Vedic Healing II The Anthropology: Vedic Healing, #2

Contents

Acknowledgements  /9

1. Introduction: Why Quantum Anthropology?  /11 2. Empirical and Nonempirical Reality  /29

3. Appearance, Frames, Intra-Acting Agencies,

and Observer Efect  /43

4. Emergence of Man and Culture  /49

5. Fields, Groups, Cultures, and Social Complexity  /58 6. Man as Embodiment  /73

7. Collective Consciousness and Collective Unconscious

in Anthropology  /81

8. Life Trajectories of Man, Cultures and Societies  /91

9. Death and Final Collapses of Cultures and Societies  /103 10. Language, Collapse of Wave Function,

and Deconstruction  /116

11. Myth and Entanglement  /124

12. Ritual, Observer Efect, and Collective Consciousness  /136 13. Conclusions and Future Directions  /146

Glossary  /158

References  /171

Index  /181

Chapter 1

Introduction:

Why Quantum Anthropology?

We  are  living  in  a  very  exciting  historical  epoch.  Quantum thoughts changed the leading paradigm of physics at the begin- ning of the twentieth century. And, during the next decades, the quantum revolution established a new science of quantum mechanics and contributed to the extension of our knowledge far beyond the classic, Newtonian understanding of the world. From this time on, quantum theory has been subjected to thou- sands of experimental verifcations, and most of its basic princi- ples have been confrmed until now. Perhaps it would not be an exaggeration to say that presently, no physicist has doubts about the quantum nature of our reality.

Te quantum revolution has changed the thinking of physics  and undermined the validity of classic physical laws. Te logic of  classic physics is no longer the only one. Behind the defniteness  of the local objects of our everyday experience is something that behaves according to its own specifc rules. And this some-  thing is an important component of our reality.

Before  the  birth  of quantum  theory,  most  scientifc  felds were more or less connected with the logic of classic, Newtonian mechanics. Paradigms of natural and even non-natural sciences were grounded in the classic laws of nature, in the locality and direct causality of the behavior of defnite objects. In accord with this paradigm, scientifc methods have been developed and used in the research of the reality of our world. But, just as classic physics operated in a specifc perspective, the methods of classic materialistic science were only able to explain just the part of reality bounded by this perspective.

Relativistic movements have proven to be an inevitable re- action to this disappointing state of our knowledge. Relativism

has expanded in many scientifc disciplines, from physics to the

( 11)

humanities and social sciences. Despite of the fact that it brought about more questions and uncertainties than explanations, rela- tivism foreshadows a new emerging scientifc paradigm in which things appear diferently according to diferent points of view, perspectives, or observers. It means that things exist, but the observer infuences what they look like, and so there cannot be an absolute truth about their qualities.

Not even relativism, however, was able to explain all of the aspects of our reality. Something has still remained unexplained. And, at this time, the quantum revolution introduced a new par- adigm and a new meta-ontology into science. Now, we are able to interpret and understand our reality in a diferent manner. In a manner ofering a place for uncertainty, non-locality, and probability. Nowadays, quantum mechanics and quantum the- ory have gained the leading position in contemporary science, and have even started to infuence other scientifc disciplines.

Wendt (2015) courageously labeled the impacts of the quan- tum revolution on other scientifc disciplines as even being a paradigmatic change in the modern scientifc worldview. Te infuence of the quantum revolution on the scientifc worldview is evident, but the full impact on the feld of sociocultural an- thropology is yet to be revealed and adequately discussed. So far, the feld of sociocultural anthropology has mostly neglected the important insights provided by research in quantum mechanics. Tis is not so surprising. One may seriously ask: How could the research of microparticles contribute in any way to anthropolo- gy? How are the fndings of quantum mechanics related to con- temporary anthropological issues? Why is it important to take into account the current fndings of quantum research for the future development of anthropology?

