d"t"d a debateas to the possibility of such a reduc- of knowledge
tion. The last vestiges of that debate still continue in by the diversity of sciences' Still anothe kind is
brain research.The main issues were laid to rest by knowledge of the human condition, reveaid by sci-
Claude Bernard in the mid-nineteenth century when ence, artland our own experiencesof ours:lvesand
Within these and other drmains of
he identified the domains of relevanceof biochemis- o u r f e l l o w s .
try on t}re one hand and physiology on the other' To knowledge there exist, of course, a mul*'nlicity of
It is central, however, that ore form of
the extent that an organ in the body, for example' has perspecties.
or method or perspective can:ot be re-
certain localizable processes(e.g', digestion) these inowledge
duced inlo another. We will not explain Gr'i through
may be reduced to their chemical and ultimately
nor will God reveal the workings lf a com'
physical elements.However, since these organsalso science,
Each form of knowledge, method, rr perspec'
have functions that cannot be reduced to inorganic puter. undir'standing
iirre h", a contribution to make toward
chemical activity, their nature and behavior cannot be
understood entirely in biochemical terms' Com- and wisdom.
plementarity replaces 'conflict; and plurality among
ihe "tplanaiory aims of physiology and biochemistry This plurality of knowledgeis especiallyirmortantir
requires a corresponding plurality of concepts and the day-to-day choices of life' The debatrover na
methods. tional Lnurgy-policy servesas an illustra:on of thr

52
 problems of a single-minded view of knowledge.The suggestsneither the universality of objectivity nor the
participants in that debatebasetheir views on differ- personal bias of subjectivitY.
ent assumptions,methods,criteria,values,and data,
interacting them in a complex fashion to arrive at The discipline of hermeneuticsprovides a good anal-
positions that they considerto be based on the "ob- ogy. Hermeneutics is the discipline of interpretive
jective facts." The complexity of those interactionsfor principles used in biblical studies. Unlike literary
e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t i s k e y t o u n d e r s t a n d i n gt h e a c - critics, biblical scholarsseek the meaning of a pro-
rimonious tone of the debate.Each participantview- found revelation for human experience.Like scien-
ing an opposing position almost inevitably imputesa tists, they seeka rigorous method to avoid the abyssof
simple set of motives to the opponent.The oil com- personal subjectivity. A carefully worked out set of
panies see the public interestgroups as only naive, principles of interpretation (rather than factual
unrealistic,and elitist. Public interestgroupsseethe determination)has emergedover the centuries,but
oil companies as only trying to fill their coffersr.r'ith theseprinciples will not lead to the one truth for all
undeservedwealth. Both see the politicians and bu- observersfor all time. The results are a bit like the
reaucratsas obstructionistsmerely trying to savetheir results of rules in sports:the rules allow us to make
jobs. The technicianswould like to reducethe issueto sure we're playing the same game; they do not pro-
an engineeringproblem arld wish that the politicians duce the perfectfootball or basketballgame,or dictate
and the public would leave them alone to come up who wins.
with an engineeringsolution.Eachparticipantfails to
see the perspectival nature of the debate.From where This perspectival quality is also associatedwith the
he or she sits, each participant"sees" a differentsitu- inevitablepartialityof any description,which implies
ation. From each different perspective a different set somedegreeof ambiguityin our stateof knowledgeof
of methods seemsrequiredto illuminate the situation anything. More careful study will not induce that
and results in different conclusions. Each view is ambiguity or uncertaintyto go away.Rather,given the
equally complex - not merely self-interest- and nature of our times, study in depth usually increases
usually "right" from its point of view. our uncertainty. Simplicity and its attendantcertainty
exist only at the superficiallevel and perhapsat the
The first step out of this apparent dilemma is to rec- l e v e l o f u l t i m a t e t r u t h s . I n t h e v a s t d o m a i n i n
ognize that each perspectivegives only a partial and between, where we find ourselvesmost of the time,
hence an ambiguousview. Beforeany resolutioncan ambiguity and uncertainty are inherent qualities of
even begin, the participantsin the debatemust accept knowledge. There may occasionally appear to be a
t h e g e n u i n e n e s sa n d u n i q u e n e s so f t h e m u l t i p l e t e m p o r a r y s o l u t i o n , b u t e a c h s u c c e s s i v ec y c l e o f
perspectives.If that first step is possible,the partici- questions will almost inevitably produce as many
pants may be able to move on to a mutual engagement new questionsas answers,
in greater depth with their diversity of views. This
interactionin turn may lead to a realistic set of com- The state of being associatedwith objectivity is pas-
promises that takes into accountnot only the diversity sivity. It has the senseof detachmentand distanceand
of inlerestsbut the diversity of perspectivesas well. hence no motive force.Intellectuallyit is the domain
of theory. At the other extreme,with subjectivity we
But if we let go of the apparently firm foundation of associateactivity or doing. It is the domain of prac-
rbjective fact verified by rigorous method, do we not tice. As we have resolvedthe conflict between objec-
run the risk of a subjectiveand chaotic disorder?This tive and subjective through the concept of perspec-
iension between objective and subjective can often be tive, so now the tensionbetweenactivity and passiv-
resolved in favor of perspective.Objective connotes ity is resolvedthrough the conceptof receptivity.This
:lislancefrom the object of study; subjective connotes stateinvolvesan activedimensionof preparation- of
r p e r s o n a l v i e w . P e r s p e c t i v eb o r r o w s f r o m b o t h , being able to receive - and a passivedimension of
l e f i n i n g a p e r s o n a l v i e w f r o m s o m e d i s t a n c e .I t openness- of being unblinded by bias. Similarly, the

53
 apparent conflict between theory and practice is re-
sol','ed in favor of engagement or involvement while
retaining some detachment.
