We live in an era of new discoveries occurring at a tremendous rate. Such a phenomenon has the propensity to create new and constant challenges likely to revolutionize our way of life. The twenty-first century stands out through its complexity and sophistication concomitantly. Its modus operandi is prone to generate further sophistication, exponentially, over time. We have almost reached an irreversible threshold where any system aspiring to survive needs to adapt to the new standards inherent in our Aquarian age. One of the most important benchmarks of this age is thinking across disciplines. We cannot solve crucial problems within the limited and warped prism of one sole epistemic area. Indeed, since each discipline has but a tiny portion of the truth, it cannot, motu propio, have a monopoly of the whole truth, let alone the absolute. … [please read below the rest of the article].

Image credit: Peter Corbett via Flickr / Creative Commons

Physics, cymatics and music can help treat brain injuries (brainwave entrainment through music). Cubism has enlightened quantum mechanics (perspectivism/dualistic nature of sub-atomic particles) by peeling off the layers of mystery in which the latter was enshrouded. Through cubism and its perspectivism, quantum physicists finally comprehended the behavior of photons and quantum entanglement because just like photons can be viewed either as particles or waves (perspectivism/quantum mechanics), reality can be viewed from different aspects/angles depending on the observers (perspectivism/cubism, wave-particle dualism). A philosopher validated this viewpoint and summarized it as follows: “everything that is perceived is perceived depending on the view of the perceiver” (Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur).

Surrealism has helped decrypt the mystery of the fourth dimension of space time continuum studied in relativistic physics (Dali’s “Christus Hypercubus/Tesseract”). Regarding poetry (synesthesia), it has elucidated how some brain organs function (angular gyrus and cross-modal metaphors, neuroscience of poetry, neuro-semiotics, neurolinguistics). Additionally, art and science are not opposite, but complementary because they are intrinsically the two sides of the same coin whose overall understanding will enable us to sublimate nature by asserting our sovereignty over the universe. Therefore, the distinction between them is spurious. In fact, when art complies with eminently rigorous criteria, such as symmetry, higher order, coherence, mathematical accuracy, and lacks any form of randomness, then it becomes science. Conversely, when science complies with eminently rigorous criteria of refinement, complexity, and sophistication, then it becomes art.

Picasso’s Dora Maar, Dali’s Christus Hypercubus, or Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper can be viewed either as art or science according to the criteria applied to these three masterpieces. Consequently, there are subtle and cryptic connections between not only art and science but, also and more importantly, most areas of human knowledge. It follows that the findings from one specific area can resolve or elucidate problems inherently associated with another or others. By virtue of these considerations, what might be the most appropriate epistemological paradigm for this era? That is precisely the question on which we will reflect in this article.

Epistemology is one of the main areas of classical philosophy. Indeed, the latter consists of five main fields: metaphysics, ethics, logics, epistemology, and esthetics. Epistemology seeks to answer questions such as: “What do we know?” “What does it mean that we know something?” “What makes justified beliefs justified?” and “How do we know that we know?”

Scientists have always been interested in philosophy/epistemology. For instance, Einstein, in his later years, emphasized its value when he wrote: “Science without epistemology is … primitive and muddled” (Pais 13). Epistemology is very important because it intrinsically enables us to assess the theory, scope, condition, and status of knowledge, to conduct an unbiased, flawless critique of knowledge and sciences so that we can establish benchmarks necessary to evaluate how far they have progressed. Within this framework, it becomes clear that the last three centuries (18^th, 19^th, and 20^th) have lionized epistemic specialization. Indeed, for the sake of efficiency, many great thinkers and researchers have focused their studies on one single area of knowledge. Picasso in painting (cubism), Sartre, Camus in philosophy (existentialism), Saussure (structuralism) and Chomsky (transformational generative grammar-generative semantics-language acquisition) in linguistics, Pearce in semiotics, Baudelaire (proto-symbolism), Poe (dark romanticism/supernaturalism), Césaire, Damas, Senghor (negritude) in poetry, Pasteur (microbiology and chemistry) in medicine, Riemann (differential geometry-metric tensor) and Gödel (the theory of incompleteness in logics) in mathematics, Einstein (general and special relativity) and Hawking (black holes and wormholes- cosmology) in physics, Plank, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg in quantum physics, to mention but a few.