Seeking the answers to these questions is one of the main tasks of this book. Man and culture are parts of our reality, and this reality is the same reality that has been proven to have a quan- tum nature. Of course, this simple statement carries with it many questions that consequently arise. And, the aim of this book is to show that such questions are rather not rhetorical questions, as well as that their possible answering may have serious impli- cations for the future development of anthropological theory. We believe that one should be cautious until anthropology has greater experience with the application of quantum principles.

( 12)

Until then, we may only postulate some possible implications and cautiously defne issues that could be relevant for such in- terdisciplinary interaction.

At the beginning, the frst thing to do is to posit a simple ques- tion, i.e. how physics and anthropology could be related? Such a question already addresses the main anthropological concerns. Man, culture, ontologies, human actions, agency, practices, and social life are general areas of interest in various felds of so- ciocultural anthropology. Without any doubt, anthropology is a science about man, and consequently we may ask if anthropolog- ical research could ever be unrelated to the physicality of man’s being in the world?

We do not want to state that anthropological concerns should be focused merely on the material and biological aspects of man. We are made of matter and energy, and the whole our world is a world of information. And, it is this same world that the fndings of both classic and quantum physics can be applied to. Matter, energy, and information are the three basic pillars of quantum theory. In this situation, ignoring new fndings in phys- ics would represent the risk of making anthropological concerns fat or even reductionist. Te investigation of man without con- sideration of their basal substances, such as matter, energy, and information seems to be insufcient. Te refusal or disregard of new fndings from the feld of quantum mechanics may even con- demn anthropology to lose contact with the perpetually devel- oping fow of scientifc discoveries. We argue that anthropology should not shut itself into some inert box without noticing what happens around it. And we believe that something is defnitely happening. At the very least, our bodies are physical, and yet these bodies are also closely related with the cultural domain of human existence. We cannot strictly separate the human actions performed by our physical bodies from the agency of cultural elements on the other hand. Just the intra-acting between agency and material bodies (Barad, 2007) has been very stimulating for developing many of the issues that will be discussed in this book. At the moment, however, we remain satisfed with the general notion that anthropology has really something in common with physics .

If we accept this notion, another issue arises, namely what

kind of relationship between anthropology and physics should

( 13)

be adopted for the purpose of building a new quantum anthro- pology? One of the rather more extreme possibilities is to fa- vor the assumption of the causal closure (or completeness) of physics:

The idea is that because physics deals with the elementary constituents of re- ality, of which macroscopic phenomena are composed, everything in nature is ultimately just physics. This gives physics a foundational role with respect to other sciences ... no entities, relationships, or processes posited in their inquiries should be inconsistent with the laws of physics.

(Wendt, 2015, p. 7–8)

Based on this citation, one may think that we aim to build an anthropology that is meant to be focused only on the investiga- tion of the material world. But this is not the case. When we use the word physics, we do not mean the classic, Newtonian phys- ics that is applicable to the material domain of man. Quantum mechanics does not only explain phenomena that are observable by our senses as material entities. Tis may be a little bit surpris- ing for those researchers who still hold an idea that physics is a natural science investigating solely material things and mea- suring their behaviors. But, in contrast to this idea, quantum mechanics works with the concept of wave functions, and also with the realm of the nonempirical. Tis extension of focus makes quantum theory a perspective that is able to describe both empirical as well as nonempirical phenomena, and as such, it could be a science that may serve as a framework for building a new perspective of sociocultural anthropology. A perspective of anthropology that would be in dynamic interaction with the new fndings in the feld of quantum mechanics. Tus, we believe that quantum mechanics and quantum theory provide us with a suitable explanatory framework that can be utilized for the plau- sible interpretation of issues currently discussed in sociocultural anthropology.

Furthermore, the position of causal closure of physics would also elicit the impression that sociocultural anthropology should be built on the same basis as natural sciences. However, the caus- al closure of physics does not have to necessarily mean this. One thing is the scientifc discourse of natural sciences with its meth-

ods and procedures of how knowledge should be acquired from

( 14)

research, and the other thing is the character of reality in which man and culture exist. We state that we defnitely will not follow the methods and procedures of natural sciences here. Sociocul- tural anthropology does not have a unifed set of methodologi- cal procedures, but some kind of inherent methodology can be found through the decades of anthropological feld research. It has been proven many times that sociocultural anthropology needs its own sensitive approaches for the investigation of so- ciocultural reality. We accept this long tradition of sociocultural anthropology and continue in this tradition. But, despite this, we believe that sociocultural anthropology also has the potential to be enriched with insights from the felds of quantum theory and quantum philosophy.