The nature of knowledge and the process of knowing
are changing. In the multiple selves of psychology, in
the value of differentiation in ecology, and in the
diversity of religions we seethe advantage and neces-
sity of a plurality of perspectives. In the multiple
levels of physics and the role of the observer we see
lhe necessity of acknowledging the partiality of all
descriptions. In the holographic metaphor for the
brain, we find a need for perspective rather than the
historic dualism of "in here" and ,,out there" of the
mechanical model of the brain. And the linguists tell
us now that meaning comes from location in a con-
text, so that to know meaning requires engagement.
These, tlen, are the emergent qualities of knowledge
and knowing: perspectival, multiple, receptive, par-
tial, and engaged.
Ordering
There is an apparent order to things. Understanding
the nature of that order or creating new orders
requiressome understandingof the principles of or-
dering, i.e., what kinds of order are possible?We
generally draw our lessonsof order from nature. It is
not surprising, therefore,that as our understandingof
the natural world increases,we often uncover new
kinds of order.
The issue of ordering has at least two aspects:
o What kinds of structuresand relationships
among their elementsare possible?
o What are the processesby which an order
changes?
At the risk of oversimplifying,the current view can be
captured in a few concepts. It says that almost all
structures- whether biological, physical, organiza-
tional, or informational - tend to be hierarchical.
There exists a pyramidal order with an apex at which
sits the "supreme commander," transmitting orders
down through the ranks.At each level there is a simi-
lar top-down command relationship with all the
lower levels.The inverseis also true in that eachlevel
* I
can be viewed as being merely an aggregatio: of the
levels beneath it. Thus, things may be related io each
other as either equals - i.e., on the same level - or as
building blocks - lower levels of comporents to
higher levels of wholes. Given such an orlering,
things change either by disassembly and rea::;embly
or by addition and deletion.
A very different model of relationship appear: in the
physics of David Bohm. There we noted how a: entire
order can be enfolded into the local order. \'r: used
the example of the hologram; let us call this tl,: holo-
graphic order. A more familiar example - the .rowth
of a human child - may help illuminate the n:-ure of
this ordering principle. The basic question i;: How
can very complex, large-scale orders be co::ained
within much smaller and apparently simpler :rders?
A child at birth is an extremely complex org:nism,
vastly larger than the sperm and ovum pre:ent at
conception. However, encoded in the invisibl-r small
and relatively simple structure of the DNA in *-:etwo
parent cells was all the information necessar).-o pro-
duce that very complex and relatively large org.inism.
A n d m a k i n g s m a l l c h a n g e s a t t h e c h e m i c a l l : ' . r e lo f
DNA can produce very large changes in the org:nism.
Finally, that same information remains encode: in the
DNA contained within every cell of the livi:g and
growing organism. The holographic order he; this
implicate-explicate quality, where informatior about
the entire order is contained in each location ryithin
the order.
