109 MANY LEVELS, MANY WORLDS AND PSI:  A GUIDE TO THE WORK OF MICHAEL WHITEMAN 1 by John Poynton  ABSTRACT The late Professor Michael Whiteman produced a large body of literature relating to psychical research. This âguideâ aims to help the reader to access this complex and often conceptually difficult material; it involves thinking about many levels of causation, and the possibility of many different worlds of experience. Whitemanâs aim was to provide a rationally coherent and illumin ating account of the â inner constitutionâ of physical and non-physical worlds. Building mainly on concepts of potentiality and actualisation derived from quantum theory and classical sources, he developed a multi- level account of potentiality and resulting actualisation in physical and non-physical worlds. Telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition were held to be explicable in these terms. A multi-world view was developed out of an exploration of how different worlds of experience are constituted. He rejected the materialistic view that reality subsists only in objects located in the one physical world; he recognised an âinexhaustible varietyâ of non-physical worlds of experience. He accepted that ordinary experiencing and ordinary understanding will not directly disclose the inner constitution of physical and non-physical worlds; some degree of separation or release from ordinary life is required. Among several states which could favour this condition, special attention was given to out-of-body experience. The literature generally assumes that the separated body is located in the same space as the physical body, namely physical space, supposedly the only ârealâ space. Whiteman argued for the separated body being located in non-physical space, even when this mimicked physical space, and devised his own âindex of realityâ which excluded physical reference. Fixation on physical data was seen  1  This article is based on a paper presented at the Esalen Center for Theory and Research Conference, 25th May 2009. It has benefited from discussion at the conference and in subsequent correspondence.
MICHAEL WHITEMAN1
ABSTRACT
The late Professor Michael Whiteman produced a large body of
literature
relating to psychical research. This âguideâ aims to help the
reader to access
this complex and often conceptually difficult material; it involves
thinking
about many levels of causation, and the possibility of many
different worlds
of experience. Whitemanâs aim was to provide a rationally coherent
and
illuminating account of the â inner constitutionâ of physical and
non-physical
worlds. Building mainly on concepts of potentiality and
actualisation
derived from quantum theory and classical sources, he developed a
multi-
level account of potentiality and resulting actualisation in
physical and
non-physical worlds. Telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition were
held to
be explicable in these terms. A multi-world view was developed out
of an
exploration of how different worlds of experience are constituted.
He rejected
the materialistic view that reality subsists only in objects
located in the one
physical world; he recognised an âinexhaustible varietyâ of
non-physical
worlds of experience. He accepted that ordinary experiencing and
ordinary
understanding will not directly disclose the inner constitution of
physical
and non-physical worlds; some degree of separation or release from
ordinary
life is required. Among several states which could favour this
condition,
special attention was given to out-of-body experience. The
literature generally
assumes that the separated body is located in the same space as the
physical
body, namely physical space, supposedly the only ârealâ space.
Whiteman
argued for the separated body being located in non-physical space,
even
when this mimicked physical space, and devised his own âindex of
realityâ
which excluded physical reference. Fixation on physical data was
seen
1 This article is based on a paper presented at the
Esalen Center for Theory and Research
Conference, 25th May 2009. It has benefited from discussion at the
conference and in
subsequent correspondence.
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
110
to devalue the internal evidence of a recorded experience, and so
limit
comprehension and effectiveness in research.
Whiteman aligned himself with Husserlâs phenomenology, which
sought
to penetrate behind appearances. He aimed to identify âprimordial
conceptsâ,
such as âaxiomsâ leading logically from potentiality to the
actualities of psi
phenomena, and âstructures of creativityâ underlying psychology and
physics
(or subjective and objective worlds), thereby unifying them. Much
importance
was given to number systems and cycles, recognised in ancient
testimonies
and by several modern writers, especially 16-fold cycles formulated
in the
Upanishads and quantum theory. He showed that analysis of an
individualâs
functioning, and the major field laws of physics, could be derived
from
properties of the 16-fold creative cycle, âthe outcome of universal
reasonâ.
Personality structure was analysed in terms of a âcore identityâ
and
non-physical âcontributory mindsâ in the personality, based on
his
own observations, classical Indian literature and some recent
authors.
Reincarnation was treated with circumspection; many cases of
apparent
recall of a previous life cannot be attributed to reincarnation
(such as
retrocognition), and a distinction was held between â loose
reincarnationâ
where memories of contributory minds combine with an
individualâs
memory store, and âstrict reincarnationâ which may include
memories
carried through a continuing âline of consciousnessâ. His
multi-level and
multi-world insights were based on a wealth of direct experience.
Develop-
ment of his ideas of non-physical substructure behind the physical
world
and the physical personality can to an extent be traced in
successive
episodes in his life.
INTRODUCTION
The Journal of the SPR has carried short reviews of
the work of the
late Michael Whiteman, an emeritus professor of applied
mathematics
at the University of Cape Town, who had extensive psychical and
myst-
ical experience, along with an expert knowledge of classical
mystical
texts (Poynton, 1994, 1996, 2007a, 2007b). His death at the age of
100
in 2007 calls for fuller exploration of his work. This review
focuses on
aspects that have particular relevance to phenomena studied in
psychical
research; it is conceived as a guide to this area of his complex
work, using
extracts and references to his extensive publications.
In conventional scientific theorising, any explanation for psi
is
presumed to be discoverable in physical ârealitiesâ. As attempts
to
explain psi in physical terms fail, the conventional conclusion is
that
data purporting to demonstrate psi must be faulty in some way.
This
conclusion disregards a fundamental understanding, especially
evident
in some areas of physics, that what is observed cannot be explained
at
the level of the events themselves â explanation requires seeking
another
level of causation beyond ordinary sense perception. This
multi-level view
111
looking for the causes and processes of psi at a physical level,
and instead
provides some guidance as to where understanding may be found. It
is
an exploration into how worlds of experience are constituted, and
how
we may comprehend something of their working. This involves
thinking
about many levels of causation, and the possibility of many
different
worlds of experience.
These ideas were not the result of speculative theorising but of
direct
observation combined with conceptual analysis. A cornerstone of
White-
manâs writing was to provide âevidence of direct experienceâ, as
declared
in his first book, The Mystical Life (Whiteman, 1961), whose
subtitle is:
An Outline of its Nature and Teachings from the Evidence of
Direct
Experience. The term âevidenceâ also appears in the
title of his series,
Old and New Evidence on the Meaning of Life (Whiteman, 1986,
2000,
2006). Contracting the title of these volumes to The Meaning of
Life and
ignoring the first part of the title, Old and New Evidence on . . .
, is to
misjudge the thrust of Whitemanâs work.
THE FAILURE OF THE RULING WORLD-VIEW
Whitemanâs multi-level view may be approached through his
criticism
of what is currently the ruling world-view, discussed by him as
classical
ontology or one-level naturalism (Whiteman, 1967, pp.374â375,
1973,
pp.348â349, 1986, p.140). This view, which had become established
by
the seventeenth century, is âfirstly, there is just one real space
and time
. . . secondly, the only ârealitiesâ are point-particles and fields
. . . thirdly,
there exists a complete set of mathematical laws by means of which
the
measures for particles and fields are exactly determined for all
future
timeâ (Whiteman, 1975a, p.124). Despite âthe astonishing
successes
achieved in some casesâ, a âtotal reduction to mechanism proves to
be
irrational or unworkableâ, owing principally to the theory of
relativity
(which shows âthere is nothing absolute about mathematical
measures
of space and timeâ) and quantum theory (which shows that âwaves,
or
other structures controlling probability, are beyond the scope of
physical
observationâ, and âcannot be physically locatedâ) (Whiteman,
1975a,
pp.125â127). The standard one-level naturalism also fails to
account for
what he listed as âconsciousness, the self, free will, meaning,
knowledge,
and moralityâ â in other words, the essentials of being human. And
it fails
especially to account for the more exceptional features of human
being,
such as psi phenomena, out-of-body experiences and mystical
states.
