Quantum Physics, Depth Psychology, and Beyond Thomas J. McFarlane www.integralscience.

org February 26, 2000 revised June 21, 2000 OUTLINE: Abstract Introduction Quantum Physics Jungian Psychology Psyche and Matter: The Connections An Integral View of Psyche and Matter End Notes Bibliography Introduction If a union is to take place between opposites like spirit and matter, consci ous and unconscious, bright and dark, and so on, it will happen in a third thing , which represents not a compromise but something new.[1] - C. G. Jung The modern worldview of Western culture is characterized by an implicit division between the objective or physical realm of existence and the subjective or psyc hic realm of existence, with the objective or physical realm generally dominatin g the subjective or psychic realms to the point of virtual exclusion, as in the materialistic worldview which considers mind to be a mere epiphenomenon of matte r. The dominance of modern materialism is due in large part to its association w ith the remarkable theoretical and practical power of classical physics as devel oped by Newton and his successors. According to this model, reality consists of a fixed and passive space containing localized material particles whose movement in time is deterministically governed by mathematical laws. Consequently, menta l phenomena, in this picture, are nothing more than the complex functions of the material brain governed by physical laws. Although scientific materialism provided the dominant worldview of modern Wester n culture, it did not exist to the total exclusion of other alternatives. Nevert heless, these alternatives did not succeed in fundamentally challenging the domi nance of materialism. Instead, this challenge largely came from within empirical science itself. In the 20th century the modern materialistic worldview began to unravel in the face of scientific developments, particularly in physics. In phy sics, the development of relativity and quantum theory served to radically under mine various fundamental assumptions at the base of the materialistic model. For example, the special and general theories of relativity forced physicists to re vise their basic conceptions of space, time, movement, gravitation, matter, ener gy, and the nature of the cosmos as a whole. Quantum theory, on the other hand, forced a revision of the concepts of causality, determinism, and locality. Perha ps most importantly, it even challenged the idea that properties of matter have an objective existence independent of observation. As a result, 20th century phy sics undermined the very basis for materialism, and suggested to some thinkers t hat the psyche may be involved, in some mysterious way, with the determination o f the observed properties of matter. Meanwhile, developments in psychology during the 20th century explicitly introdu ced the psyche into the domain of scientific inquiry. In particular, Freud's psy choanalytic theory demonstrated the reality of a psychological unconscious, an u nobservable psychic reality which contains repressed personal impulses and desir

es. These hidden psychic contents exert their influence upon consciousness and t hus can be indirectly known by us through a study of various conscious contents, such as our dreams. Although the concept of the psychological unconscious did n ot initially challenge materialism, the discovery of the transpersonal depths of the unconscious by Jung (i.e., the collective unconscious and psychological arc hetypes) presupposed a psychic reality that was difficult to reconcile with any strictly materialistic understanding of human nature. Moreover, Jung's later wor k with the phenomenon of synchronicity provided evidence that the deepest region s of the unconscious (i.e., the unus mundus) consists of "psychoid" structures t hat transcend the distinction between psyche and matter altogether. The above developments in 20th century physics and psychology have analogous imp lications: just as psychology revealed in the deepest regions of psyche a profou nd connection with matter, physics revealed in the depths of matter a profound c onnection with the psyche. Although the precise nature of these connections rema ins elusive and controversial, the provocative possibility of transcending the d ualism of mind and matter has provided motivation for the development of a more comprehensive and unified worldview. As Jungian psychologist Marie-Louise von Fr anz says, The unexpected parallelisms of ideas in psychology and physics suggest, as J ung pointed out, a possible ultimate oneness of both fields of reality that phys ics and psychology study. . . . The concept of a unitarian idea of reality (whic h has been followed up by Pauli and Erich Neumann) was called by Jung the unus m undus (the one world, within which matter and psyche and are not yet discriminat ed or separately actualized).[2] The remainder of this paper will explore in more detail some of these developmen ts during the 20th century, with a particular emphasis on depth psychology and q uantum physics. Because this paper does not presuppose familiarity with quantum physics or depth psychology, a brief exposition of some basic concepts in these two areas of research will precede the discussion of their connections. Quantum Physics The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of re ality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we ma y have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word `understanding'.[3] Werner Heisenberg The fundamental laws of quantum physics were discovered independently in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg and in 1926 by Erwin Schrdinger in response to puzzling experi mental evidence that contradicted the fundamental concepts of classical physics. For example, electrons (which were previously thought to be particles) were fou nd to exhibit properties of waves. Conversely, light (which was previously thoug ht to be waves) was found to exhibit properties of particles. This confusion of classical distinctions between particles and waves was resolved by Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity, according to which the wave and particle concepts are understood to be mutually exclusive but both necessary for a complete descri ption of quantum phenomena. A consequence of this wave-particle duality is that all matter has a wave aspect , and cannot be said to have a definite localized position at all times. Moreove r, by virtue of their nonlocal wave properties, pairs of spatially separated par ticles sometimes exhibit nonlocal correlations in their attributes. Another cons equence of the wave-particle duality is a corresponding duality between the unob served and the observed. This duality raises puzzling questions regarding the na ture of measurement in quantum mechanics: how is it that the wave suddenly chang es into a particle, and how is this sudden transformation related to observation