Another way of seeing the relationships of tie new
o r d e r i n g i s t h e c o n c e p t o f i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s s ., r -r i v e r
delta provides a useful analogy. It is not possble to
predict the flow in any one branch of the netvork of
streams in a delta from the flow in t}te mainst-am of
the river. The flow in any branch depends in r com-
plex r+'ayon flows in all the other branches. If trr: flow
in one branch is restricted, the flor.r'sin all thr _.thers
will change - some up and some even dora: - to
adapt to this new condition. Similarly, in ar order
where the ordering information is distr-.uted
throughout, there is a kind of interconnecirdness
such that a change in any one aspect will resut in a
network of changes as the other aspects adapt :o the
new condition. As we saw in the discussion ol:volu-
tion, when we cdnceive of a gene pool of g:netic
I
I
information distributed throughout a population, it is
the network of relationships among its many or-
ganisms and the environment that produces evolu-
tion. In the brain theory of Karl Pribram we find again
the network of information distributed throughout the
brain rather than tied only to a single cellular loca-
tion. The metaphor for the new order is the pond with
its traceries of ripples rather than the edifice of con-
crete and steel with a place for everything and every-
thing in its place.
As we have pointed out, hierarchy has been the rule of
structure. Further, the ordering principle has fol-
lowed a narrow conception of hierarchy. What is
above commands what is below. What is below de-
termines the capacities of what is above. In his elegant
"nothing
book /onus, Arthur Koestler calls this the
but" view, as in the notion that a human being is
" n o t h i n g b u t " t h e a s s e m b l a g eo f p h y s i c a l a n d c h e m i -
cal systems of the organism. Koestler enriches the
concept of hierarchy and renames his version as
holarchy. The essential shift is torvard a new concept
of each element in a hierarchy/holarchy. Each ele-
ment has
"both the independent properties
of wholes
and the dependent properties of parts." Each organ in
the body is composed of cells and chemicals, but its
behavior is not solely a function of its constituents. It
also functions as part of a larger system that helps
guide its behavior. The )anus concept suggests that
"organ"
each shows a different face looking up than
looking down.*
Anyone who has worked in a large organization will
be familiar with holarchy. Take a group of people and
assemble them at random and chaos will be the result.
Assign them to some functional task, as in I depart-
ment, and the behavior of the group now becomes
coherent - or so one hopes! Their behavior becomes
not only more than the sum of the individual be-
haviors, but it is also - at least to some extent -
independent of the wishes of the management above
it. Outside of the military, it is rare to see a successful
imposition of hierarchy where there exists a natural
holarchv.
'ln Roman mythology,
Janus was a two-faced god associated with
doorways and gates. The month of )anuary is named after him
because it looks both back on the old vear and ahead to the new.
The concept of hierarchy can be enriched still further
to encompass Warren McCulloch's concept of
heterarchy - that is, overlapping or multiple hierar-
chies. A familiar example may help illuminate this
concept, originally developed to describe neural pro-
c e s s e si n t h e b r a i n . M o s t p e o p l e b e l o n g t o a h e t e r a r - i
chical system; i.e., we may view a given situationl'
"'
from the perspective of seveial hierarchies: the family,
the community, the company, the nation, the religion, '
the species, etc. Each hierarchy will have a different
set of ordering principles, some of which are com-
plementary and reinforcing, while others are con-
flicting. Sorting them out may sometimes require a
Solomon-like wisdom when the conflicts are real and
d e e p . N e v e r t h e l e s s ,w e d o i t a l l t h e t i m e . W e s e r v e , a s
it were, several masters simultaneously.
Heterarchy can be viewed as a decentralization of the
very concept of structure itself. The original, ideal
notion of decentralization was the centrifugal move-
ment of political power irom some centralized seat
down through a specified hierarchy and oul to remote
areas.In complex systems,however, it may be more
meaningful to speak of decentralized hierarchies in
the heterarchic,/holarchic sense. Thus, rather than one
single peak of power, there are several or many cen-
ters with overlapping domains. This shift is akin to a
movement from the single-peaked paternal order of
the omniscient father to a more complex fraternal
ordering among co-equal siblings'
Human feelings provide a good analogy for this kind
of decentralization. When we play with our children,
we may actually feel childlike - witness the father
with his children's toys after the children have gone
to bed. Moments later we may turn to reading a
spiritual verse and our feelings may be loft1', even
holy. At another time, grief over the death of a loved
one may overwhelm everything else.In each instance,
in the life of one person a different hierarchy of val-
ues, beliefs and behaviors is dominant for the mo-
ment. Each is one of the many dimensions of the
human experience. For one person to have childlike,
holy, grief-stricken, and innumerable other feelings
requires a decentralizing of the self via heterarchical
ordering of information.
