The logical and mathematical rationality
of the ancient science extended in modern science to dialectical
rationality and to a rationality of thought in images
or, as Lucian Blaga says, in physical, trans-empirical
processes, for deeper strata of reality far from the ordinary
empeiria. However, all these types of rationality are more or
less open to intuition on the one hand, and to experiment
on the other. Modern science has collected a stock of instruments
which may be transferred to a science of the future focussing
on the law-formation zone. Modern science is a science of motion,
of dynamics and of energy. One could hardly imagine somethingat rest. Elementary
particles like photons or electrons can byno means be thought of as being at
rest44
in any situation. Modern science is essentially a science of mechanics
and it is not accidentally that microscopic phenomena are described
by a quantum mechanics. This fact is psychologically related
to man's action-oriented behavior, his thought developing in relation
to the perception and manipulation of objects. Arthur J. Deikman
holds that man's psychological structuring relies on two modes:
"the action mode" and "the receptive
mode"45.
The action mode induces a thought oriented towards external objects
so as to perceive and work with them. In this mode the connections
with the muscular and sympathetic nervous systems bear on the
thought. The non-verbal mode of thinking is essential in the recognition
of patterns as elements of the objects: "Qualities specific
to perception, as are the outlines setting forth in relief, become
key-features of this mode since the outlines are important forthe perception and
manipulation of objects and for getting knowledgeon the mechanical properties of
objects"46.
However, speech is itself generated by the
action mode: "Speech ... is the essence itself of the action
mode; through it we dissociate, examine and cut the world intopieces or objects
which can then be grasped by us (psychologicallyand biologically) so as to work
on them"47.
Let us also add that speech is generated by the social action
on the environment, by the need to communicate with people. So
far, there exist no possibility for a safe, accurate conveyance
of nonverbal thought, which is an individual manner of thought,
save for drawing, image and art at large. However, these may be
themselves conveyed indirectly, by verbal way, the natural
speech being highly versatile in descriptive abilities.
After the mythical thought, rational thinking developed via
mechanics, which was statical-geometrical
during the Antiquity and has become dynamical in the modern epoch.
"Mechanical" thinking has been however shattered of
late by the notion of information, which was brought forth
by the progress in electronics, communications, automatics and
informatics and by the attempts to decipher the genetic codes.
II
The new historical stage in science is in
all evidence more than a revolution in science. Valter
Roman48
holds that the revolution in science is a radical change of our
representations of nature. He regards it as a new understanding
of the phenomena in nature and even as a change in methods of
thinking. This view is fairly similar to that due to Thomas
Kuhn49,
who concentrates all the above changes into a change of paradigms,
of the basic, linguistically expressed, concepts in a field of
science. The paradigms play also a certain psychological rolein the activity of
scientists50.
A glimpse of the law-formation zone will no doubt bring several
new paradigms in science. Thus, Kuhn observes: "What is the
process by which a new candidate for paradigm replaces its predecessor
? Any new interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory,
emerges first in the mind of one or few individuals. It is they
who first learn to see science and the world differently ... practice
has committed them less deeply than most of their contemporaries
to the world view and rules determined by the old
paradigm"51.
However, the main problem is to choose, inadvance and to a certain
extent, a new object for the wholescience, a new objective for science. In so
doing, one may be"guided" to find some new paradigms, which is a fairly
difficult process, as Kuhn observes. Disruption of present-day
science52,
the incompleteness of logic, neglected psychological aspects or
even those avoided by science, all these have been lately responsible
for several altitudes vis-a-vis science. Let us note four
such attitudes:
- The question of whether science may furtheradvance;
- Mathematized or, at least, quantitative
science is no longer useful when it comes to be unable to seize
paramount dimensions of the human nature;
- Present-day patterns and methods of science
are sufficient to account for the material world even if new paradigms
may come up;
- The confidence that science will survive
all crises, will account for nature and man in all respects and,
additionally, will cast light on the law-formation zone and so
stimulate the creative abilities of the human society.
That science is often refuted, which is partly
due to an erroneous interpretation of several uncontrolable effects
of the contemporary revolution in science and technology, comes
off as a drive towards irrationalism and mysticism in some geographical
regions. In a book revolving about several psychological aspects
which have been little approached by modern scientists, Robert
Ornstein observes: "There exists a 'counter-cultural' community
opposed to Science, and exhibiting a tremendous distaste for rational
thought and its products - logic, machines, computers, technology.
And, although science ought not summarily to abandon the tools
that have been so brilliantly developed in the past century, this
radical distaste does result from a certain excess within the
scientific community and within modern psychology as
well"53.
The author attempts a new understanding of
several psychological procedures pertinent to Buddhism, Zen, Suphism
and to Yoga practices, which he considers to be another psychological
mode of brain functioning (nonrational, nonlinear, individual
in its nature, intuitive, holistic-integral and the like). In
so doing he tries to assimilate these procedures with a certain
scientific standard and so become known in modern science. Notwithstanding
the large number of interesting questions raised, the author fails
to break away with idealism and even mysticism. Thus, Ornstein
holds that resorting to special psychological procedures, one
could get knowledge by ways other than modern science or any science.
Although he recommends a synthesis of the two modes of cognition,
he leaves the door open to something unspecified, yet of an obviously
mystical nature, even if the author makes no overt statement in
this respect. The author's contention that science must itself
deal with such psychological modes of the central nervous system
functioning, without intuiting the material realities at work
behind these modes, is no doubt weak, at least inasmuch as he
left the door open to mysticism.
Towards a Science of Law Formation Zone
40