Whiteman saw a parallel between the problems raised in physics
and
in parapsychology: âin each case there is a crisis in that
the results of
experiment are incompatible with the classical ontology; there is
the
problem of reality in that the causes of what is observed
physically
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
112
completeness in that a set of physical laws alone is
insufficient to
determine the observed resultsâ (Whiteman, 1975a, p.128).2
LEVELS AND REALITY
The failures in current thinking, Whiteman maintained, come
about
through an inadequate grasp of âthe inner constitution of natureâ,
as it
was termed in the subtitle of his Philosophy of Space and
Time (1967).
His understanding of âthe inner constitution of natureâ, and how it
may
help to make sense of psi and related phenomena, is complex and so
an
introduction to his approach and way of thinking is
necessary.
A starting-point could be his endorsement of Galileoâs
two-level
distinction between, âon the one hand, primary qualities
(which describe
the ideal structuring in space and time for every occasion), and on
the
other hand, secondary qualities (actual sensing and
measurements
in the space and time of some observer)â (Whiteman, 2006, p.19).
He
saw Galileoâs two-level distinction to be confirmed in quantum
theory,
which âbuilds reasonably into physics a recognition of the
unbridgeable
difference between the a priori exactness of conceptual
systems and
the empirical character of any actual measurementâ (Whiteman,
1967,
pp.413â414). The first of these two levels, catered for by
mathematics,
he termed the âlevel of intelligible structureâ, the second, the
âlevel of
sense experienceâ (pp.145â148).
Also, a third level was recognised to accommodate a subjectâ
s âstate of
mindâ, termed the âlevel of memory and imaginationâ (Whiteman,
1967,
p.145). Whiteman believed that, in any perception, close analysis
reveals
a co-operation of these three levels: the level of sense experience
is the
level of actual experience and action, while the level of memory
and
imagination has a function âto fill out the little that we can
discern of
the âgivenâ and to enable us to direct voluntary operations
(analysis,
conceptual construction, measurement) at the higher levelsâ
(p.148).
The level of intelligible structure relates to a âcontinuing
structure
of causesâ (p.140), the âintelligible structure behind any
particular
observation . . . to be understood as transcending space and
timeâ
(p.148). Here we approach âthe inner constitution of natureâ,
which
âaccounts for the spatio-temporal phenomena of physics in terms of
a
system of causation beyond the limits of physical experienceâ
(White-
man, 1986, p.222), and accounts for psi phenomena also in these
terms.
Proceeding from special relativity, âthe rational structure of
space and
time and of physical laws expressible in those terms cannot be
comprised
in a material world but belongs to a realm of universal reason (or
general
logic for all possible observers and points of view)â (Whiteman,
1977a,
113
p.732). The âlevel of intelligible structureâ was regarded as being
of
âgreater realityâ than the other levels (Whiteman, 1967,
p.148).
It makes sense to accord lesser reality to the level of memory
and
imagination, since this level is causally dependent on the other
levels,
and checking by measurement is not possible, âthe âfluidityâ being
too
greatâ (Whiteman, 1967, p.148). But conventional thinking is
inclined to
accord greater reality, or sole reality, to the level of sense
experience,
not to any level of intelligible structure. Whiteman held that this
is an
error, one which âarises from inability to see that externality,
however
ârealâ it may seem to us, comes into evidence only with
actualization . . .
and previously did not exist as suchâ (p.148). This accords with
the
quantum-theory principle of manifestation upon occasion, to be
considered
later. Whiteman attributed the conventional error to, among
other
failings, the âtrickâ of creation expounded in the doctrine of
ma â ya â in
classical Indian literature (p.149). By the powers of outward
âprojectionâ
and individual âenclosureâ we infer a meaningless, detached
âcontainer of
non-mental objectsâ (p.150).
Whiteman saw this as the âcramping errorâ of standard
science,
which takes âobjects of observation in the physical state as
primary
causesâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.96). The error is especially cramping
when
it surfaces in psychical research. This is the materialistic view,
which
holds that reality subsists only in objects located in the physical
world
(Whiteman, 1986, p.140). His own understanding of an âobjectâ
restores
the significance of Galileoâs primary qualities: the essential
object is not
located at the level of physical actuality. He wrote, âwhen we
think of a
physical object such as a table, we are apt to visualise some
particular
appearance of it from a particular point of view, and then we think
of
that appearance as âreallyâ the tableâ (p.140). Yet, âwhat is
actually
observed by anyone, however, will be a little different, according
to the
observing subjectâs state of mind, sensory powers and psychology
in
other ways, along with possible effects of the medium (air, water,
etc)
betweenâ (Whiteman, 2006, p.xxvii). So, âthe real âobjectâ,
accessible
somehow to all people suitably placed, is not just one of its
possible
appearances. In the âbackgroundâ there must be a continuing
structure
of causes which result in a particular appearance being
determined
when some particular conditions of observation are specified. In
other
words, there is a continuing logical and creative
structure which can
count as the origin of all appearances from all
viewpoints and which
is thus itself not âcontainedâ in physical space as a single
appearance
seems to be. Only this transcending logical structure merits the
term
ârealityâ, as opposed to appearanceâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.140).
This is what he meant by the statement quoted earlier that
âgreater
realityâ attaches to âa realm of universal reason (or general logic
for all
possible observers and points of view)â (Whiteman, 1977a,
p.732).
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
114
Whitemanâs comprehension of many levels, many worlds and psi
hinges on this line of thinking. To follow it, his idea of the
archetypal or
universal has to be examined more closely. He discussed a triangle
to
illustrate the primary nature of âgeneral ideasâ or universals, not
them-
selves located physically. When we see a triangle, what is
physically
sensed is an inexact representation of local Euclidean theorems
on
projection which lie beyond ordinary sense perception, just as in
quantum
theory there is âthe unbridgeable difference between the a
priori exact-
ness of conceptual systems and the empirical character of any
actual
measurementâ (Whiteman, 1967, pp.413â414). Our sensing of a
triangle
may produce workable results in practice, but we can access the
exact
theorem only through abstraction which allows an understanding of
the
underlying geometry, not through physical presentations. âIn the
case of
geometry,â he noted, âit is clear that nature provides the
opportunity for
us to copy the concepts by a process of successive approximation.
The
concepts [Galileoâs primary qualities] take actual physical form
[second-
ary qualities] by virtue of additional small-bias potentialities
which
convert the a priori exact into the empirical uncertain.
Nevertheless the
overall effect is according to reasonâ (Whiteman, 1977b, p.294).
So, âwhen-
ever we look at a right-angle, we should realise that such
[geometric]
properties are inherent in our full understanding of it; or as we
may say,
they are potentially in itâ (Whiteman, 2006, p.xxvii).
This potentiality
is causally responsible âeven when that logic is quite hidden from
usâ
(p.xxvii). Thus âthe intelligible structure is operative
in and analysable
out of the total experience (subconscious potentialities
included)â (White-
man, 1967, p.149); the logic is real, yet it is not bound in any
âactual
sensing and measurements in the space and time of some
observerâ
(Whiteman, 2006, p.19). An object, then, âcannot be reasonably
thought
of as more than a potentiality to be observed in all
possible perspectives
and in all possible states of mind serving to determine its
character for
us. That âpotentialityâ also produces objects in âother-world
statesâ such
as dream, lucid dream, memory, precognitive scenes, psychical
states
(e.g. apparitions), and the various kinds of âout-of-bodyâ or
âother-bodyâ
states (here called âseparationsâ) more ârealâ than dream or what
is
pathologicalâ (p.237).
The multi-level idea of potentiality is fundamental to
Whitemanâs
treatment of psi. It has a long history. It involves what
Heisenberg
115
âpotentiaâ in the sense of Aristotelian philosophyâ. Whiteman
followed
this line of thinking: we have to âadmit a sphere of
potentiality, not
physically observable or even physically locatedâ. Then, when
an
observation is made, âall the potentialities on that occasion are
integ-
rated to produce what we can call a physical actualisationâ. This
gives
rise to âthe principle of manifestation upon occasion. That
is to say,
something observable appears only according to the total
circumstances
in potentiality on that occasionâ (Whiteman, 1975a, p.128). It is a
com-
plex process: ânothing specific can be actualised without an
integration
of âsubjectiveâ and âobjectiveâ factors, not in succession, but on
an instant
of actualisationâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.240).