Te claim of the causal closure of physics gave us the sub- stantial incentive for recognizing the new discipline of quantum anthropology that is proposed in this book. Te anthropological investigation of man should take into consideration the physical domain of reality and the physicality of human existence in the world. However, at the same time, the causal closure of physics does not mean the approval of principles of classic physicalism and Newtonian materialism. We strictly dissociate our proposed discipline  from  physicalism  or  classic  materialism.  Sociocul- tural anthropology has always been engaged particularly with the nonmaterial domain of human existence, and such research concerns  could  hardly  be  based  on  a  background  of classic, Newtonian physics. For this reason, anthropologists have often adopted positions in opposition to positivism and the natural sciences. But now, the paradigmatic shift in physics towards the quantum understanding of reality opens a new and radically dif- ferent concept of reality. Moreover, quantum mechanics enables the analysis of anthropological issues that have previously been often criticized from the viewpoint of natural scientists in terms of that they are impossible to be proved empirically. Paradox- ically at present, only a science that has grown from the roots of the natural positivism of classic physics provides us with very sophisticated quantum explanations of non-observable, virtual phenomena. For these reasons, we believe that now is the time for ridding social and cultural anthropologists, as well as other researchers working in other soft social sciences or the human- ities, of their fear of physics.

( 15)

Perhaps surprisingly, quantum theory and quantum philos- ophy have many contact surfaces with contemporary thinking in sociocultural anthropology. Avoiding the situation where one would get the false impression that quantum logic is implanted into anthropology forcibly from the outside, we will present here the evidence that a continuity with the past anthropological tradition exists. We will show that quantum anthropology is not constructed artifcially, but that this new discipline has naturally arisen in the fow of the long-lasting development of anthropo- logical discourse. Tis continuity is very important, and we will therefore pay attention to it in the following text.

One can understand the birth of quantum anthropology as a natural outcome of the developments of anthropological dis- course in the past century. Eforts to overcome ethnocentrism started at the beginning of twentieth century, which gave way to an increase in the popularity of cultural relativism in anthro- pology. Te relativistic logic of cultural relativism mirrors the changes that occurred several years previously in physics, i.e. after Albert Einstein (1920 [1916]) formulated the frst version of the theory of relativity. We do not want to speculate about the relationship between these two fundamental shifts in both an- thropology and in physics, but relativism and the emic/etic per- spective have arisen in the discipline and fundamentally shaped the  further  development  of  sociocultural  anthropology  for decades.

Another root of quantum anthropology may be seen in the emergence of constructivism in sociocultural anthropology. Very similarly to the key signifcance of the observerefect in quantum mechanics, social and cultural anthropologists have realized that only the researcher plays a key role in the construction of the so- cial reality that he or she observes. Keeping in mind the position of a researcher, many constructivist, and later also deconstruc- tivist, approaches have started to occupy the feld, and we aford to state that these infuences are still present in the discourse of sociocultural anthropology.

Also, the postmodern shift in anthropological discourse may be  even  understood  as  an  extreme  application  of relativistic logic. Te position that everything is relative is quite closely related to the idea that "nothing in anthropology can possibly

be exactly defned". Taking a closer look at current infuential

( 16)

theories in anthropology, many traces of quantum and relativis-  tic logic can be distinguished. Tevery recent ontological turn in sociocultural anthropology is mostly based on the relativism  that is pronounced in a perspectival and comparative manner  in this feld (e.g., Alberti et al., 2011; Paleček and Risjord, 2012;  Venkatesen, 2010; Viveiros de Castro, 2004).