 Our picture of structure has become quite complex: a
'holarchic,
holographic, and heterarchic order. One
more question must be considered: How do such
complex structures change? They may change in
small adaptive and familiar ways - by incremental
additions and subtractions. They may also collapse.
However, as Prigogine and Thom have shor.r'nin
chemistry and mathematics, complex systems can
also undergo qualitative rather than quantitative
change. Often it appears as if a new order were born of
chaos. This evolution of a new form or structure out of
the old is called morphogenesis. Cellular growth dis-
plays morphogenetic change. The birth of the United
States from the disarray of the colonies was a kind of
morphogenetic transformation. The psychological
"normal" person suddenly
changes that occur u'hen a
moves to a behavioral domain of internal rationality
but external insanity is often morphogenetic strategy
for coping rvith apparently irreconcilable conflicts. As
was noted earlier, morphogenesis requires differ-
entiation and fluctuation, two conditions found in
heterarchical systems rather than in hierarchical
structures.
We thus have a new picture of how things can be
ordered. From physics and brain theory we discover
the mysterious quality of a holographic order. From
psychology, political theory, philosophy, and the arts
emerge the concepts of holarchy and heterarchy to
replace rigid hierarchy. In chemistry, mathematics,
and biology we uncover the morphogenetic model of
change.
Causing
The issue of causalityhas to do with questionsof why
things happen as they do. Maruyama has identified
three blassesof existing causalmodels.The evidence
now suggeststhat we are opening a new fourth class
of causal models,which can be called complex,
m u t u a l l y c a u s a lm o d e l s .
The first classof models is the most ancient and most
familiar. These models focus on singular causesin a
linear and mechanicalsequence.Push the rock and it
m o v e s . P u s h i n g i t a g a i n p r o d u c e st h e s a m e r e s u l t .
Quite simple. The second class is the probabilistic
world of equilibrium thermodynamics.Randomness
and homogeneity are the ultimate condition of the
56
universe. Thus, what appears to be order is sinply the
local and temporary result of a probability d.stribu-
tion. In time this order will change toward nndom-
ness, as is dictated by the nature of entropy.
Cybernetics provides the third class of mod:ls and
opens the way for the fourth. Cybernetic moorls per-
-he pri-
m i t f e e d b a c k f r o m e f f e c t s t o c a u s e s ;h o r + ' e v e r .
m a r y f o c u s i s o n n e g a t i v e f e e d b a c k .A s t h e m a l n i t u d e
of an effect grows, it provides some feedbaci to the
cause in order to diminish the future effect.Tle ther-
mostat is the classic model of a negative fr,:dback
l o o p . I f a i r c o o l s b e l o w t h e t h e r m o s t a t s e t t : - t g ,t h e
therrnostat fires up the heater. When the air warms
b e y o n d t h e d e s i r e d t e m p e r a t u r e ,t h e t h e r m o s t i r r e a c t s
by turning off the heater. Eventually, heater ard ther-
mostat reach a stable limited cycle of off-on rround
the desired temperature. This condition. called
homeostasis, is the result of negative fer'lback
causality.
In addition to negative feedback, the new nrrtually
causal models incorporate positive feedback which
acts on the cause to reinforce or amplify the eiect. In
this case, difference grows rather than dimnishes'
Maruyama develops the example of the evoluionary
interaction between the protective coloratior,in cer-
tain moths and the predatory behavior of certan birds
to demonstrate this concept. Discovering the necha-
nisms of that interaction is an informative e;ercise'
"obvious" solution is that a predator, a :ird in
The
this case, eats more of those rnoths whose prriection
is poorer. Hence, each generation of moth hal a pro-
portion of better-camouflaged moths. Simpr:? Not
q u i t e . S u c h a m o d e l r a ' i l lp r e d i c t a g i v e n r a t e o i : h a n g e
and a growing moth population as more mothr -'scape
the birds. What happens in fact is that tht moths
change more quickly than predicted and ther popu-
lation stays stable. Something else rntst be
happening.
When we observe the birds of each generairtn, rve
find the answer. Some of the birds are better atie than
"smarte:'
others to find hidden moths. These birds
have a n a d v a n t a g e o v e r t h e i r f e l l o r + ' b i r d s , a n i e ven-
tually they tend t o d o m i n a t e . T h i s a c c e l e r a e s lhe
change in the moth, which k e e p s t h e m o t h p o p r l a t ion
stable despite bet[er moth-finding b1' the b i r d : Thus'
both species are evolving together or co-evolving. them. The hardier ones sul.\t\_. .