His understanding of potentialityâactualisation relationships does
not
imply a static situation: âobjects and individuals . . . have
distinguishable
potentialities, which continually develop. Such development is not
in
physical time, but in what may be called a conceptual or
quasi timeâ
(Whiteman, 1973, p.355). He saw that âthe development of
potentialities
and their integration, as necessary in any actualization, take
place by
various kinds of resonance [which] may be conceived of as a
mutual
adaptation of developing potentialities to each otherâ (p.356). The
idea
of âdeveloping potentialitiesâ was essential to his understanding
of
precognition, in that it involves alterable âprovisional
potentialityâ
affecting the outcome of events in future physical time. This will
be
considered later.
These quotes are largely from his analysis of ordinary sensory
experi-
ences, which are actualisations that constitute the familiar
physical world
from a prior âpotentiality-sphereâ (p.355). The principle of
potentiality
and actualisation was seen also to operate in the mental sphere of
every
individual, where thought and images are actualisations in
consciousness
of an individualâs âthought-image sphereâ (Whiteman, 1973, p.355,
1975a,
p.129), including the level of memory and imagination.
Subconscious
elements are part of the potentialities involved. The principle
of
potentiality and actualisation was also seen to operate in psi
phenomena
and other-world experience, typically involving complex
interactions as
when âmental associations or influences in one direction might
cause an
actualisation in thought-image space, but in another direction in
physical
spaceâ (Whiteman, 1975a, p.129).
Therefore he saw telepathy between individuals to be
explicable
when, âsince their potentialities include both physical and
thought-
image ones indivisibly, it seems clear that thought-image
potentialities
of different individuals must be in principle capable of
integration with
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
116
arises with âthe possibility of interaction between the
impersonal poten-
tialities of a physical event and the thought-image potentialities
of an
individual, resulting in the production of impressions in the
individualâs
thought-image sphereâ (Whiteman, 1975a, p.130). Psychokinesis
âcould
be called a âreverseâ clairvoyant interaction, because it is an
interaction
between a thought-image sphere as cause, and a physical body as
a
subject of the actionâ (p.130). Factors controlling interaction
were seen
principally to be resonance â analogous with the synchronising
of
vibration frequencies in quantum theory â together with
moderating
factors of intensity, such as emotional intensity, and openness of
mind.
Precognition will be considered later.
These ideas were presented at a conference held in
Johannesburg
in 1973 (Poynton, 1975a); at a Parapsychology Foundation
conference
held in Geneva a year later (Oteri, 1975), he similarly treated
these psi
phenomena in a recorded discussion, where he emphasised that,
âfor
the deduction of all parapsychological phenomena we need first of
all to
distinguish various levels of spatio-temporal phenomena,â not only
âat
the one physical levelâ (Whiteman, 1975b, p.197). Thus in
clairvoyance
âwhat we have is a non-physical spatio-temporal manifestation in
the
mind of the seer, but it is out of step with the physical
potentiality being
actualized at that time . . . The shift in space or time gives us
the pheno-
mena of clairvoyance, precognition, retrocognition, and even
memoryâ
(p.198). âWhat I would say is that the clairvoyant or paragnost
has
become practiced at focusing on the non-physical level from
which
physical actualizations spring. There can be actualization at the
physical
level, and there can be actualization of the same potentialities,
along
with others, at the thought-image level . . . he can shift his
attention
to another place, or to the future or the past, and the picture
changes
accordinglyâ (p.200).
Structures of potentiality, whether subconscious or influencing
ex-
ternal manifestation, were held by him not to be beyond
comprehension.
They are open to â âessential insightâ and transcendent
comprehension,
by which details of intelligible structure in any experience may be
held
changelessly in viewâ (Whiteman, 1967, p. 395). As will now be
discussed,
the structures of potentiality, even though outside the sensory
world,
are not, as Locke and Kant believed, closed to direct
acquaintance.
COMPREHENSION OF INTELLIGIBLE STRUCTURE
Whiteman was in agreement with Kant that ordinary practical
experiencing (Erfahrung) and ordinary understanding
(Verstand) will
not directly disclose the level of intelligible structure, but
unlike Kant
117
succeed. He pointed out that this third intelligible sphere is
recognised
in Platonic and Eastern traditions (Whiteman, 1967, p.394). As
with
Whiteman himself, these traditions are based on direct experience,
not
mere speculative theory-spinning. Even when logical structure may
be
hidden from us, it is in principle discoverable, so he maintained:
âit is
knowable, either as a structure of possibilities in reason, or
(in the case
of motivation) as a necessary supplement in reason, without which
our
observations do not make senseâ (Whiteman, 1977b, p.292). He
described
such disclosure in the third sphere of experience as âintellectual
or
perceptual knowledge which transcends in a certain clear and
unmistak-
able way the onward urge of time, the rigid apartness of spatial
objects,
and the apparent isolation of the individual mind in its state of
fixation
on bodily impressions. It is a state of release. Fixation
being overcome,
the mind opens out into universalityâ (Whiteman, 1967,
p.395).
The third sphere of experience is not likely to be directly
encountered
in ordinary physical life, but requires some degree of separation
or
release from it. Conditions which could favour experience of the
third
sphere were included under âfive chief types of stabilised
non-physical
stateâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.9), some of which may facilitate
experience of
the third kind. To follow his distinction between ordinary physical
life
and a separated non-physical state, the meaning he gave to the
terms
physical and non-physical needs examination.
PHYSICAL AND NON-PHYSICAL: MANY WORLDS
In understanding his distinction between physical and
non-physical,
Whiteman strove to ground his views on first-hand evidence as far
as
possible, not on speculative theorising. This brought him in line
with
Husserlâs phenomenology (e.g. 1931), which insists on the
importance of
direct experiencing free from the âcloak of ideasâ that invests
current
theory-bound science. The word âphenomenologyâ confusingly has
two
quite distinct meanings, only the second of which applies to
Husserl.
Whiteman (1977a, pp.733â734) wrote, âphysicists and most of the
Anglo-
Saxon philosophical world have come to use this word for âlooking
into
details of appearanceâ, instead of âpenetrating behind appearancesâ
to
the structure of ideas which gives them meaning and substance.
Thus
insight tends to be pushed aside in favour of theories which
merely
impose new formal devices on a background of classical
conceptionâ.
Pushing insight aside in favour of theories tends to be the
position
presently ruling parapsychology as well as other branches of
science. In
keeping with the phenomenological method, his definition of
âphysicalâ
and ânonphysicalâ had to be done âostensively in terms of actual
observ-
ationâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.4).
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
118
of different states and different perceived worlds; but in practice
the
main division he drew was between âphysicalâ and ânonphysical â. A
simple
physicalânon-physical duality was not intended, but evidently he
saw
it as important in the first place to separate his field of study
from the
standard limitations of âmechanistic laws in a one-level
container-world
of physical appearancesâ by offering âreasonably clear definitions
of the
physical and non-physical, and thus hopefully to
discover how a âscientific
methodâ (reasonably so called) may be applied to the latterâ
(p.4).
Following his requirement of ostensive definition, âthe term
physical
is applied only to kinds of observation, objects of attention
or states of
consciousness when the senses of the physical body are being
normally
usedâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.12). Consistently, conceptual structures
of
physics (elementary particles, wave-functions, quanta) were not
regarded
as physical, for ânone of these can be observed directlyâ. Yet
neither
were they non-physical; they were âauxiliary mental creations in
a
physical stateâ â the term non-physical was reserved for âobjects
of
attention in a stabilised non-physical stateâ (p.12). This might
seem
merely tautologous, yet if it is further specified that the term
non-
physical applies to those kinds of observation, objects of
attention or
states of consciousness when the senses of the physical body are
not
being used, then the term becomes reasonably operational.
