Science does not presently sanction a power greater than the self as a variable when building models of experience. With good reason the academic journals discourage theological interpretations of scientific data. To create the opportunity to see relationships not evident if one's presuppositions suggest that there can be no volitional connections between our environment and the human unconscious, shift theory builds on Jung's concept of the collective unconscious and Milton Erickson's and Gregory Bateson's definitions of the unconscious. We also use four aspects of primary process, a Freudian concept that can be used as definition of the unconscious, detailed by Gregory Bateson, to create a process definition of the biological collective unconscious: a single time tense, the present; a single place, the one occupied; no negatives, only what is (as opposed to what is not); and a deep compulsion to play. Shift theory presupposes that split consciousness is uniquely human, that consciousness (the collective unconscious) is a characteristic of the whole system, and that this larger consciousness is not dichotomously self aware. Western science usually assumes that consciousness is peculiarly human.
Defining the deity back into science, an immanent deity instead of a transcendent one, creates the opportunity for scientist to use one's own body as a tool for the gathering of information.
There is need for a reemergence of feeling as a vital valid sense for forming hypothesis from perceived experience. We are defining feeling as that which is perceived from within and without the body that does not come from sight, sound, taste or smell. How we represent or map sensory experience profoundly influences our understanding of how the world works.
Sound maps experience in sequences, in a narrative format, with multiple layers. Harmony is an evocative way to map non-differentiated experience because harmony suggests some of the depth of the interconnected nature of the sensory experience. Though not a simultaneous mapping of reality, like a sight or feeling, sound does something the other two primary sense modalities do not. Sound lingers on a single sequential strand, revealing how a unit of experience has been influenced and is influencing its neighbors in a single narrative line. Three notes in a melody are the same as three words in a communication. They both operate narratively through time.
The human neurological predilection to focus on a single auditory narrative line is not an adequate way to represent experience if you seek insight into the multi-layered inter-connected nature of experience. Sound is a suggestive way to represent the cause and effect nature of how units of experience relate to each other in specific sections of narrative strands of the whole of experience. We have abused this particular way or representing experience, reducing our facility to model reality. We reduced experience to a single causative strand when we eliminated the harmonic elements of the auditory modality when we switched to speech from song, to words from sounds. What we gained in power (the predictive ability of cause and effect), we lost in insight. We learned how to influence our environment and achieve specific goals because we concentrated on relationships between parts. Isolating small bits of experience we learned to predict sequences and control outcomes. With a mapping system stuck in narrative line interpretations of experience, we lost the bigger picture, we lost touch with simultaneity.
Sight is another of the main senses available for mapping experience. It too has advantages and disadvantages. Vision is simultaneous, evocatively portraying multiple interconnections. It provides us with insight on the vast scale of the nature of experience and the intricacies and interconnectedness of the detail. Yet vision, as seen through a single eye, does not easily reveal cause and effect relationships between parts. A single experiential unit is being influenced by, and is influencing countless contiguous units, simultaneously. Vision doesn't help us sort out these relationships, it only makes them evident. Vision is useful for perspective and for an opportunity to discern the relationships between several auditory narrative strands. But vision, like single non-harmonic auditory narrative, also fails in a central way. Neither communicates dimension.
The reason that vision and hearing are carried in two different channels is that a binocular representation of experience creates a useful illusion of dimension. It is an illusion that seeks to transcend the limitations of senses that do not represent dimension.
Another way to create the illusion of dimension with the visual sense is to pan, to move across or through your field of vision. As soon as you begin to pan you shift into a narrative format making vision seem like it can perceive dimension. Dimension is only suggested by the sequence of images. As soon as you have changed positions in a narrative sequence, the relationships have changed. Everything has moved. And again, you introduce a concentration on cause and effect strands, but this time with multiple, not single narrative lines.
Visual narrative experience is effective at showing us how the specific strands interrelate. The auditory channel is more effective in mapping the specific narrative strands. The two senses work well together. We have fooled ourselves with sight and sound into believing that we are not only efficiently representing experience, but that this is experience. We are so drunk with the usefulness of a narrative view of experience that we think all experience is narrative cause and effect. We even believe that there are really such things as the past and the future.
Both science and religion are founded on specific representations of experience. The intense commitment to the single narrative sense, spoken language, has further skewed the ability to satisfactorily translate the experiences perceived by the other sense organs.
The only sense with dimension or depth is the sense of feeling, a simultaneous mapping of experience in three dimensions. Being in our body, experiencing our feelings, we inhabit a miniature universe where our awareness can experience the simultaneous interconnected nature of our individual parts. Mapping experience through feeling eliminates cause and effect understandings of experience. We retain no ability to influence the world through an understanding of cause and effect relationships. What we get is an awareness of being part of the loop of non-differentiated experience, part of the larger world. We get to feel loved. Yet we get more than feelings-of-being-part-of-something-larger-than-the-self as boundaries become permeable. We become aware of the activity on the other side. We all have this experience all the time, in our unconscious. Before spoken language this feeling was the primary modal experience of the world, this was our awareness.
We need to again understand that the boundaries of our bodies are not the edges of our experience. We are affected by not only what we eat, drink, and breath. As profound as these three influences are, we adjust to their nuances. We are deeply influenced by changes in temperature, light, sound, smell, and other influences so subtle we have no words for them. Our boundaries are literally permeable. What so blurs this division between ourselves as an individual entity and the social and biological world around us, in terms that our senses perceive at this time, are our hormones. Our hormonal environment is constantly shifting in response to the world around us, as the world responds to hormonal messages we create. Changes in our hormonal environment also result in behavioral changes which affect our social and biological world.
Focussing on the messages from our body, listening, understanding with our body, holds a key to shift theory. We need an awareness of the process of human hormonal communication within the larger biological sphere. Our awareness needs to be in our bodies to perceive through our bodies to experience the connections that make evident our connections to the world . In conjunction with the more familiar understanding/awareness of our world that comes from words and images, with shift theory we relate to the world around us by encouraging and trusting the subtle and not so subtle messages available to us through feeling, through our bodies.
But what of the violinist, the one with violin in hand. Evolutionary theory, like the rest of western science, is very uncomfortable with god as a variable in models of experience. Western culture's transcendent god was a hindrance when making reasonable cause and effects inferences and had to be rejected. Defining god, or that which is larger-than-the-self, experientially, as an immanent god, with the qualities of the primary process definition of the unconscious, can serve to temporarily create the opportunity for users of this model to discern connections where established scientific models are not allowed to find them. For our purposes we are not using deity as a concept to 'explain the unexplained' but rather as a biologically applied collective unconscious. This concept of deity becomes a tool to observe evidence of connections that neo-darwinian models presuppositionally suggest do not exist. Evolution is unfolding in ways that the human unconscious is aware of. The agendas of that unconscious are initiated and carried out by the female through the tools of sexual selection, uterine selection and female zygote selection; and the male through male zygote selection. Where our unconscious ends and the messages of the environment begin, is part of what is redefined by this thesis. We are not who we thought we were. We are more than that which is within our physical boundaries.