All these great minds did an outstanding work that needs to be praised and summarized as a concinnity of genius and sagacity. However, although their works were bright, enriching, and even somewhat revolutionary, viewed from a different angle (from a purely epistemological perspective), they were limited in scope and quality because they failed to decrypt and solve the great mysteries of the universe and life in general:

• Extending human life up to 300 years of age or more through the reverse of entropy (second law of thermodynamics in physics) by restructuring and mastering the function of cells and mitochondria, the engine cell or powerhouse of the cell (cellular and molecular biology);
• Providing a scientific explanation of the soul and afterlife (interdimensional physics and metaphysics);
• Travelling in time and multiple dimensions by mastering gravity;
• Systematically eliminating all diseases on the planet, creating wormholes (tunnels/short cuts in space and time) to travel from one galaxy to another in the twinkling of an eye;
• Mastering teleportation and magnetic invisibility, bending light at will (gravitational lensing);
• Reading the minds (telepathy), reading the aura and interpreting the colors of its electromagnetic field (auric analysis and auric medicine by creating an auric machine to see a disease in the aura long before it is detected clinically (6 months- 1 year) just by examining its colors (each color indicates a specific quality, deficiency, physiological status, or condition);
• Harnessing the energies subsumed in the universe (solar energy, anti-matter, negative energy (Casimir effects), plasma, quantum vacuum flux field energy, zero point field energy, magnetic energy, magnetogravitics, electrogravitics (a form of anti-gravity);
• Expanding human consciousness, in short, endowing us with a very unique quality of life and, by the same token, with the outstanding ability to sublimate nature by asserting our sovereignty over the universe. Consequently, notwithstanding this “progress”, our civilization is still at level zero.

A taxonomy for assessing the progress made by civilizations in the universe has been established by Dr. Kardashev Nikolai, a Soviet scientist. He has thus conceived three levels of civilization based on progress made, hierarchically: Type I, II, and III (see footnotes for specifics regarding this taxonomy at the end of this paper; also refer to Dr. Michio Kaku’s book, Hyperspace, 277-278[1]). From the interpretation of this assessment, it turns out that hitherto we have not even reached type I yet on our planet. The rationale for being so far behind might be the wrong epistemological paradigm that we have adopted in the last three centuries: a reductionistic, monistic, single-handed approach of knowledge.

Let us take but a modicum of cases to illustrate our viewpoint. Einstein, for instance, did a wonderful job in his theory of general and special relativity. He disqualified Newton in the analysis of time (monolithic, linear, and isochrone with Newton but relative in the universe and slower inside a very fast-moving object with Einstein-please refer to the twins’ paradox where one ages much faster than the other). Einstein also discovered that gravity is not a force (as Newton believed) but a geometrical factor on space-time curvature (general relativity). He applied Riemann’s differential geometry (Riemann’s metric tensor/Riemannian manifold). Factually, gravity can warp, distort space-time continuum, and provide the scientific possibility of time travel. However, Einstein could not decrypt how to unify the four major forces conceived to illuminate everything in the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. Therefore, he did not manage to materialize his unified field theory, his magnum opus.

Louis Pasteur, a French microbiologist, discovered the existence of germs and conceived a cogent methodology for preventing diseases by creating the vaccination—especially against rabies, anthrax, and a few other calamities. He also found how to eliminate germs, disinfect, and protect areas, wines, food, and milk in a process bearing his name, “pasteurization.” When he died, scientists who continued his research followed his steps but did not work with other scientists: physicists, biologists, mathematicians, among several others. Consequently, they could not factually achieve one of the greatest assets coveted by mankind: the systematic elimination of diseases and the possibility of increasing longevity by hundreds of years by reversing entropy. Today, a few reliable researchers deem it scientifically feasible by flawlessly mastering the function of the mitochondria, the cell engine (the powerhouse cell) and provider for the body energy that is catalyzed by specific enzymes and coenzymes – NAD + for instance, that is, a vital electron carrier that essentially powers mitochondria.

With respect to Camus and Sartre, they laid out the major building blocks of existentialism by conducting an elegant and deep philosophical analysis of existence summarized in this formula: “existence precedes essence. It is necessary to live prior to finding one’s own definition.” It follows that man (homo in the Latin connotation, that is, man as opposed to animal, not man—vir in Latin—as opposed to woman) is a project that defines itself through each of its actions. Camus and Sartre also found that existence is nurtured by transcendence, but they did not realize that transcendence itself stems from a self-reliant transcendence, an over- or meta-transcendence that is, the “Isness,” the Supreme Intelligence presiding over everything in the cosmos and called “God.” Their co-presence (existence as transcendence and meta-transcendence as God) is necessary to vouch for the rational meaning of life because nothing can exist without a rational cause (Nihil est sine ratione.).