The distinction between physical and non-physical phenomena
was
seen by him to be in principle absolute: ânothing non-physical is
located
physically (i.e. observable by physical apparatus which so locates
it)â
(Whiteman, 1986, p.7). This was held to be so even if physical and
non-
physical presentations could occur simultaneously, as in one of
the
stabilised non-physical states termed âopeningâ, where
non-physical
phenomena such as visions âare perceived focally as if from the
physical
bodyâ while simultaneously physical phenomena âare also perceived,
but
not focallyâ (p.13). So in the case of apparitions, âthe physical
world can
be as if duplicated for us, gradually or suddenly, so that certain
features
of an inner world (or the whole of it) can be manifested along with
what
seems normally physical at the timeâ (Whiteman, 2006, p.185).
EXPERIENCE OF NON-PHYSICAL STATES:
is out-of-body experience (including near-death experience),
which
has a tendency to facilitate the third sphere of intelligible
experience.
Whiteman stressed the great variety and complexity of out-of-body
or
separative experiences (e.g. 2006, p.257ff), but he grouped them
into
three main kinds, one in which the physical body is out of action
and
119
âsecondaryâ and âtertiaryâ separation respectively; Whiteman,
1986,
p.13). For simplicity I will consider primary separation, the
most
commonly discussed kind of experience. In the literature it
seems
generally assumed that a perceiving separated body is somehow
located
in the same space as the physical body, namely physical space,
because
the perceived scene is generally similar to a physical scene. Yet
since
the perceptions are being made while physical sensation is out of
action,
the scene (according to the above physicalânon-physical
definitions) is
not of a physical kind, and the sensing body cannot be in some
physically
located position; the experience is not of a physical state. Apart
from any
theoretical view, Whiteman recorded finding âa sharp and
unmistakable
distinction between experience as from the physical body and
experience
when having fully entered a non-physical sphere of
existenceâ (Whiteman,
1975c, p.100).
This distinction may not be clearly observed. Whiteman wrote, âif
one
is taken into a âpsychicâ space when not familiar with such states,
or
with fixed ideas about them, and if the phenomena resemble
physical
ones closely (in technical language, the phenomena are
duplicate ones),
there may be a strong persuasion to think that the objects are
being
observed physically; and this applies even to possible duplicate
present-
ations of the observerâs physical body in its actual situationâ
(Whiteman,
1986, p.11). It need not be surprising that the most commonly
reported
out-of-body experience usually contains descriptions of
physical-like
scenes; most people assume that there is only one ârealâ world
that
can be manifested, namely the physical world, and this fixed idea
will
contribute to the potentialities governing the out-of-body
experience,
leading to the actualisation of a physical-like âduplicateâ scene.
The
result is that an out-of-body state generally fails to facilitate
the third
sphere of intelligible experience, being dominated by ordinary
âpractical
experiencingâ and âordinary understandingâ, which will not
directly
disclose intelligible structure. But when the third sphere of
experience
is achieved, the life-transforming âsuperiority it can have over
normal
physical experienceâ is well attested (p.40). The âhigherâ states
of
separation, âas anyone who knows separation must believe, are
logically
prior to the physical state, and consequently not to be interpreted
in
terms of physical phenomena posterior to them. Everything in
such
states, spatial characteristics included, is known as if in
archetypal
unchanging form, and is therefore startlingly more real
(rationally-
objective, ever-present) than the derivative and shifting forms of
the
physical worldâ (p.143).
A sensing of space dimensions in various worlds was,
however,
common to all types of experience. He wrote, âlet no-one suppose
that
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
120
non-physical sensing, objects have extension, position, direction
and
shape, all rationally structured as in physical space, and capable
of being
moved about in that âspaceâ relative to other objects thereâ
(Whiteman,
1986, p.6). They are âsubject to the same geometrical laws as hold
in the
physical worldâ (Whiteman, 1977b, p.302). He observed, âThe fact
that
each non-physical space has other characteristics also, beyond
certain
limitations of physical space, does not justify a ban on use of the
word
âspaceâ for the extensive basis of rationally ordered positioning
and move-
ments when observed in a non-physical world â as if no such
observation
could be madeâ (Whiteman, 1986, pp.6â7). The term ânon-localâ does
not
arise in this context; instead Whiteman pays attention to âlocated
non-
physical objects and their sensory characteristicsâ (p.7). At a
time when
some authors seem to conflate the terms ânonlocalâ and
ânonphysicalâ,
Whitemanâs views need careful consideration.
Nevertheless, this still leaves a question of how accurate and
truthful
the accounts of separation can be taken to be. There remains an
issue of
veridicality.
MULTI-LEVEL ONTOLOGY
We may consider a case cited by Kelly et al. (2007). Here a
physical-
like scene was vividly experienced, including a presentation of
moon-
light. But on physical examination it was found that there was no
moon-
light. I have records of similar cases where the observed scene
differs
from what would be presented physically (Poynton, 1975b, 2001).
Kelly
et al. conclude (p.400) that cases of this sort âprovide no
evidence that
they are anything more than unusually vivid subjective
experiencesâ.
Presumably the experience is termed âsubjectiveâ because
physical
corroboration is lacking, or there is actual physical confutation.
There-
fore it is seen to lack veridicality or reality, a judgement made
on the
tacit and unwarranted assumption that the event was physically
located.
This judgement is made despite the frequent declaration that
the
experience had a special quality that made it feel even more ârealâ
and
life-changing than ordinary physical experience (e.g. Whiteman,
1986,
p.39). Following his own extensive experience, Whiteman held that
this
special quality has to be given due importance, and he developed
his own
criteria âto distinguish between what is deceptive or illusory and
what
has the quality of face-to-face objectivity and truth which we
describe by
saying that a thing is realâ (p.33). He did not make the simple
distinction
between a phenomenon being ârealâ or being ânot realâ; what he
sought
was âa reasonably precise evaluation of its degree of realityâ
(p.34),
taking into account the observation that all types of
non-physical
121
imaginative in character, to what is judged to be more real
and meaning-
ful than physical phenomenaâ (p.9).
To give precision to this evaluation he developed what he termed
a
General Index of Reality (Whiteman, 1986, p.41f, 2006, p.7f). This
gave
numerical ratings for a number of factors, including the degree of
control
or reflection, sense of significance, ability to make rational
comparisons
with the physical state, communication with other minds, and
continuity
of memory between different states. This index flies against
conventional
ideas in several ways, notably in admitting degrees of reality, and
in
excluding any physical reference.
As regards degrees of reality, his index covers a range
from
uncontrolled dreaming (low rating) to ânoetically
releasing and unitively
fulfilling objectivityâ with âa high degree of realityâ
(Whiteman, 1986,
p.34), which he termed mystical experience (high rating). The
term
âmysticalâ is often taken in a derogatory sense of suggesting
vagueness
and mystification, not a state of ânoetically releasing and
unitively
fulfilling objectivityâ. The inclusion of dreaming alongside
mysticism in
his classification of non-physical states might seem to cater to
this idea.
Yet this is not so in the light of what he termed âscientific
mysticismâ,
aimed to provide a treatment of physical and non-physical states
and
happenings that was â âscientificâ in the best sense of the word â
open-
minded, rigorously tested, rationally coherent, and illuminatingâ
(p.vii).
Dreaming is conventionally supposed to be located somehow in the
brain,
yet a momentâs reflection should make one realise that, whatever
is
thought to be the cause of dreaming, the experience is firmly in a
space
that cannot be equated to the physical space in which the
dreamerâs
physical body is located; it is in a different world. Whiteman
therefore
wrote (p.213), âa âworldâ, when understood in reference to
separative
experience, is the continuous and continuing manifestation of
objects
in a stabilised non-physical space-time, which we can enter in a
non-
physical âbodyâ manifestly located in such âworldâ. Thus a
dream-state,
however unreal it may seem, can be said to take us into a
non-physical
âworldâ.â Dreaming is clearly a fit subject for ontological
investigation
(e.g. Whiteman, 2000, pp.127â139), even if transience and lack of
control
give it only low reality rating.