'
They are each other's cause and effect. The bird is a ance of the next generetltrrr.i.' tttt'trvsing the rssist-
better hunter and the moth a better hider. Thev share a a-nd modify the chenric,,t
mutually causal relationship. t,rl].'..]J,r^,*ur" the dosago
duceseven greaterresist,rtttr"r.\\\l{tl\\\n, which pi-
greatertechnologicsleff.[t ",.'i ,,t,' l\est. Greatorand
The system of the bird and the moth is relativelv
simple and predictable. Both natural and sociai
phenomena, whether they are ecosystems or bureau-
.;.:"Tl"x'J;I3l'31;l;lil,'1.:li,$,;
trolled, man or pest or tr.rtl.ll.l, ., tr.r is being con_
cratic structures, tend to manifest behaviors of very sive adaptation ralhr_rrt6,.rr,*'r\\ l\l\\.ess of succes-
much more complex syslems; and mutual causality in c o m e s t h e m o d e l o f n r r r l , , n i r ' . " \ , , 1 * rs o l u t i o n s b e -
complex systems tends to produce unpredictable re- processes. 'rr lt\Ir-.\-active
cattsal
sults. When viewed this way, it is not surprising that
government economic policy often produces effects W e f i n d s i m i l a rp h e n o r r r o r 1 6
that are unwanted, unanticipated, and sometimes nl 16,.1 ..
lt\\tuan
vorce, for exampl€, n1ar,,,r,-..',.ttll' scalo. Di-
even the opposite of what was intended. Simple ";;lli]',,11,-::::t,'',.,,,* comproxof
llrle-understood
- r a u s e si n c o m p l e x , m u t u a l l y c a u s a l s y s t e m s t e n d t o ated with other major .h,,,,*,,_'lll'\\ \lr\-('rrceis associ-
have little efficacy in producing the desired effects. as careers,religions,lo.nrt,r,,"' t\ s\Iilr aspectsof life
Such a simple cause can be associated, for example,
with a paternalistic causality. Father or president
(nows best by virtue of age or election. He acts and
5:I:il:""ililTr'*'l;1,,1,\,::,1:lii:'y
:i: 'i,1,::i),\1
a c h i e v ea n e w f u n c t i o n n l telationships to

H'ff:l":I :J;'ii:ff'";'llI,II,j,:":':i Jl:;,X'JI;

j,l:
he system carries out his will. Unfortunately, neither
'amilies
nor societies seem to function that way.
lather than a paternal structure, we can speak of a
'raternal
structure: a fraternity of causes and effects
nteracting in a complex, mutually causal fashion - *,iiliiJ:i 3,',ff:f:',,]'li,:
ll:l:),.,rheressons
or
l::"+f,'I:'L',',''
r l l c h a n g i n g t o g e t h e r .R a t h e r t h a n b e i n g c h a r a c t e r i z e d
ry isolated points of cause and effect, the behavior l]ffi"i;""il: ll,:-','
i..iliI*i.:t'fi,X;
elationships appear much more like a field or a
retwork.
ff::ilJ::
:ff::*:1I''i'xl;,,il:
t.l,.:'
of change.If we reflecton rhlr
i:l:'"";'J
::ill
'he
nature of the change process in complex, mutu- ,:i:,\l:\\.r\\ling structure
w i l l a l m o s tc e r t a i n l yf i n d i t
lly causal systems is morphogenetic. These systems n , l ; " , , , , . . r 1 ' c a u s a l i t y ,w e
our own experiencethap llrr,',.'.*t'a\'\rrnsentation of
-'nd to produce the needed fluctuations which, 'rr\\\\\ *)...'ient
subtle model. and lcss
r r o u g h p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k ,t e n d t o g r o w i n m a g n i t u d e
nd frequency. What is critical is that, unlike in the
imple unidirectional model of causalitv. here everv-
"Iti1rIi"it1
ring changes together, more or less in harmony. if
te system is resilient, such a process tends to be il:1 Yi'TJltI
n o o t h a n d c o n t i n u o u s ( t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a r i l ys l o w ) . There appears to be
ow resilience means high resistance and often frac- gether
those
appa."",ir'Tillllll),11,,**i
rhatknitsro-
rring or collapse. Furthermore, since change feeds ergent maps of reality. W,,,'*,,,,".t {\si\\.ts of our em-
lck ori itself, even the causes themselves change. from unity to multinli^ir., ,."' t( .\\ { shift in fo<:us
hus, vvhen we speak of producing a particular seek.the
;"";;;;J;;.r,,i,rl'nil.l..,,ro \r.eno longer
r a n g e i n o u r e n v i r o n m e n t , w e a , r en o t u n a f f e c t e d b v for the one cause.This d.'s',1]]] t:" :ro longer lo"ok
re results: we change too. humankind but empharir,,*
tr,"l..-.ris:-1 the unit1, oi
i n l e r c o n n e c t e ad r m a n y t u , , , , i * . *ll intimatoly
iit,..:
!e example of pesticides provides a familiar case.