? A deeper understanding of these subtle issues requires some basic understanding of the way quantum physics describes phenomena. According to quantum physics, th e state of an unobserved quantum of matter or light (such as an electron or phot on) is represented by a solution to Schrdinger's wave equation. This solution is a quantum wave function y(x) whose intensity |y(x)|2 at any particular position x represents the probability of observing the quantum at that position. When the quantum is observed, however, it is seen to have a definite actual position, an d the wave function no longer properly describes the quantum. Thus, when the qua ntum is unobserved, it is a nonlocal wave of probable positions; and when the qu antum is observed, it is a particle having a definite localized position. As a r esult, both the particle and wave concepts are required to completely characteri ze a quantum: the particle concept is required to describe its particle-like beh avior when observed, while the wave concept is require to describe its wave-like behavior when unobserved. The particle and wave concepts are called "complement ary" descriptions because they are both needed to characterize the observed and unobserved aspects of any quantum, as illustrated in the following table. COMPLEMENTARITY wave functions unobserved quanta indefiniteness/probability nonlocal particles observed quanta definiteness localized Although observation is evidently necessary to bring about the transition from p ossible to actual, the fundamental nature of observation in quantum theory remai ns somewhat mysterious. This problem of measurement derives from the fact that, prior to observation the quantum is described as being a nonlocal wave of probab ility spread throughout space, while after observation only one of the possible values is actualized. Thus, observation involves a discontinuous "collapse" (als o called a "projection") of the quantum wave function from a continuum of possib ilities to a single actualized value. This projection, however, is an ad hoc ele ment of the formalism, and is not a lawful transformation that is governed by Sc hrdinger's wave equation. There is no explanation for how, when, or where this my sterious projection happens. Moreover, when the projection takes place, the laws of quantum physics do not predict which of the possible values will be actualiz ed in any given observation, thus violating classical determinism and introducin g an element of acausality and spontaneity into the theory at a fundamental leve l. In a fundamental analysis of the quantum measurement process, John von Neumann a rgued that consciousness is required to explain the projection of the wave funct ion from possibility to actuality. In particular, he reasoned that because all p hysical interactions are governed by Schrdinger's wave equation, the projection t hat is associated with observation must be attributed to a non-physical consciou sness that is not governed by physical law. According to von Neumann, this activ ity of consciousness only serves to cause the projection, and does not select or influence the particular value actualized. There is thus a spontaneity inherent in the projection that takes place in the transition from the unobserved to the observed. Jungian Psychology Since the stars have fallen from heaven and our highest symbols have paled, a secret life holds sway in the unconscious. ...Our unconscious...hides living w ater, spirit that has become nature, and that is why it is disturbed. Heaven has

become for us the cosmic space of the physicists, and the divine empyrean a fai r memory of things that once were. But "the heart glows," and a secret unrest gn aws at the roots of our being.[4] - C. G. Jung The notion of the psychological unconscious was first extensively developed in F reud's The Interpretation of Dreams, published in 1900, and further developed in his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, published in 1905. In addition to the contents of our conscious awareness, Freud considered the psyche to also con tain an unconscious region whose contents are hidden and cannot be directly obse rved. These unconscious contents, according to Freud, consist of previously cons cious contents that have been repressed and forgotten. The unconscious is thus a kind of `skeleton closet' containing personal psychological contents that were conscious in the past but then hidden away. Although they are no longer directly observable, these unconscious contents can be indirectly known through their ef fects on consciousness, such as their influence on our dreams. In Freud's concep tion, the unconscious contains only personal psychic contents that were previous ly conscious, but then repressed, typically during childhood. After studying with Freud, Carl Jung deepened and expanded Freud's notion of the unconscious, most notably in his Psychology of the Unconscious, published in 19 12, and his Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious, published in 1934. Accordi ng to Jung, the unconscious contains, in addition to repressed personal contents , a deep and vast region of collective psychic contents, called the collective u nconscious. In contrast to the personal unconscious contents that were previousl y conscious, the collective unconscious contents do not derive from previously c onscious personal contents. Instead, the collective contents are innate and univ ersal. In Jung's words, We have to distinguish between a personal unconscious and an impersonal or t ranspersonal unconscious. We speak of the latter also as the collective unconsci ous, because it is detached from anything personal and is common to all men, sin ce its contents can be found everywhere, which is naturally not the case with th e personal contents.[5] Although the collective unconscious is present in the depths of each individual psyche, it is not subjective in the sense of being different from person to pers on. Because the collective unconscious is common to all individuals, it is objec tive in the sense that all individuals share these same deep psychic structures. As Jung writes, The collective unconscious stands for the objective psyche, the personal unc onscious for the subjective psyche.[6] In short, the door to the unconscious does not open up to a skeleton closet, as Freud proposed, but opens up to a larger world beyond the walls of the conscious psyche. It is important to note that between the personal and collective regions of the psyche there are various intermediate levels of depth, each having its share of universality and particularity. Jung explains: In as much as there are differentiations as corresponding to race, tribe, an d even family, there is also a collective psyche limited to race, tribe, and fam ily over and above the "universal" collective psyche.[7] The unconscious, in other words, is not divided into distinct personal and colle ctive regions, but rather is a continuum with the personal and universal content s at each extreme. Jung's most important contribution and his primary interest, however, is in the deeper regions of the collective unconscious, whose structure s Jung calls archetypes. Like Plato's Ideas, the archetypes of the collective un