As to his exclusion of physical evidence in assessing the
reality of out-
of-body experience, he saw the usual assumption that the physical
state
should be given prime importance in choosing what we call ârealityâ
to be
unthinkingly based on outdated one-level, one-space prejudice and
to be
âwithout any evidential warrantâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.38). Fixation
on
physical data was seen to devalue the internal evidence of a
recorded
experience, and so limit comprehension. Any apparent physical
support-
ing data merely had âchiefly propaganda value for the
uninformed or
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
122
but who may thereby be induced to accept the âinteriorâ testimony
as
having some bearing on âscientific factâ â (p.49).
He was cautions even of cases such as that of the Wilmots, cited
by
Kelly et al. (2007, p.395), which reported a consciously
projected
apparition being observed in an apparently physical scene. Sighting
of
apparitions was treated as occurring in the state of âopeningâ
(White-
man, 1986, p.9ff), where both non-physical and physical phenomena
are
perceived as from the physical body and there is no sense of
separation
from the body. On this interpretation, the Wilmot apparition was
located
in a perceived non-physical space which was confused with
physical
space. Other claimed evidence for separative experience based
on
physical observation or performance could, he maintained, be
explained
by a theory of ESP or PK, a view commonly held, and supported
recently
by Kelly et al.
JUSTIFICATION OF MULTI-LEVEL ONTOLOGY
IN DISCUSSING OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCE
Whiteman granted that in out-of-body research âthere is a
ground-
work of physical evidence in all investigations of this kind,â but
that an
attempt to âreduce the explanation of such evidence to
causes also at the
physical level (as if a cause could really be âphysicalâ in its
rational and
universal nature) is unwarrantedâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.50). This
focuses
on a core question of why he preferred multi-level ontology to a
one-level
or one-space theory of out-of-body experience in purely physical
terms.
From a general viewpoint he was critical of any attempt to
reduce
causation or explanation to the physical level, or to any other
level of
actualisation. This returns us to the consideration of potentiality
and
actualisation, and the need to look at the âwholenessâ of an
occasion of
observation. He maintained that wholeness at any level of
manifestation
or world can be grasped and analysed only as a multi-level
system
involving potentiality, actualisation, and individual conscious
and
unconscious functioning â jointly the levels of intelligible
structure,
sense experience, and memory and imagination. It does not make
sense
in his view to consider the causal background of out-of-body
experience
on the basis of a solely one-level model. He observed that âfew
people
are ever aware, outside dream, of a thought-image body from which
they
see the non-physical objectsâ. But, âif the bodily-subjective
functions at
the âinnerâ level are sufficiently developed, the thought-image
body (or
perceiving organism at that level, whatever it may be) will no
longer
escape observation in its own sphere of life. . . . Thus the
possibility of
âout of the bodyâ experience presents itself as necessarily
involved in our
new scientific world viewâ (Whiteman, 1977b, p.301).
Besides the more theoretical considerations favouring
multi-level
123
ontology, Whiteman also recorded observational evidence. As
noted
earlier, he wrote, âI have always found a sharp and
unmistakable
distinction between experience as from the physical body and
experience
when having fully entered a non-physical sphere of
existenceâ (White-
man, 1975c, p.100). Non-physical states were considered by Whiteman
to
be âin inexhaustible varietyâ and to âdiffer from one another not
only in
the character of the sense-observations provided in them but also
in the
manner of operation of the auxiliary mental activities having those
sense-
observations as basisâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.8). The variety of
manifested
states correlates with the variety of states of consciousness, and,
as
noted earlier, in most out-of-body experience the usual
physically-based
state of mind will combine with the array of potentialities to
actualise a
physical-like scene. Yet there are likely to be some aspects of any
out-of-
body actualisation that will depart from a strictly physical scene,
on
account of differing sets of potentialities from those underlying a
physical
scene. This leads to a problem: owing to our pervading
physicalistic
beliefs, any differences from a physical scene are assumed to
indicate
hallucination, rather than that a different state will result in a
different
actualisation.
consequences for out-of-body research, for the experient is
inclined
to leave out details of an experience which conflict with an
expected
physical scene, thereby removing key data about actualisation
in
non-physical states. Investigators tend to fall into the same
error
by encouraging only physical-like reports, which then supports
the
gratuitous conclusion that experience which departs from what
is
physical was hallucinatory or âmerely subjectiveâ.
In recapitulation, the title of this âguideâ may be recalled: many
levels,
many worlds and psi. Physical and non-physical worlds of
experience
are, according to Whiteman and other reporters, manifested as
space
and time dimension systems. If the term âmulti-dimensionalâ is used
in
this context, it can be taken to mean that human mentality is
capable
of experience in an âinexhaustible varietyâ of different worlds or
spaceâ
time presentations. The multi-dimensional constructs developed
in
physics cannot be directly experienced, since these are
theoretical. The
term âmulti-levelâ applies to levels of potentiality, actualisation
and
mental functioning, which are operative in the manifestation of
any
world. Their analysis allows understanding how various worlds
of
experience are constituted and how we may comprehend
something
of their working. Analysis of potentiality nevertheless leads to
great
complexity, including finding that time is multi-dimensional in
the
sense of comprising different kinds of âtime-like functioningâ,
as
Whiteman described them.
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
124
The awareness of time, especially precognitive experience, has been
of
major concern in psi research, and Whitemanâs ontology reaches far
into
this topic. His treatment centred partly on the ability to become
detached
from the onward flow of physical clock-time. This is an
experience
familiar particularly to musicians; Whiteman cites several
examples,
such as Mozartâs statement where a composition, âthough it be
long,
stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can
survey it,
like a fine picture or a beautiful statue, at a glanceâ (Whiteman,
2000,
pp.86â87). Generally this ability to engage another
time-dimension
tends to be poorly recognised, despite the fact that reflective
thought
itself is not possible without at least some degree of detachment
from
the flow of physical time: âwithout reflection there can be no
intelligent
control, in fact no continuing recognition of objects and events;
for
reflection implies the ability to âgo backâ in timeâ (p.88).
Whiteman
termed this process âtime-releaseâ, yet he emphasised that there
are
different degrees of release, from ordinary detached reflection to
âa state
that is without boundaries, either in space or timeâ (p.90). This
was
discussed under the Buddhist teaching of the
jha â nas, âexplorations of
the intelligibleâ (Whiteman, 1967, p.109, 2006, p.86).
The jha â nas were summarised as stages, â(1)
investigation, with hypo-
theses and reasoning; (2) bodily and mental ease through
âphenomenol-
ogicalâ analysis (revealing underlying intelligible structure
directly,
without reasoning); (3) âActive Recollectionâ focusing on âpure
(timeless)
ideasâ, while releasing the whole body; and (4) âContinuous
Recollectionâ
(steady, holistic, effortless), in which wholes and parts are known
as if
at once, with a perfection of recollective overlooking . . . It can
be des-
cribed as a voluntary ârelease from time-flowâ â (Whiteman, 2006,
p.86).
More complex is Whitemanâs recognition of the role of three
âvery
different kinds of time-like functioningâ (Whiteman, 2000,
p.95),
involved in âthree causal steps in the actualising of potentialityâ
(2000,
p.98). These causal steps were described as â1. Purpose and
energy.