'e tvrannY
or11
",,'fi:.l'l:L:"ll'"",I
spray chemicals on agricultural pests to control f :n rft fr.the
 There was a time when the affairs of humankind.
especially in Western civilization, were guided by a
set of unifying principles. In the confident unity of the
religious order was found the basis for our values,
sources of meaning, and even social and political or-
ders. Over the past ten centuries we have moved away
from the religious roots of our present order as we
have become increasingly secularized. However,
there appears to be in the human psyche a deep desire
for unity (along with individuation), reflected in the
powerful urges torvard love, spirit, and association
with others in common bond (e.g., family). As we
b e c a m e a s e c u l a r c i v i l i z - a t i o n ,w e s e e m t o h a v e t u r n e d
our quest for spiritual unity toward a search for secu-
lar unity. To find that secular unity may be a naive
hope. There mav be one religious truth, the "peren-
nial philosophy" as Aldous Huxley called it, that lies
behind all our diverse religions. Perhaps each is the
unique cultural expression of that one truth by a par-
ticular people. However, what may be ultimately un-
itary in the spiritual domain may still be multiple in
the secular experience of humankind.
As we have attempted to substitute secular unity for
spiritual unity, we have also absorbed some of the
mundane problems of the older rigid religious struc-
tures. The history of religion is rife with these prob-
lems: rigidity, exclusivism, conflict, and an all-too-
frequent focus on t}le trivial rather than the exalted.
W e s e e t h e s e s a m e i s s u e sc o n f r o n t e d i n t h e d o m a i n o f
ordinary existence - in the struggle against en-
trenched orthodoxy. How many political and scien-
tific insights have been branded as heresy? How many
conflicts have been engendered by that quest for a
58
simplistic certainty and affirmation of unity? How
"Ours is the
many times has the cry been repeated,
one right way," whether the domain be scientific,
political, economic, or religious?
Perhaps we have a childlike need for a paternal au-
thority to inform us of the nature of things. Once it
w a s t h e O n e G o d . N o w w e h a v e s o u g h t t o r e p l a c et h a t
lofty figure witl secular authorities (politicians' sci-
entists, etc.).Unfortunately, while the One God could
be experiential, our secular authorities have become
far more obscure and remote. We have come to equate
the necessity of a comprehensible natural and social
order, handed down by our authorities, with the basis
for meaning: if there is no order, then there is no
meaning.
One of the qualities of rnatut'ationjn the individual is
the ability to exercisd independent judgrnent in com-
plex and ambiguous situations.Our analysis suEgests
that over the last century our endeavor to explore and
map the natural and human universe has led us to see
more ambiguous, complex, and multiple orders lo the
nature of things. Perhaps this reflects a maturat.on of
humankind in its ability to transcend a naive and
childish kind of unity. More and more, \ e are
acknor+'ledging the subtlety and complexity oi our-
selves and the world of which we are a part. That
growing realization may also be a reason for what
a p p e a r s t o b e a c u r r e n t s p i r i t u a l r e n a i s s a n c eo f d : v e r s e
'.:nity,
a n d g r e a t p r o p o r t i o n s . I t s e e m sm o r e l i k e l y t h a l
if it is to be found at all, will be found in spi:itual
pursuits rather than in the messy world of ph-;sics,
politics, and the human psyche.
 GLOSSARY

1. Catastrophe A mathematical description of a sudden and,/or radical

changein form, or a similar qualitative changein condition;
relatesto the theories of Rene Thom.
2. Dissipativestructures A term invented by Ilya Prigogine to describe complex
chemical structures undergoing the process of chemical
change.
3. Entropy In thermody'namics,a measureof energythat is expended in
a physical system but does no useful work and tends to
decreasethe organizationalorder of the system.
4. Essence An Aristotelian idea that everything has some characteristic
quality which gives it form and defines its essentialnature.
5. Family resemblance Wittgenstein's philosophical concept that describeshow a
word relatesto a class of examples or paradigm cases.