conscious are universal patterns that shape our experience of the world and prov ide it with common elements. Following Kant, however, Jung considers the archety pes as epistemological structures rather than independent ontological entities: The collective unconscious, being the repository of man's experience and at the same time the prior condition of this experience, is an image of the world w hich has taken eons to form. In this image certain features, the archetypes or d ominants, have crystallized out in the course of time.[8] According to Jung's conception of the collective unconscious, the archetypal str uctures are not fixed, but dynamic. Not only do the archetypes evolve over time, but they also have dynamic and creative activity in the present. Moreover, this activity is not merely a reaction to the activities of consciousness, but is in herent in the unconscious itself. As Jung explains, If [the unconscious] were merely reactive to the conscious mind, we might ap tly call it a psychic mirror world. In that case, the real source of all content s and activities would lie in the conscious mind, and there would be absolutely nothing in the unconscious except the distorted reflections of conscious content s. The creative process would be shut up in the conscious mind, and anything new would be nothing but conscious invention or cleverness. The empirical facts giv e the lie to this. Every creative man knows that spontaneity is the very essence of creative thought. Because the unconscious is not just a reactive mirror refl ection, but an independent, productive activity, its realm of experience is a se lf-contained world, having its own reality, of which we can only say that it aff ects us as we affect it--precisely what we say about our experience of the outer world. And just as material objects are the constituent elements of this world, so psychic factors constitute the objects of that other world.[9] The objective psychic world, or collective unconscious, is thus similar to the o bjective physical world in that both worlds have objective structures and both w orlds have autonomous activity independent of our personal will. For example, ju st as the objective physical world serves as a creative impetus for the developm ent of our scientific worldviews, the psyche develops and evolves because the ob jective psyche is not merely repressed conscious contents, but has an autonomous activity that is relatively independent of our personal consciousness. Because this activity of the unconscious is relatively autonomous, it often manifests as a compensation or correction to our conscious views or beliefs. The result is a n evolution of the psyche toward wholeness and integration, a process Jung calle d `individuation'. In an unconscious compensation, some unconscious content is spontaneously expres sed or manifested in consciousness, such as in a dream, and provides the psyche with an opportunity to integrate the unconscious content into consciousness. One of the most interesting and dramatic types of unconscious compensation is the p henomenon Jung calls synchronicity. Synchronicity is necessarily meaningful in t he sense that it is a form of unconscious compensation that serves to advance th e process of individuation. It is distinguished from other forms of unconscious compensation by the fact that synchronicity involves a connection between inner psychological experience and outer experiences in the world, where the connectio n is acausal in the sense that the inner experience cannot have been an efficien t cause of the outer experience, or vice versa. In short, synchronicity is a mea ningful, acausal connection between inner and outer events. Because the phenomen on of synchronicity involves an acausal coordination of the inner and outer worl ds in a meaningful way, it is not exclusively a psychological or physical phenom enon, but is "psychoid" meaning that it somehow essentially involves both psyche and matter. Thus, Jung interpreted synchronicity to imply the existence of an e xtremely profound level of reality prior to any distinction between psyche and m atter. In other words, synchronicity phenomena represent a manifestation in cons ciousness of psychoid structures present in the depths of a transcendental unita

ry reality Jung called the unus mundus: Since psyche and matter are contained in one and the same world, and moreove r are in continuous contact with one another and ultimately rest on irrepresenta ble, transcendental factors, it is not only possible but fairly probable, even, that psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing.[10] The unus mundus is also implied by the fact that we evidently occupy one reality that contains both psyche and matter, and that these two domains of reality are not absolutely independent and isolated, but interact with each other. As Jung says, Psyche and matter exist in one and the same world, and each partakes of the other, otherwise any reciprocal action would be impossible. If research could on ly advance far enough, therefore, we would arrive at an ultimate agreement betwe en physical and psychological concepts.[11] Jung's concept of the unus mundus, therefore, not only shows how matter is impli cated in the depths of the psyche, but also provides a framework for integrating our understanding of psyche and matter. In this framework, both the objective p sychic and objective physical worlds are rooted in a common unity at the depths of reality. Because the unus mundus is normally unconscious, it is experienced a s the mysterious Other that is the infinite unseen context of our finite conscio us experience. Viewed in its subjective aspect, this unified reality takes the f orm of a psychic domain containing psychological archetypes that manifest in our inner experience. Viewed in its objective aspect, the unus mundus takes the for m of a physical domain containing the archetypal laws of nature that govern mani festations in our outer experience. If psyche and matter are, as this suggests, a single reality viewed from different perspectives, then a comparison of their common elements as revealed in physics and psychology may provide insight into t he nature of reality at its deepest and most universal level. Psyche and Matter: The Connections Modern science may have brought us closer to a more satisfying conception of this relationship [between psyche and physis] by setting up, within the field o f physics, the concept of complementarity. It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality. [12] - Wolfgang Pauli Microphysics is feeling its way into the unknown side of matter, just as com plex psychology is pushing forward into the unknown side of the psyche. Both lin es of investigation have yielded findings which can be conceived only by means o f antinomies, and both have developed concepts which display remarkable analogie s. If this trend should become more pronounced in the future, the hypothesis of the unity of their subject-matters would gain in probability. Of course there is little or no hope that the unitary Being can ever be conceived, since our power s of thought and language permit only of antinomian statements. But this much we do know beyond all doubt, that empirical reality has a transcendental backgroun d.[13] - C. G. Jung In attempting to understand the deepest levels of reality, it is wise to take no te of Jung's observation that our concepts are imperfect instruments, and that a ny conceptual representations we may form of these regions of reality will likel y involve antinomies, and should be taken as being essentially symbolic rather t han literal. For example, progress in the conceptual understanding of the nature of quanta was accomplished by acknowledging the principle of complementarity, w hich states that mutually exclusive sets of concepts must be used to completely characterize quantum phenomena in all their aspects. As Marie-Louise von Franz t ells us, Jung recognized that this principle of complementarity applied to psych