2. Intelligible structure and means. 3. Actualisation or
manifestation
in space-time objectivity (not necessarily physical)â (Whiteman,
2000,
p.97). These steps are those of the Upanishadic Great Stride of
Vishnu
the Omnipresent, the âthree-stage structure of realityâ or âthree
stages
in creativityâ, namely activated, constituted, manifested
(Whiteman, 1986,
p.199, 1993, p.106, 2000, p.97, 2006, pp.154â155). They were given
the
symbols âTâ, âÏ â, and âtâ respectively. Time T was seen to be
âinvolved
in the interior causation of [a potentiality] field, corresponding
to an
âimpulsionâ which either sets up the field or changes it by some
kind of
interference (as by gravitational force . . . or psychokinesis)â
(Whiteman,
125
future (as in composing a musical work), signified by T; there is
the
process leading to physical actualisation of the intelligible
pattern
decided on, symbolised by Ï; and there is the instant in
measurable
physical time, denoted tâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.95). Times T and
Ï lead
to actualisations in time t, but as with other kinds of
potentiality they
are not readily discernible at the actuality level of clock time t.
Never-
theless time T can be discerned as âtime-ordered structures in
physical
potentialityâ (p.94) and can have space-like properties as in his
reported
experience, âtime had become like spaceâ (p.318).
These time dimensions are perceived, and not merely the product
of
theorising. Time T can be accessed by an individual in a state
which is
suitably distanced in some degree from ordinary preoccupations, as
in
Mozartâs description of being âas it were completely myself,
entirely
alone and of good cheerâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.86). Any backward
or
forward scanning of space-like potentiality must, Whiteman
wrote,
âcome in an âaltered state of consciousnessâ â (p.82), or
dissociation,
âin which the whole field of consciousness is not normally
physicalâ
(p.84). This state may be unintended or be gained by âvarious kinds
of
âcheckingâ or âstoppageâ . . . of the automatic time-flowâ (p.85).
Such
âtime-releasesâ, jha â nas, develop âthe power
to grasp time-structures as
intelligible wholes, to analyse such structures into their
time-stopped
components, and to move backwards and forwards in intelligible time
to
related time-structures, quasi-physical or entirely non-physicalâ
(p.89).
This view also accords with the phenomenological approach of
Husserl,
where âstoppageâ of physical time provides âthe unique form of
conscious-
nessâ as was described in
the jha â nas (Whiteman, 2006, p.332).
Precognition and retrocognition were considered in this
light.
Retrocognition was seen to be distinct from ordinary memory, in
which
âthe current of time continues in memory-imagesâ (Whiteman,
2000,
p.88). Instead, in retrocognition âa past detail could be still
potentially
present in its original form, possibly clouded over or distorted
according
to our subjective limitations when observed at a later time, but
essentially
observable as it was (and really is) by a mind that is released
from
domination by the time-flow. . . . We must sense the fact that it
is the
same percept revisited (non-physically)â (p.89).
Precognition was seen as
actualisation in an individualâs thought-image sphere of
potentialities
âwhich may be called provisional, and have a
future-colouring. . . . Any
provisional potentiality for a physical event may be integrated
with an
individualâs subjective potentialities so as to produce an
actualisation in
his individual thought-image sphereâ (Whiteman, 1975a,
p.133).
These potentialities were seen to be provisional because they
were
alterable, which allows for the intervention paradox, where âwe
can
sometimes prevent a precognised event from happeningâ (p.133).
The
127
to find âstructures of creativityâ in the manifestation of
subjective and
objective worlds, and so exhibit a âsystem of archetypal ideasâ as
in
the basic laws of mechanics, since, âif we can find concepts which
are
âprimordialâ enough, all natural law could be developed from them
by a
kind of deductionâ (Whiteman, 1977b, p.295). This is what he
termed
the analyticâdeductive method, which may be seen in his use of
âaxiomsâ
in his 1973 and 1975b papers on quantum theory and
parapsychology.
The 1973 exposition of axioms starts with âarchetypal ideasâ of
potenti-
ality and actualisation; the 1975b treatment starts with
âuniversals or
essential ideas, timeless and beyond change,â from which
âcombinations
of essential ideas are made into objectivised existencesâ â a
broader way
of viewing potentiality and actualisation. These attempts at
exhibiting
logical coherence, he believed, need to be âpresented as a
development
from what is most general to what is successively more particular
or
specific in its applicationâ (Whiteman, 1975b, p.187). End
particulars
included his interpretations of telepathy, clairvoyance and
precognition
in terms of potentiality-actualisation, discussed above in the
section,
âPotentiality, Actualisation and Psiâ , and the section, âTime and
Psiâ .
At a broader level he showed that the major field laws of
physics
could be derived from properties of the 16-fold creative cycle
combined
with the transformation processes by which different perspectives
of an
object (discussed earlier) are integrated (Whiteman, 1977a, p.742,
1986,
pp.228â239, 2006, pp.319â332). Essentially this was an
investigation
into many-levelled and many-sided potentiality, but the
mathematical
complexity that developed is beyond the scope of this guide.
Outcomes
were the discerning of âthe origin of physical lawsâ (Whiteman,
2006,
pp.320ff), and a charting and analysis of psychological
âsubfunctionsâ
(Whiteman, 1977a, pp.745â746, 1986, pp.194, 202â204, 210â211,
2000,
pp.67â69, 2006, pp.xxx, 191â192, 314â316). The subfunctions may
be
broadened to consider personality structure as a whole.
PERSONALITY STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
FROM A MANY-LEVEL VIEW
The various subfunctions identified in the psychological cycle
form, as
was suggested, the building blocks of an individualâ s psychology;
but how
they are shaped into a fluctuating personality also occupied much
of
Whitemanâs attention. Consistent with his phenomenological
approach,
he was concerned with âpenetrating behind appearancesâ to
detect
causal substructure. Following his emphasis on the importance of
direct
experience, one may start with his observation that âwe can
have
thoughts and desires of which we very strongly disapprove.
Entire
systems of thought and intention, in a strict sense foreign to us,
are thus
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
128
unseen core identityâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.xxiv). The âcore identityâ
is
what we experience latently when âwe say, âI amâ, âI perceiveâ, âI
chooseâ,
and so on,â (Whiteman, 2000, p.xxiv); it is our âlasting
dispositionâ
(Whiteman, 2006, p.xxxii), yet âwhich cannot be actually
experienced till
something of a mystical transformation reveals itâ (p.34). The
inflowing
of âforeign thoughtsâ can, in suitably released states, âbe
objectified in
a non-physical space. They may be seen as non-physical living
beings,
having for us the character of contributory minds (co-minds, or CMs
for
short), in relation to which our core identity is an individual in
chargeâ
(Whiteman, 2000, p.xxiv). As the âindividual in chargeâ is subject
to
âhabitually identifying with a body and desires that cannot
belong
permanentlyâ (Whiteman, 2006, p.xxxii), it is presented as a
fluctuating
personality with a âruling identityâ (pp.xxxii, 34, 82) compounded
with
co-minds. The âindividual in chargeâ seems in Whitemanâs writing
to
be identified with atta or âself â of Buddhist teaching, so
anatta means
worldly selflessness, not âno-soulâ as is commonly (and
misleadingly)
translated (Whiteman, 1993, p.43). In the mystical âFinal
Disclosure
and Release . . . âself â (atta) gives place to the
underlying core identityâ
(Whiteman, 2006, p.89).
There is involvement here both with many levels (the
hierarchical
structure behind personality) and with many worlds (the existence
of
non-physical minds). This is a complex conception out of line with
ruling
contemporary ideas, but support for this âcorporate structure of
person-
alityâ was cited from classical Indian literature, and from
Swedenborg,
Freud, McDougall and Balfour among others (see Whiteman,
1986,
pp.25ff, p.103, 2000, p.xxiv, 2006, p.34). It might be noted
that
Whiteman could also have cited support from the recently-formed
and
medically-based Spirit Release Foundation in the UK, which
âpromotes
the understanding of spirit attachment and its effects, and fosters
the
practice of spirit release.â (www.spiritrelease.com). This could
stand as a
summary of what Whiteman saw as a necessary part of development
of
the individual, namely the purifying of the individual âline of
conscious-
nessâ to the point where the âcore identity is what is
revealed in the
mystical transformation, bringing the divine I AM and Divine
Source to
consciousnessâ (Whiteman, 2006, p.x). Therefore much emphasis
was
placed on honing skills for release of the core-identity, as in the
four
Buddhist âpathsâ, from morality (higher values) to ultimate
realisation of
the core identity (Whiteman, 2000, pp.141, 146â155).