6. Form "essence"and "idea;" it
From Plato, the term is similar to
denotesthe eternal and universal quality that distinguishes
one thing hom another and defines the characteristicscom-
mon to all elementsof its kind.
7. Heterarchy An ordering of things in which there is no single peak or
leadingelement,and which elementis dominant at a given
time dependson the total situation; often used in contrastto
hierarchy.
8. Hierarchy An ordering of things in which one elementis superior to all
others and only that element is generally on top.
9. Holarchy A concept invented by Arthur Koestler to describe the be-
havior of elements in a hierarchical system, in which that
behavior is partly a function of their own individual nature
and partly a function of the nature of the whole system.
10. Hologram (holographic) A three-dimensionalphotograph createdby the interference
pattern of two laser beams.
11. Idea See Form.
12. Immanence A philosophical and theological term denoting that the
Spirit dwells within all beings and things.
13. Indeterminacy principle A principle formulated by Werner Heisenberg,which states
that at a subatomiclevel the outcomesof physical processes
are not predictable.
14, Interference pattern A term in physics describingthe bands of light and dark that
result from the interaction of light waves.
l5..Metaphysics The philosophical discipline that deals with the ultimate
nature of things.

59
 16. Morphogenesis The evolution of form or order out of apparent disorder.
17. Mutual causalitv A relationship between two things in which they mutually
affect each other, causing change in both, as in symbiosis.
18. Paradigm The set of fundamental beliefs, axioms, and assumptions
that order and provide coherence to our perception of what
is and how it works; a basic world view; also, example cases
and metaphors.
19. Quantum theory A theory in physics that postulates energy to consist of
d i s c r e t e u n i t s ( q u a n t a ) ,w h i c h e x h i b i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c so f b o t h
p a r t i c l e s a n d r . l ' a v e s ;s i m i l a r l y , p a r t i c l e s o f m a t t e r a r e a l s o
characterized by an associatedwave function. The theory
implies that no subatomic event is independent of other
such events and that no sequenceof such events is strictly
predictable.
20. Reductionism An idea that the nature of reality can be understood by
comprehending the nature of its constituent parts.
21. Relativity Einstein's theory that space and time are not absolute and
distinct quantities, but rather their measurement is a func-
tion of the relationship of the observer and the observed.

60
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

New York: Viking Press, 1965.

Assagiofi,Roberto,M.D., Psychosynthesis,
Barbour, lan G., /ssues in Scienceand Religion,New York: Harper & Row, 1966.
Bateson,Gregory,Sleps lo an Ecologyof Mind, San Francisco:ChandlerPublishingCompany,
1972.
Eerger,Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann,The SocialConstructionof Reality,New York: Double-
day, 1966.
Berry, Thomas, "Comments on the Origin, ldentificationand Transmissionof Values,"Anima,
W i n t e r1 9 7 8 .
Bohm, David,"The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe:A Conversation with DavidBohm Conductedby
Renee Weber," Re-Vision,Summer/Fall1978.
Bohm, D., and B. Hiley, "On the IntuitiveUnderslandingof Nonlocalityas lmplied by Quantum
Theory," in Foundationsof Physics,Vol. 5, 1975, pp. 93-109.
Brown, RichardHarvey,and StanfordM. Lyman, Structure,Consciousness,and History,Cam-
bridge, England:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1978.
" B o o t s t r a pA
:
Chew,G. F., S c i e n t i f i cl d e a ? "S c i e n c e ,V o l . 1 6 ' t ( A u g . 2 3 , 1 9 6 8 ) ,p p . 7 6 2 - 6 5 .
Chipp, Herschel8., Iheories ol Modern Art, Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1968.
Duncan, Ronald,and MirandaWeston-Smith(eds.),The Encyclopediaol lgnorance, New York:
Pocket Books, 1977.
Emery, F. E. (ed.),Syslems Thinking,Harmondsworth,England:Penguin Books, 1969.
F i n k e l s t e i nD, a v i d ," S p a c e - T i m eC o d e . l V , " P h y s i c aB
l e v i e wD , V o l . 9 , N o . 8 ( A p r i l1 5 , 1 9 7 4 ) .
F o u c a u l tM , i c h e l ,T h eO r d e ro f T h i n g s t, r a n s .a n o n . ,N e w Y o r k :R a n d o mH o u s e ,1 9 7 0( G a l l i m a r d ,
1s66).