Allow  us  to  present  several,  maybe  coincidental,  parallels between quantum and anthropological thinking in the follow- ing  text.  Postmodern  anthropological  theory  and  standpoint theory (Baudrillard, 1995; Derrida, 1997 [1967]; Foucault, 1970; Lyotard,  1984; Rolin, 2009) have highlighted subjectivity, the individual’s perspective,  and  inter-subjective  discourses. Tis emphasis corresponds well with the observer efect in quantum mechanics. Another mark of the postmodern shift in anthropol- ogy was the skepticism targeted at science and at its potential to produce objective and universally valid knowledge. Tis stand- point also represents a mark of relativistic logic, which is applied in a relatively extreme manner during this period of anthropo- logical inquiry.

In a  similar vein, postmodern critical theory  (Baudrillard, 1995; Foucault, 1970) highlighted the importance of the social construction of reality, and it relativized the stability of meaning over time. Meanings are suggested to be unstable due to the ongoing transformations of social structures. Here, a parallel with relativistic logic is able to be distinguished, as well. Te postmodern critical theory further proposes that only local cul- tural manifestations are available to researchers in a particular time and space. Tis basal idea is analogical to the moment of observation in quantum theory – the external observer may only observe just the particular manifestation of particles in time and space, i.e. the entities that appear to the observer during their wave function collapses.

Furthermore, the concept of felds found in theory of prac- tice (Bourdieu, 1977) is another example of coincidence between quantum and anthropological thinking. Fields such as religion, arts, or education are suggested to be structured social spaces existing in various cultural settings. But, when we are not satis- fed with the understanding of felds merely as fashionable meta- phors inspiring anthropological writings, we must seriously in-

quire after the real character of these felds. Do these felds have

( 17)

a quantum nature? Are these felds informational spectra? Are these felds energies? Can material expressions of culture be con- sidered products of the actualized agency of these felds? Such questions elicit new inquiry and conceptual questions. If quan- tum feld theory currently explains the diference between classic and quantum felds, the felds proposed by theory of practice should somehow be connected with theoretical physics. Other- wise, such anthropological theory would sufer from the discon- nection of its theoretical embeddedness from the physical world where man and agency do indeed operate.

Furthermore, the relationship between signs and meanings in Derrida’s concept of deconstruction (1997 [1967]) is also an example of, maybe coincidental, emergence of similar thoughts in anthropology and quantum mechanics. Tis concept suppos- es that signs exist only in relation to each other. Te meaning of one sign exists only in relation to another sign or sings. Tis contingency is analogical to the efect of quantum entanglement known well in quantum theory. Microparticles do not exist as separate entities, but are always entangled. Te quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of other par- ticles. A similar logic is apparent in the relationality of meanings and signs.

Many other interesting parallels with quantum thinking can be found in ideas of the current ontological turn in sociocultural anthropology, also called ontological perspectivism or perspectiv- al anthropology (Viveiros de Castro, 2004). Te studies following the ontological turn suggested a shift of the internal logic of an anthropologist to some diferent cultural positionalities (Alberti et al., 2011; Venkatesen, 2010; Viveiros de Castro, 2004). Multiple realities, multiple ontologies, and multiple positions that people are taking are taken into account for the design of anthropolog- ical inquiry. Tis relativistic position is not far from some of the principal ideas of Einstein’s theory of relativity (1920  [1916]).

Furthermore,  the  ontological  turn  also  considers  some points  of probabilistic  logic.  For  example,  the  self is  under- stood as the nexus of a set of possible relationships  (Paleček and Risjord, 2012). Tis conceptualization implicitly includes the assumption that the self may realize some of its possible con- nections with certain probabilities. Some connections are more

probable and some less.

( 18)

And fnally, the theoretical principles of the ontological turn are also closely entangled with the idea of the observer efect in  quantum theory. Te anthropologist always interacts with the in-  vestigated material, i.e. with participants or material entities, and  as such, he/she infuences, for example, the participants’ partic-  ipation in interviews, and possibly also the participants’ expe-  rience of alterity (Alberti et al., 2011). Another related example  is much more connected to the agency of environment. Paleček  and Risjord (2012) pointed out that thinking is partly constitut-  ed