A couple of years ago, I spent some time researching a worldview that suggests that everything around us that appears unique and distinguishable – including our thoughts, our own individual-ness, all of reality and our ability to understand reality, everything – are “highlighted aspects” of an undivided wholeness. This undivided wholeness, it was suggested, exists at a deeper level than we can measure or contemplate. The idea intrigued me and I was curious to know whether adopting that perspective might change the way we approach the whole idea of “making the world a better place.” The research turned into a master’s thesis called
Wholeness, Understanding, and Development: An Episystemic Inquiry
Here’s the Prologue, which provides a little more detail about why my questions led in this direction:
“The research presented in this thesis takes the relatively unusual approach of exploring ideas from two seemingly disparate fields—those of physics and international development… My motivation for this study stems from two personal experiences. The first was a backpacking trip taken several years ago in which my husband and I traveled through a number of developing countries. This experience propelled me to enter graduate school and become professionally involved in relieving the political and economic distress witnessed during that trip (a summary of the trip and its impact on my decision to pursue a degree in International Development is provided in the thesis’ Appendix 1).
The second was an experience I had several years ago in which two herniated disks in my lower back were instantaneously ‘healed.’ This experience (described in the thesis’ Appendix 2) seemed to represent a pretty efficient and effective example of positive change (one of the definitions of “development”). At the very least, it indicated a capacity to affect change that I have not seen addressed explicitly in mainstream approaches to social and economic development. I began to question whether that capacity could have a place in current international development paradigms.
While considering this, I came across the work of David Bohm and F. David Peat, two physicists whose perspectives seemed to provide a tentative explanation for the experience with my back, and who also seemed to share my interest in the social and economic challenges that are the focus of development. As described in the Abstract, their perspectives have to do with understanding the concept of “underlying wholeness.”
In part, this study is very much about understanding that concept. But it also turns out to be very much about understanding—or having the capacity to understand—any world view that is very different from one’s own. Exploring Bohm and Peat’s perspectives with those aspects in mind brings something of value to those interested in the field of development. How would consideration of an “underlying wholeness” change the way in which we interpret ourselves, our context, and the processes by which we attempt to change the world around us? And how would the concept of development as the “capacity to understand,” from their perspective, differ from similar interpretations of development?”
Excerpted from Egger, Christine D. (2005). Wholeness, Understanding, and Development: An Episystemic Inquiry. Master’s Thesis. Michigan State University. Lansing, Michigan.
1 Comment
January 26, 2008 at 6:53 am
C: I love the intro and the work. You’ve clearly laid out what you’re interested in and how. I think some of it ties even more with what I”m looking at these days–how we learn, how we rethink what we “know” etc. I’m not using Bohm, but am interested in theories of learning and how they intersect with change–especially group learning (social learning) through community development processes.
Can’t wait to continue my thinking. And exploring yours. And can’t wait to see more here!