Gadamer, Hans-Georg,Truth and Method, trans. anon., New York: The Seabury Press, 1975
( T u b i n g e n J: . C . B .M o h r , 1 9 6 0 ) .
Goffman, Erving,Frame Analysis,New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
Habermas,Jurgen,LegitimationCrisis,trans. Thomas McCarthy,Boston: Beacon Press, 1975
( F r a n k f u rat m M a i n : S u h r k a m pV e r l a g ,1 9 7 3 ) .
Hegel, Georg Wlhelm Friedrich,The Phenomenologyol Mind, lrans. J. B. Baillie,New York:
M a c m i l l a n1 , 955(1807).
Heisenberg,Werner,Across the Frontier,New York: Harper& Row, 1975.
Hilfman,James, Re-VisioningPsychology,New York: Harper& Row, 1975.
Human S\s-
Jantsch, Erich, and Conrad H. Waddington(eos.),Evolutionand Consciousness.'
tems in Transition,Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley,1976.
Kanl, fmmanuel,Critiqueof Pure Feason, trans. NormanKemp Smith, New York: St. Martin's
P r e s s ,1 9 6 1 ( 1 7 8 9 ) .
Koestler,Arthur,Janus, New York Random House, 1978.

5I
 Kutfler, Stephen W., and John G. Nicholls,From Neuron to Brain, Sundedand,Mass.: Sinauer
Associates,Inc., 1976.
Kuhn, Thomas S., Ihe Structure of ScientificRevolutions,second edition,Chicago:The Univer-
sity of ChicagoPress, 1970 (1962).
Lartigue,Jacques Henn, Diary of a Century,New York: Viking Press' 1970.
Mannheim,Karl,tdeotogyand Utopia,trans.Louis Wrth and EdwardShils,New York: Harcourt'
B r a c ea n d C o m p a n y ,1 9 3 6 ( 1 9 2 9 ) .
Markley,O. W., et a/., "Changing lmages of Man," SRI Report No. CSSP-RR4' 1974'
, a g o r o h ," N e w M o v e m e n t si n O l d T r a p s , "F u t u r i c s V
M a r u y a m aM , o l . 2 , N o . 2 ( F a l l1 9 7 7 ) .
, a s s . :T h e M . l . T .P r e s s ,1 9 6 5 .
, a r r e nS . , E m b o d i m e n t so l M i n d , C a m b r i d g eM
M c C u l l o c hW
Michael,Donald,On Learningto Planand Ptanningto Leam, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1974.
Miller,David L.,The New Polytheism,New York: Harper & Row' 1974.
Neumann,Erich,Depth Psychologyand a New Ethic,trans. EugeneRolfe,New York: Harper&
Row,1973.
Nisbet,Ftobert(ed.),Socia/ Change, New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
ogilvy, James, Many DimensionalMan, New York: oxford UniversityPress, 1977.
"TwistorTheory,lts Aims and Achievements,"in QuantumGravity,editedby C.
Penrose,Roger,
J. lsham, R. Penrose,and D. W. Sciama,Oxford: ClarendonPress' 1975.
Piaget,Jean,Ihe Child'sConceptionol Causality,Totowa,N.J.:Littlefield, Adams& Co., 1969.
Polanyi,Michael,The Tacit Dimension,Garden City, N.J.: Anchor Books, 1967.
Pribram,Karl, Languagesol the Brain, Englewoodcliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 197'l.
Prigogine,llya, "The Science of Complexity,"unpublishedlectures.
'1
Sartre,Jean-Paul,Search for a Method,trans.Hazel E. Barnes,New York:VintageBooks, 968
(1960).
Thom, Rene, StructuralStabi/iff and Morphogenesis,trans. D. H. Fowler,ReadingMass.:The
B e n j a m i n / C u m m i n gPsu b l i s h i n gC o m p a n y ,1 9 7 5 ( 1 9 7 2 ) '
"ParadigmaticProcessesin CulluralChange,"AmericanAnthropologist,
Wallace,AnthonyC. F.,
Yol.74, No. 3 (June1972).
Watzlawick,Paul, John Weakland,and RichardFisch,Change,New York: W. W. Norton& Co.'
't974.

Whitehead,A. N., Science and the Modern World, New York: The Free Press, 1967.
Ludwig,Phitosophicat
Wittgenstein, lrans.G. E. Anscombe,New York:Macmillan'
lnvestigations,
1968.
Wofle,Tom, The Painted Word, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux' 1975.
Zeeman, E. C., "CatastropheTheory,"ScientificAmerican, April 1976.

62