An individual âcore identity carried by the line of
consciousnessâ
(Whiteman, 2006, p.x) was seen necessarily to extend before and
after
any particular physical lifespan, and while essentially it is
characterised
by a particular gender, male or female in core disposition, it
could
manifest as either male or female in different physical lives. The
idea
129
ignorance or rejection of the evidence for âother worldsâ and of
processes
of âseparationâ (from the physical body), as well as any logical
purpose in
regard to the continuing life of individuals (as in precognition)â
(p.75).
This leads to the matter of reincarnation, which he treated with
great
circumspection. Phenomena were discussed in several publications
(e.g.
Whiteman, 1986, p.122f, 2000, p.33, 2006, pp.x, 113â114), but
mainly in
his translation of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (Whiteman,
1993). Taking
the compound, highly shifting structure of a physical personality
into
account ( âa profusion of loosely linked tendenciesâ â Whiteman,
1986,
p.121), he maintained that âit is wrong then to say that we, as
person-
alities in this world, might be reincarnatedâ (Whiteman, 2006,
p.x). Yet
in accepting the existence of a continuing âline of consciousnessâ
he
accepted that it could at intervals return to the physical world as
a new
individual in charge of a transient personality. This was seen as
â strict
incarnation of an âindividual in chargeâ, who becomes
conscious in
a certain steadily growing physical body during most of its
lifetimeâ
(Whiteman, 1993, p.32). On the other hand, co-minds may
contribute
their own independent memories to a personality when
temporarily
united, and so, âthey can also be said to undergo a loose
reincarnation in
usâ (p.32). He showed the distinction between strict and loose
reincarn-
ation to be well understood in classical Indian literature (pp.32,
43,
53, 74, 95, 123), as in his translation of the Kat.ha
Upanishad: âSome
[spiritually] embodied beings enter a womb for [physical]
embodiment.
Others assemble successively on a âstockâ according to their
deed-
attachment ( karma), and according to inner instructionâ
(Whiteman,
1993, p.32). An understanding of this distinction between âlooseâ
and
âstrictâ reincarnation seems badly needed in Western treatments of
the
subject (see Appendix).
Whiteman was careful not to attribute all apparent past-life
recall
events to a form of reincarnation, either strict or loose. Some
present-
ations of past scenes can be better explained by retrocognition, as
with
cases relating to two different people living at the same time
(White-
man, 2006, p.113), and by âmediate identificationâ (p.274f) of
episodes
in the past or present, where there is âutilising of a personal
life and
memory quite different from the life and memory of oneâs
physical
personality, for the purposes of self-fulfilment through a new
and
instructive identificationâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.116ff). He cited
the
important fourth âover-knowledgeâ (abhiñña â ) of the
Buddhist teaching,
âin which each of a series of past-lives (not necessarily oneâs own
in any
way) is briefly entered, and one acts out certain scenes or
otherwise
makes observations there. . . . âReincarnationâ is not impliedâ
(White-
man, 2006, p.87). Bearing in mind the intrusion of memories of
co-
minds, of retrocognition and cases such as overshadowing and
mediate
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
130
personally experienced, in the physical world, an original of the
events
ârememberedâ â (Whiteman, 1986, pp.124â5.) The Buddhaâs
pointed
dismissal of questions such as âDid I live in time gone by?â was
cited
(Whiteman, 2006, p.169).
complexities of mind events in which our physical personality
âpresents
itself as nothing very definite, but, rather, as a shifting ground
of
localized identificationsâ (Whiteman, 1967, p.217), it is hardly
surprising
that Whiteman wrote that we should âexpect the most secret
truths
concerning personality to be largely if not altogether beyond
normal
comprehensionâ (Whiteman, 1986, p.116). A state of detachment
from
the normal physical world was seen to be essential for any
truly
significant discoveries of personality structure and the
underlying
levels of potentiality, this being a state of âliberation from the
fixated
identification of oneself with oneâs personalityâ (Whiteman, 2000,
p.141).
A distinction between âoneself â and âoneâs personalityâ
could seem self-
contradictory in contemporary psychology, but Whitemanâs
fundamental
distinction between the level of an individualâs underlying,
intelligible
âcore identityâ and the level of superficial, contingent
personality-phases
needs to be understood as part of his broad two-level
conception.
His writings show concern about the development of ability in
an individual to engage constructively with psi phenomena in
their
broadest sense. Development of a phenomenological approach was
seen
to be essential, as were the skills for ârelease from timeâ or
âmodes of
insightâ contained in the four Buddhist
jha â nas (Whiteman, 1967, p.109,
1993, p.77, 2000, pp.89â92, 2006, p.86). Also essential to
individual pro-
gress was entering into âinner contestsâ, âin which outward
tendencies
to attachment, fixation, discomfort and awkwardness, automaticity,
or
anxiety-provoking stress are countered by âhigherâ motivations that
are
secretly working for the development in us of corresponding powers
of
release and control . . . all development, mental or spiritual,
depends
on our subjection to contestsâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.159). The
extreme
importance given to such contests for inner growth â âthe only way
in
which our development can be initiated and securedâ (Whiteman,
2006,
p.63) â is emphasised by the subtitle of all volumes of Old and
New
Evidence on the Meaning of Life, which is The Mystical
World-View and
Inner Contest. Individual progress hopefully would result in
âinsight
gradually developing in us because, instead of rigidly fencing off
mind
from matter, we seek always for participation and the Higher
Reality
in a hierarchical universe.â This is the conclusion of his
Philosophy of
Space and Time (1967).
131
At the most universal level of individual functioning and
realisation,
Whiteman wrote that âwhat we have to consider here, then, is
the
experience of the divine Reason (Logos), in everything of life,
always
working for the advancement of the goodâ (Whiteman, 2006,
p.vii).
Consistent with his phenomenological approch, his âuniversal
theologyâ
is not based on doctrine or theory, neither are these developed.
Theology
simply meant âthe application of the phenomenological method to
our
awareness of the âDivineâ, in the wholeness and detail of its
meaning,
omnipresent in our lives if only we adopt the right releasing
and
uplifting attitude in lifeâ (p.vii). So, âthe word âGodâ
(Theos) must be
taken to stand for the Archetypal Reason in all, including the â I
AMâ
and consciousness, if the ancient testimonies are to be
understoodâ
(p.64). This allowed a universal theology to connect Minoan,
Vedic,
Upanishadic, Buddhist, Hebrew, Pauline and Johannine mysticism
as
one coherent tradition. Later literature was considered to be
largely
corrupted by dogma and theorising. His presentation, based on his
own
translations and mystical experience, frequently differs radically
from
standard translations and interpretations. It could be said that
his
âuniversal theologyâ seems prone to even greater misunderstanding
and
opposition from Western theology than does his âscientific
mysticismâ
from standard science.
SOME ESSENTIALS OF WHITEMANâS THINKING
In assessing Whitemanâs contribution to making sense of psi
pheno-
mena, it may be noted that, despite his frequent reference to
quantum
theory, the theory was not used to explain psi phenomena.
These
phenomena âare reasonably held to be not âphysicalâ and thus not
within
the province of quantum theoryâ (Whiteman, 1973, p.357). The
special
âepistemological relevanceâ of quantum theory to psi phenomena had
to
do with a multi-level âhierarchical world-viewâ (p.357). This was
not
theorising but the result of conceptual analysis combined with
direct
observation. Likewise the admission of âother spacesâ was a matter
of
direct experience and logical necessity. He avoided as far as he
could the
usual practice in science of speculative theory-building; in fact
he was
critical of it. âThose who are wedded to the scientific method
called
hypotheticalâdeductive, admitting no other, can become
emotionally
upset if that is questioned, even to an extent describable as
âfrenzyâ (of
which I have had experience)â (Whiteman, 2006, p.21). Instead, he
placed
importance on analyticâdeductive or phenomenological
penetration
behind appearances, âon which the foundations of relativity
and
quantum theory restâ (Whiteman, 1975b, p.181). The
phenomenological
133
discernible in existence, leading to full understanding at any
actuality
level, since âthe intelligible world is the pattern for everythingâ
(White-
man, 1967, p.218). Also, it strove to be free of speculation and
theory
as far as possible, and to rest on direct experience and a âsystem
of
archetypal ideasâ. But in our present materialistic and
theory-bound
state, these features are not particularly helpful for the
reception of his
thinking, since they tend to lie outside commonly accepted
experience
and approaches. At least it should be recognised that
Whitemanâs
thinking was based on a wealth of direct experience, a point that
may be
made by examining the interlinking of experience and world-view in
his
work.