ology as well as to physics: Bohr's idea of complementarity is especially interesting to Jungian psycholo gists, for Jung saw that the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind also forms a complementary pair of opposites.[14] The analogy suggested here is that the wave-particle complementarity in quantum physics parallels the unconscious-conscious complementarity in psychology. Indee d, just as the wave is the unobserved aspect of the quantum and the particle is the observed aspect, so the unconscious is the unobserved aspect of the psyche a nd the conscious is the observed aspect. Moreover, the wave is continuously spre ad throughout space, while the particle has a limited location. Similarly, Jung states that The area of the unconscious is enormous and always continuous, while the are a of consciousness is a restricted field of momentary vision.[15] The analogy goes even further. The quantum wave function represents probabilitie s, as contrasted to the actualized particle. Similarly, the archetypal structure s of the unconscious represent fundamental potentialities of psychic manifestati on, while conscious contents are actualizations of these potentialities. As von Franz explains, What Jung calls the archetypes...could just as well be called, to use Pauli' s term, "primary possibilities" of psychic reactions.[16] This suggests that the unus mundus behind both psyche and matter is also a conti nuous world of potentiality. Jung elaborates: The common background for microphysics and depth-psychology is as much physi cal as psychic and therefore neither, but rather a third thing, a neutral nature which can at most be grasped in hints since in essence it is transcendental. Th e background of our empirical world thus appears to be in fact an unus mundus. . .. The transcendental psychophysical background corresponds to a `potential worl d' in so far as those conditions which determine the form of empirical phenomena are inherent in it.[17] The following table summarizes the correspondence between complementary principl es in psyche and matter: PSYCHE MATTER TRANSCENDENT unconscious contents unmanifest archetypes potentiality continuous unobserved quanta wave functions indefiniteness/probability nonlocal EMPIRICAL conscious contents manifest images actuality discrete observed quanta particles definiteness localized Extending the analogy between psyche and matter further, physicist Victor Mansfi eld points out a similarity in the manner in which potentialities are transforme d into actualities in the two realms:

In physics the irreversible measurement process transforms the potentialitie s into actualities. What is the corresponding psychic function that transforms ` the potential world...' into the world of multiplicity? It is reflective conscio usness, the association of knowing with the ego, which makes the empirical world possible and brings the transcendental into the empirical world of multiplicity . The primordial unity of the unus mundus is shattered by reflective consciousne ss-a point agreed upon in most mystical traditions.[18] In quantum mechanics it's only when an individual observes that an acausal s pacetime event manifests. Our participation through measurement generates acausa lity. Analogously, when a unique center of consciousness, a specific individual, actualizes a possibility in the unus mundus, acausality enters our world. Intro ducing a particular perspective, a finite center of consciousness, inevitably br ings acausality into the transition from possibilities to actualities.[19] Similarly, Jung has made a correspondence between the indeterminacy inherent in quantum measurement and the attempt to consciously determine unconscious content s: Any attempt to determine the nature of the unconscious state runs up against the same difficulties as atomic physics: the very act of observation alters the object observed. Consequently, there is at present no way of objectively determ ining the real nature of the unconscious.[20] It should be pointed out here that Jung's characterization of quantum measuremen t requires clarification. The quantum measurement does not alter the actual prop erties of the object being observed since these properties do not have determina te existence prior to measurement. More accurately, the measurement is the occas ion for the determination of the actual properties of the object. There is thus a spontaneity that enters nature in quantum measurement. Similarly, the manifest ation of unconscious contents within consciousness also has an element of sponta neity, insofar as the particular conscious image manifesting an archetype is not completely determined by previous conscious contents. This type of spontaneity is especially evident in synchronicity. Although synchronicity phenomena and quantum phenomena have certain similarities , there are also important differences. Consider, for example, nonlocal correlat ions that have been experimentally observed between two separated quantum events . Like synchronicity, the observed properties of the observed quanta have an ele ment of spontaneity in their manifestation, and the correlations between the two quanta are not due to efficient causation between the two particles. Quantum no nlocality phenomena differ from synchronicity, however, because two quantum even ts are both events in the outer physical world. Synchronicity, on the other hand , is necessarily a connection between an inner event and an outer event, bridgin g psyche and matter, and thus pointing to the unus mundus. This brings us to per haps the most important distinction between the two phenomena, which relates to the inner psychological meaning that is essential to synchronicity. As explained by Mansfield, In the quantum phenomenon...there is no meaning involved. ...In contrast, wh en an archetype manifests in a synchronicity experience, meaning is the critical point.[21] Thus, synchronicity essentially involves the manifestation of meaning in the sen se of an unconscious compensation that serves an individual's process of individ uation toward wholeness. Nonlocal correlations between quanta, in contrast, are connections between two physical events, and do not involve a manifestation of i nner psychological meaning. Another more subtle distinction between synchronicity and quantum nonlocality is