THE FIRST-HAND SOURCE OF WHITEMANâS WORLD-VIEW
As noted in the Introduction, Whitemanâs world-view was not
the
result of speculative theorising but of direct observation combined
with
conceptual analysis. A cornerstone of his writing was to provide
âevidence
of direct experienceâ, as declared in an important
autobiographical
source, The Mystical Life (1961), subtitled An Outline of
its Nature and
Teachings from the Evidence of Direct Experience. The term
âevidenceâ
also appears in the title of the other major source of
autobiographical
material, Volume 2 of his Old and New Evidence on the Meaning of
Life
(2000). In contracting the title of the first volume (1986) to The
Meaning
of Life and ignoring the first part of the title, Old and New
Evidence
on . . . , Frenchâs (1995) resulting allegation of hubris
shows a possibly
widespread tendency to misjudge the source of Whitemanâs
world-view.
He recorded that as early as aged 5â6, âat night I used to lie,
quietly
watchful, while the walls of the room receded and dissolved . . .
incipiently
separated in another kind of spaceâ (Whiteman, 1961,
p.41). He was ânot
engaged in âthinkingâ; but . . . perceived and understood
intuitively the
character of the situation and phenomenaâ. Thinking âsuggests a
dis-
cursive faculty which must cease its operation in âthat quiet
recollection
which is the aim of every spiritual personâ (St John of the Cross)â
(White-
man, 2000, p.43). His capacity for âessential insightâ and
Husserlian
phenomenological penetration was evidently being developed at an
early
age, as was a capacity for âobedience [to] a higher power that kept
me
free of fear, trustfully watchful, and open also to strange
indications of
non-physical beings watching meâ (p.209). The capacity for
Obedience
(not servility) was seen as a âmajor spiritual skillâ, along
with
Recollection (comparable with Buddhist mindfulness) which
began
development around the age of 20. A âgreat discoveryâ came âwhen
in
following some music in the score I suddenly realised that there
was
a way of voluntarily holding some chosen sound conceptually in
mind,
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 59,
Part 222
134
revealed in itâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.315). Following this discovery
of
âessential insightâ, âmy chief aim became at once to liberate every
kind
of sensation in that wayâ. The study and practice of music, it may
be
noted, was hugely influential in his thinking.
Development of insight was helped at the age of 20 by a course
in
Pelmanism; in one exercise âone goes for a walk of about 15
minutesâ
duration, having resolved to âstop timeâ on detail after detail,
just as
they happen to present themselves, and to do this in such a way
that
one can be sure of being able to reproduce each detail afterwards
in the
memory with its timeless conceptualâperceptual characterâ
(p.315).
This developed a âpower of timeless recall of particular
sensationsâ,
which he came to call Recollection. As a student at Cambridge
University,
âthe dormant faculty of Recollection having been stirred, all that
up to
now had been wrapped in confusion instantly passed away, and a
new
space burst forth in vivid presence and utter reality, with
perception
free and pin-pointed as never before; the darkness itself seemed
alive.
The thought that was then borne in upon me with inescapable
conviction
was this: â I have never been awake beforeâ â (Whiteman, 1961,
p.57,
2000, p.316). This was before he had become familiar with
âseparative
statesâ or out-of-body experience, but he was aware of being
âvividly
locatedâ in a non-physical space. After reading Muldoon &
Carringtonâs
(1929) The Projection of the Astral Body, a series of
âduplicate-state
separationsâ (physical-like out-of-body experiences) were
experienced,
initially with no bodily characteristics; âI was just a substance
located
in a non-physical space, separating from another substance
somehow
identified with the physical bodyâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.317).
Meanwhile
the practice of âActive Recollectionâ continued, endeavouring to
make
the state effortless and continuous. Then came âthe momentous
dis-
covery, essential for later spiritual development, that such a
continuous
and effortless kind of Recollection (Continuous Recollection) could
be
voluntarily induced. [The discovery] expanded into the awareness of
a
boundless whole whose details were known simultaneously, being
open
to exploration as on a map without losing primary contemplation of
the
whole. Time had become like spaceâ (p.318). This would have fed
into
his idea of non-physical substructure, especially of
time-dimensions.
Having consolidated two of the âspiritual skillsâ, Active and
Contin-
uous Recollection, the skill of Obedience was consolidated with
the
discovery of âthe Divine Sourceâ: while walking, âsomething induced
me
to look up at the sun . . . and suddenly, but without abruptness, I
saw in
it the One Only Principle of Loving Wisdom, the Source of All. In a
flash,
I knew henceforth I had only to obey that Loving Power, and I
could
not go wrongâ (p.319). There remained the question of how the
inner
135
right and goodâ (p.321). Inner episodes were described in
Whiteman
(1961, p.14f) following the discovery of the âDivine Sourceâ. Some
were
stressful. In another âastonishing and indescribable processâ there
was
an âabsolute cessation of all, I was merged successively (to
outward
view) in the Idea of the One, the Idea of Very Self, and then the
utterly
all-sufficing Idea of the Good, nothing whatever existing then (if
such
inadequate words can be permitted) except those unchanging
and
timeless Ideas in Godâ. His handling of terms such as âarchetypalâ
and
âuniversalâ evidently had a source in this kind of experience.
Such
experiences are not likely to convey very much to the reader
(although
parallels exist in various sources, as in the fourth Buddhist
jha â na,
and Patanjaliâs kaivalya or oneness), but they do give
some idea of an
experience of universality that would flow into Whitemanâs
ontology,
and his idea of core identity. Difficulties of conveying anything
in
mystical description were discussed in Whiteman (1986,
p.135ff).
Around the age of 25 inner events were accompanied by
physical
disturbances such as dissociated states and blackouts, ordeals
which
âwould be more comfortably resolved if I could follow the practice
of
Indian seers and some Christian mystics and retire to a forest
or
desertâ. The outcome was a brief period in a mental institution âin
a
deeply dissociated or separative state, dealing with spirits or
receiving
instructionâ (Whiteman, 2000, p.344). Instruction concerned
âunfamiliar
spiritual phenomena and skillsâ, but at other times there was
âthe
obscure but deeply troublesome presence and activities of
adverse
entitiesâ (p.336). In all this there is a detailed account of what
may be
associated with shamanic initiation, although it took place without
an
initiator or guru. On recovering, âI knew that the former
stabilised
contest-dissociation was over, and that a healthful higher
dissociation,
able to interfuse the physical state with perfect harmony, was in
full
controlâ (p.338). The remainder of his long life showed
completely
ânormalâ behaviour and competence, although aware of being âin
the
world but not of the worldâ, facilitated by a great variety of
out-of-body
(separative) states. His diaries contain accounts of over 7000
psychic,
out-of-body and mystical experiences. He did not cultivate
psychic
ability, but he did have spontaneous precognitive experiences
(pp.81â
82) which had an important influence on the recognition of
different
âtime dimensionsâ.
He reported being aware, from an early age, of an inner
femininity,
which became established in separative states. âIt was not that
I
observed a femaleness, but simply that I and femaleness were
revealed
as the same thing, while maleness was something that I could think
and
even feel, but which did not belong in the same absolute and
perpetual
wayâ (p.321). In separation, his âspiritual-body formâ was
normally