that the quantum correlations are scientifically repeatable and predictable, wh ile synchronicity phenomena appear to be almost entirely spontaneous and unpredi ctable. A closer psychological analog to quantum nonlocality is parapsychologica l phenomena. Mansfield elaborates: Parapsychological phenomena are an example of general acausal orderedness, b ut not of synchronicity, which I strictly define as an acausal exemplification o f meaning in the inner and outer world. Parapsychological phenomena are acausal since no energy or information exchange seems responsible for the correlations m easured, but they lack the meaning associated with synchronicity. Furthermore, p arapsychological phenomena, like similar quantum phenomena, are "constant and re producible".... This reproducibility is in further contrast to the unique and un predictable nature of the more narrowly defined synchronicity.[22] Jung considered synchronicity to be a special case of "general acausal orderedne ss," which refers to forms of order that cannot be understood in terms of effici ent causality or physical determinism. For example, the causal ordering of physi cal phenomena according to the deterministic laws of classical physics are not a causal orderedness. Nonlocal quantum correlations, however, are an instance of a causal orderedness manifest in the physical world. Synchronicity is also an exam ple of a specific form of acausal orderedness which involves a meaningful connec tion between inner and outer events, exhibiting a manifestation of the depths of the unus mundus prior to divisions between psyche and matter. From the above comparisons between physics and psychology, we can infer that the unus mundus is a domain of unified potentiality beyond the limitations of spati al separation and causal relationships in time. Although it is prior to many str uctures and limitations of manifest phenomena, this domain has orderedness and m eaning--it is a domain of Logos. As a result, the deep structure of the unus mun dus is perhaps most appropriately represented using the symbols of mathematics. As Jung explains, Number helps more than anything else to bring order into the chaos of appear ances. It is the predestined instrument for creating order, or for apprehending an already existing, but still unknown, regular arrangement or "orderedness." It may well be the most primitive element of order in the human mind.[23] And von Franz amplifies Jung, pointing out that mathematical order is common to both psychological and physical domains: The deepest and most clearly distinguishable archetypal factor, which forms the basis of psycho-physical equivalence is, the archetypal patterns of natural numbers. . . . In respect to mathematical structure, the acausal orderedness in matter is of the same kind as that in the psyche and each is continually reflect ed in the other.[24] As an archetype, number becomes not only a psychic factor, but more generall y, a world-structuring factor. In other words, numbers point to a background of reality in which psyche and matter are no longer distinguishable.[25] If indeed number, and mathematics in general, reflects the order of the unus mun dus, this would explain the profound mystery of how it is that mathematics, whic h is a phenomenon of the mind, should prove so remarkably effective in represent ing the physical world. This mysterious harmony between psyche and matter is imp licitly present at the foundation of all physics, and testifies to the Pythagore an roots of modern science. The Pythagoreans, however, viewed mathematics as muc h more than a mere language of quantity. For them numbers were symbols charged w ith archetypal meaning. The modern view of numbers, in other words, acknowledges only the quantitative aspect of numbers and ignores their aspect as quality and meaning. Moreover, von Franz points out that numbers are not merely static form

s, but also represent vibrational energies (as the Pythagoreans recognized in th e intimate connection between numbers and musical tones): Since today we see processes everywhere rather than structures or static ord ers, I have also proposed seeing numbers in this perspective--as rhythmic config urations of psychic energy.[26] From time immemorial number has been used most frequently to bridge the two realms because it represents the general structure of psychic and physical energ y motions in nature and therefore appears, as it were, to provide the key to the mysterious language of unitary existence, particularly in its aspect of meaning (Tao).[27] Like quanta, numbers have two complementary aspects, both of which are required if we are to more completely understand them. They have both quantitative and qu alitative aspects, both static and dynamic aspects. It is through this double as pect of number, von Franz claims, that we can see their importance as a bridge b etween psyche and matter: This complementary double aspect of number (quantity and quality) is in my o pinion the thing which makes it possible for the world of quantity (matter) and of quality (psyche) to interlock with each other in a periodical manner.[28] Although von Franz associates matter with quantity, and psyche with quality, it should be noted that material vibrations, as with musical strings, are experienc ed as qualities or quantities depending on which aspect of the phenomenon we cho ose to isolate. Moreover, mathematical ideas experienced in the psyche have aspe cts of quantity as well as quality. Thus, it appears more appropriate to identif y the qualitative aspect of number with its more subtle, vibrational component ( whether physical or psychic) and the quantitative aspect of number with its more concrete, discrete component. The table of complementary aspects can then be am ended to include the elements of number, as follows:

PSYCHE MATTER TRANSCENDENT unconscious contents unmanifest archetypes potentiality continuous numerical psychic qualities unobserved quanta wave functions indefiniteness/probability nonlocal numerical physical qualities EMPIRICAL conscious contents manifest images actuality discrete distinct numerical quantities observed quanta particles definiteness localized distinct material quantities In any case, the key to the unity of psyche and matter, and to understanding the unus mundus, essentially involves the nature of number. There was at least no d oubt as to this point for von Franz:

In the last analysis, the mystery of the unus mundus resides in the nature o f number.[29] The understanding suggested by the above comparisons between structures in physi cs and psychology, therefore, is that physis and psyche are aspects of the same reality, with mathematics as a key archetypal core of both. However, we should n ote that the complementarity between psyche and matter (i.e., the two columns of the table above) appears distinct from the complementarity within psyche and ma tter (i.e., the two rows of the table above), so we should be careful not to con fuse the two. According to von Franz, the physicist David Bohm arrived at a similar understand ing of the unified ground of psyche and matter: David Bohm also presupposes the existence of an "ocean of energy" as the bac kground of the universe, a background that is neither material nor psychic, but altogether transcendent. . . . Ultimately, it corresponds exactly to what Jung c alls the unus mundus, which is situated beyond the objective psyche and matter a nd which also is situated outside space-time.[30] Bohm's "ocean of energy" is a deep part of the implicate order of reality, which is distinguished from the explicate order. Typically, we are conscious of only these explicate features of reality, while the implicate features form an uncons cious background. Bohm's idea of the implicate order thus normally corresponds t o the unconscious, while the explicate order corresponds to the conscious. He su mmarizes the idea of the implicate order as follows: The essential feature of this idea was that the whole universe is in some wa y enfolded in everything and that each thing is enfolded in the whole. From this it follows that in some way, and to some degree everything enfolds or implicate s everything, but in such a manner that under typical conditions of ordinary exp erience, there is a great deal of relative independence of things. The basic pro posal is then that this enfoldment relationship is not merely passive or superfi cial. Rather, it is active and essential to what each thing is. It follows that each thing is internally related to the whole, and therefore, to everything else . The external relationships are then displayed in the unfolded or explicate ord er in which each thing is seen, as has already indeed been indicated, as relativ ely separate and extended, and related only externally to other things. The expl icate order, which dominates ordinary experience as well as classical (Newtonian ) physics, thus appears to stand by itself. But actually, it cannot be understoo d properly apart from its ground in the primary reality of the implicate order.[ 31] Reality is a flowing of this whole (or, in Bohm's terms, a holomovement) with va rying degrees of implication and explication. For Bohm, reality includes both ps yche and matter, and the idea of the implicate order applies to mind as well as to matter, thus providing a link between the two: We are suggesting that the implicate order applies both to matter...and to c onsciousness, and that it can therefore make possible an understanding of the ge neral relationship of these two, from which we may be able to come to some notio n of a common ground of both.[32] And von Franz agrees: These terms of Bohm's can be applied quite well to the ideas put forward by Jung in his area of research. For example, in that case the archetypes can be un derstood as dynamic, unobservable structures, specimens of the implicate order. If, on the other hand, an archetype manifests as an archetypal dream image, it h as unfolded and become more "explicated." If we go on to interpret this image us

ing Jung's hermeneutic technique. . . that image would "explicate" and unfold st ill further.[33] It is significant to note that, as von Franz implies, unconscious content can be explicated to various degrees, making it more conscious. This suggests that the re is not a clear distinction between the conscious and the unconscious, but rat her a continuum. Indeed, Jung explicitly says just this: Conscious and unconscious have no clear demarcations, the one beginning wher e the other leaves off. ...The psyche is a conscious-unconscious whole.[34] In other words, the psyche is a unity or whole containing an explicate region of consciousness that is neither fixed nor ultimately distinguishable from the who le. According to Bohm, however, consciousness is not necessarily coincident with the explicate order, since we can become directly aware of these subtle flowing aspects of the implicate order taking place in the background of the more concr ete and explicit aspects of our experience. Nevertheless, our consciousness is o ften habitually fixated on the more explicit content. As Bohm explains: One reason why we do not generally notice the primacy of the implicate order is that we have become so habituated to the explicate order, and have emphasize d it so much in our thought and language, that we tend strongly to feel that our primary experience is of that which is explicit and manifest. However, another reason, perhaps more important, is that the activation of memory recordings whos e content is mainly that which is recurrent, stable, and separable, must evident ly focus our attention very strongly on what is static and fragmented. This then contributes to the formation of an experience in which these static and fragmen ted features are often so intense that the more transitory and subtle features o f the unbroken flow...generally tend to pale into such seeming insignificance th at one is, at best, only dimly conscious of them.[35] Bohm seems to point out possibilities of consciousness that were not acknowledge d by Jung. In particular, for Jung the unconscious is a transcendental region of reality that we can never know directly. Thus, we only know the unconscious ind irectly and imperfectly from the images and other concrete manifestations that s urface in consciousness. According to Bohm, however, although consciousness is h abitually fixated on the explicit surface manifestations rising up from deeper i mplicate levels of the psyche, it is nevertheless possible to become directly co nscious of these implicate orders of reality--orders of reality that Jung assume d to be forever unconscious. Thus, while Jung remains correct with regard to con sciousness that is fixated exclusively on explicit orders, his statements must b e qualified to allow for a consciousness that develops the capacity to be aware of subtler levels of manifestation. Such a consciousness will have the capacity for direct awareness of contents that previously would be considered transcenden t, unconscious, and only indirectly knowable by inference from more explicit and concrete manifestations. The implication is that we cannot maintain a rigid or ultimate distinction between the transcendent and empirical, between the archety pes and their manifestations, or between the implicit order and the explicit ord er. Rather, the explicit is imbedded in and essentially integrated with the impl icit, with a continuum of degrees of enfolding and unfolding uniting the two. Si milarly, the manifested images of the archetypes cannot ultimately be separated from the archetypes, but must be seen as their manifested aspects that are insep arable from the archetypes in their potential-actualized wholeness. An Integral View of Psyche and Matter Surprisingly, our exploration into the unity of psyche and matter has revealed a n essential unity between the implicate and explicate aspects of each. That is, the unity is as much vertical within each realm as horizontal between them. In r etrospect, we can see why this must be so, since the separate empirical realms o

f psyche and matter cannot truly be united if this unity only resides in a trans cendent realm that is absolutely divided from the empirical realms. We must have unity both vertically and horizontally. This combined vertical-horizontal integ ration can be illustrated by the following analogy from physics. Prior to Einste in, energy and matter were thought to be separate and autonomous empirical pheno mena. This separation of energy and matter is reflected in the two classical con servation laws: the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass. After E instein, however, the distinction between matter and energy was no longer absolu te, and it was recognized that mass and energy are separate aspects or manifesta tions of an underlying unity of mass-energy (mathematically represented as a 4-d imensional energy-momentum vector). The old conservation laws were thus subsumed within a new law: conservation of mass-energy. In this analogy, the duality of mass and energy is horizontal, because these are two phenomena manifesting on the same empiric plane. They manifest as relativel y autonomous phenomena as long as relative motions are negligible in comparison with the speed of light. In Einstein's theory, matter and energy are understood as the empirical manifestations of a unified reality (i.e., the energy-momentum 4-vector). Energy corresponds to one component of the 4-dimensional vector, whil e mass corresponds to the other three components. Interestingly, however, the ve ctor acts as a whole, with the result that its mass and energy components can be mixed in various ways when the vector manifests (is "projected") into a particu lar empirical reference frame. This mixing betrays the unity of energy and mass within this transcendent realm. One can visualize the essence of this mixing by imagining two spotlights shining on an upright pole from different angles, proje cting two shadows on the floor. One shadow is the analog of energy, the other is the analog of mass. If we tilt the pole away from its upright orientation, the lengths of the two shadows (i.e., the observed mass and energy) will change, whi le the length of the pole itself stays constant. The above analogy illustrates how we might understand how psyche and matter can manifest as relatively autonomous realms that are nevertheless mysteriously coor dinated by virtue of their common origins deep within the unus mundus. Like the conservation laws of matter and energy, psyche and matter manifest in such a way that the transformations of one are in many ways independent of the other. Our thoughts, for example, normally appear to operate with relative independence fro m the transformations taking place in most of the physical world. Conversely, th e transformations of matter in the universe are not normally altered by our thou ghts. Yet, certain anomalous phenomena such as synchronicity sometimes burst for th unexpectedly, hinting at some mysterious unity of psyche and matter. And at d eeper, subtler, and more implicate levels of manifestation, the connections beco me increasingly evident, such as the archetypal patterns of number that are esse ntial to the orderedness in both realms. Thus, if consciousness becomes sufficiently subtle to see the implicate aspects of both psychic and physical phenomena, their unity in a common source can be di rectly experienced and not merely inferred indirectly from diverse concrete part iculars. This implies the necessity for an expanded epistemology for physics, ps ychology, and knowledge in general that takes us well beyond the forms of knowin g that are limited to only the most explicit orders of reality. For truly integr ative knowledge, we must expand and deepen our capacities of consciousness. Othe rwise, an integral theory will be nothing more than a pleasing speculative const ruct based on explicit contents that have emerged from the deeper levels. In sho rt, if we are really to know the unitive depths of Bohm's ocean of energy, we mu st allow ourselves to sink down into them, and not merely watch the surface phen omena that merely hint at what is below. The unconscious calls us into its depth s. We can define the unconscious in the most general sense as the domain of all thi ngs that are indirectly known, posited, or presumed to exist outside of the pres

ent conscious awareness but that have an influence on the contents of conscious awareness. The unconscious is the realm of the unmanifest (relative to our prese nt consciousness). Typically, our consciousness is fixated on the explicate orde r, while the implicate order remains largely unconscious. In some cases, however , consciousness may move into the depths of the implicate order. In addition to both personal and impersonal psychic contents, these depths also include both pe rsonal and impersonal physical contents. For example, although the dishes inside the dishwasher are presumed actually to be there, they are in fact outside of p resent conscious awareness, and are in the domain of the unconscious (relative t o our present consciousness). Because they are in principle accessible to anyone , they are part of a collective unconscious. What we conventionally call objecti ve physical reality, therefore, can be viewed as a region of the collective unco nscious that is partially presented to each of us in a unique way during our wak ing consciousness. The structures of this region of the unconscious are known as the physical laws, since they determine the lawful manner in which this region behaves and evolves. The so-called objective world is in fact part of the uncons cious and is only glimpsed indirectly through its projections into conscious awa reness. For example, if I open the dishwasher, what appears in consciousness is a visual image of a plate viewed from a particular perspective. The plate in its elf is not seen. It is not in consciousness. Only a projection of the plate's vi sual image is seen. The plate itself (its implicate aspect) remains a transcende ntal idea posited to exist outside of consciousness. The plate is therefore stil l largely implicate in the unconscious, even when I am looking at an explicate a spect of it. Only an image of the plate actually arises in consciousness. Moreov er, if my friend is looking as well, she will see a different image due to her d ifferent perspective. Neither one of us sees the plate in all its implicate tota lity, however. This is analogous to the fact that the universal implicate aspect s of archetypes are not manifest in the explicate order, but their diverse expli cate aspects manifest to us in dreams as particular symbolic expressions that va ry from person to person. The explicit archetypal contents that are generally accessible to us provide the basis for a collective understanding of a shared world. In the case of access v ia the physical senses, this collective understanding takes the form of the phys ical world. In the case of the mind, this collective understanding takes the for m of psychological archetypes, transpersonal states of consciousness, mathematic s, and so on. Insofar as the archetypes are not entirely unambiguous in their ex plicate manifestations, or manifest in ways that are influenced by cultural or p ersonal factors, they allow us to create a multitude of interpretive frameworks for understanding and representing these objective worlds. Thus, for example, ou r inner experience of mystical states of consciousness may find expression in va rious different philosophical or religious systems, while our outer experience o f physical phenomena may be understood in terms of distinct scientific paradigms . The development of physics involves the successive refinement of our shared un derstanding and explorations of deeper and deeper regions of these collectively accessible regions of outer experience. As our understanding penetrates to deepe r levels of increasing subtlety, the representation becomes more universal and c omprehensive, so that the structure of the nested representations within physics range from very general universal laws down through particular instances valid only for restricted domains of experience, to a specific quantitative numerical prediction for a given experimental arrangement. Our understanding is therefore provided with a depth that reaches from the multiple contents of explicate consc ious awareness from many possible perspectives, down to the universal implicate depths that are common to all perspectives. A similar structure is present in my stical traditions, where the understanding links the particular experiential phe nomena of an individual, up through intermediate levels common to certain types of individuals engaged in particular practices, to universal principles common t o all individuals. Depth psychology is again similar, with experiential dream im ages and such related first to personal unconscious contents, and then to deep a rchetypal structures of a collective nature.

Note that each phenomenon contains within it aspects of all levels. The implicit aspects of a phenomenon may be known directly by a correspondingly subtle aware ness. Alternatively, they may be unfolded by comparing and contrasting similar p henomena from many different perspectives, providing us with a more explicit und erstanding of the aspects that are particular to each phenomenon, and the aspect s that are universal to all the similar phenomena. It appears that at a very deep level there is no distinction between physical an d psychic structures, and that these are, as it were, two perspectives we have o n the same core reality. Thus, through comparison and contrast of physical and p sychic phenomena, we can isolate the essence of this common core. It does seem c lear, however, that one key feature of this core is its mathematical nature. (No te that this view contrasts with the notion that "physical" is a concrete level of reality, while "psychic" is a subtle level. Rather, they both have depths of subtlety that penetrate to the core of reality, and they both have a concrete su rface that is immediately present in ordinary empiric consciousness. Thus mind c annot be reduced to matter, nor matter to mind. Both emerge as different aspects of a more fundamental ground.) It should be kept in mind that, as Bohm points out, our access to these deep imp licate levels is not necessarily limited to indirect access through correlation of diverse explicit contents with theoretical representations in order to infer their common core. It is also possible to directly access these implicate levels of reality that are normally considered unconscious. In other words, the uncons cious can become conscious in two ways: indirectly through inference from explic it contents, or directly through an expansion of the range of consciousness into the more implicate levels of reality. With the advance of physics and psychology, our theoretical understanding of the mystery beyond the range of our present consciousness is expanding to the point where we see hints of the identity of psyche and matter at deep levels. The evo lution of consciousness that is explicating and integrating more of the unconsci ous appears to be bringing into an explicate unity an original implicate unity. This integrative theoretical understanding, however, is merely an attempt to con ceptually hold together diverse fragmented contents that have emerged on the exp licate level. Such a conceptual unity is at best a partial and imperfect represe ntation of otherwise unconscious content, and we must be careful not to mistake this representation for the unconscious content itself, confusing our world of a bstractions with concrete experience. Fundamentally, this mistake is the ignoran ce of the process of positing the existence of things beyond or outside our cons ciousness, and thus confusing our conscious representations of those things as b eing "things themselves" (such as when we imagine a material particle to have an objectively existing position). Because the conscious representation inevitably fails to correspond exactly with the unconscious reality, the confusion results in a distortion of our understanding of reality. Inevitably, reality (i.e., the unconscious portion of reality) manifests itself to consciousness in a way that contradicts this distortion. This unconscious compensation is then experienced as a crisis, and the anomaly is either integrated or denied. If it is integrated , a more comprehensive and accurate conscious representation of reality typicall y develops. If it is not integrated, the unconscious compensations will continue until they create sufficient cognitive crisis to result in a sacrifice of the d istortion. In either case, because our representations can never perfectly mirro r reality, the developmental process will continue. This whole process of develo pment is based on the fundamental mistake of failing to recognize that our consc ious representation of what is outside of our consciousness (i.e., the objective world) is an imperfect imaginative construct, and not an actual mirror of some real, objective reality. If there is a recognition of the very process of positing the existence of thing

s outside of consciousness through the confusion of the representation with the real, then any inaccuracy of our conscious representation is no longer a problem because it is never confused with reality in the first place. The spontaneous r evelations of reality that do not fit into prior representational schemes are th en experienced with delight, and are not met with resistance. In other words, it is recognized at the deepest level of our psyche that reality always has and al ways will infinitely transcend our representations of it. As a result, we are mo st in touch with reality when our experiences go beyond our representations of r eality. http://www.integralscience.org/psyche-physis.html