In his book Nausée (Nausea), for instance, Sartre posited that we are ejected from the cosmos and bound to share our existence with inert matter without any rational justification whatsoever, a postulation that conditions us to be absolutely free. However, He failed to realize that an “ejected” entity can never exist without an “ejector” since a cause needs an effect and vice versa. Camus also rejected meta-transcendence and postulated an inverted transcendence, that is, a transcendence through man rather than through God (see his book La Peste). Consequently, Camus and Sartre’s research did not come to fruition due to that aporetic gap/flaw, the exclusion of rational theology (rational analysis and understanding of God) from the existentialist equation.

All these considerations attest to the fact that these great minds of the past were brilliant, but they failed to endow us with a unique quality of life. Why? The reason is that even though each of them did a laudable work, they still functioned within the limited prism of their single and small area of knowledge with some degree of pride tinged with an atom of selfishness. Since knowledge is the quest for truth and since each area has but a tiny portion of truth, it becomes impossible to solve the great problems of the universe through one sole limited and Lilliputian amount of truth. Each area, or sub-set of knowledge, can find its relevance, veracity, and efficacy when it is realigned within the unified whole set of areas.

That is precisely where the transdisciplinary approach of knowledge comes into the picture. It essentially consists in thinking across disciplines because it is now proven that since there are hidden and factual connections between most areas of human knowledge, we can use finding (s) from one discipline to solve problems inherently associated with another or others. Just as light (white light in general) is the sum of all the colors of the visible spectrum, truth/knowledge can be found in the sum of all the disciplines of human culture. Therefore, no field can claim to have a monopoly on the whole truth since each one has but a portion of it. Good thinkers and scientists have proven that any one thing is connected with everything else in the universe, from the sub-atomic to the super-galactic level.

We live in an era of sophistication, one in which overspecialization becomes a weakness. In that regard, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg, the pioneers of quantum physics observed that “the total sum of the minds in the universe is one.” It follows that thinking across disciplines is the path and panacea to a bright future. In The Quark and the Jaguar, Dr. Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel Prize Laureate for physics, vindicates this standpoint:

What has always impressed me is the unity of human culture, with science being an important part. Even the distinction between nature and culture is not a sharp one; we human beings need to remember that we are part of nature. Specialization, although a necessary feature of our civilization, needs to be supplemented by integration of thinking across disciplines (12, emphasis mine).

Epistemic interconnectedness that we can also name “transdisciplinary approach of knowledge” has been attested to in physics and other areas of knowledge. For instance, cubism and the realms of sub-atomic particles seem to have nothing in common, but at a deeper level they share subtle links. Indeed, just as sub-atomic particles can be viewed in different aspects as particles or waves and exist at different locations at the same time (perspectivism through wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement), an object scrutinized by a cubist painter can be viewed differently and from several different angles (perspectivism). Perspectivism has been harbingered and summarized by Scholasticism in this axiom as: Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur, or “Whatever is perceived is perceived according to the view of the perceiver/how it is perceived by the perceiver.”

Cubism thus peeled off the layers of the mysteries enshrouding quantum physics. That is why Bohr acknowledged that Picasso and cubism factually helped him to decrypt and understand the arcana of quantum physics. Besides, cubism unquestionably proved the existence of the fourth dimension and other dimensions –usually the topic of physics – (see Picasso’ s painting of Dora Maar) and rejected the arrogance and “straitjacket” of positivism that stifled creativity in most epistemic areas. Surrealist painters also attested to the existence of a fourth-dimensional universe. De facto, Dali’s painting of Christus Hypercubus, showing Christ crucified on a tesseract, an unraveled cube is a testimony of art viewed from the fourth dimension.

Astrophysicist Dr. Michio Kaku gives the following explanation in Hyperspace: “The shadow of a hypercube is a cube within a cube. If the hypercube is rotated in four dimensions, the cubes execute motions that appear impossible to our three-dimensional brains” (73). These instances clearly demonstrate that painting/art has illuminated physics. Other areas that actualize such interconnectedness are music, acoustics, and cymatics (branch of physics dealing with frequencies and vibrations). Here, again, music and physics do not seem related, but in-depth studies show that music can be utilized to treat diseases and traumas affecting the brain. Indeed, with specific vibratory frequencies, it can help in healing brain injuries by materializing a diligent and fascinating synergy between two epistemic fields: neuroscience and physics/cymatics. That was precisely what happened when Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by a gunman in January 2011. The bullet hit her brain causing a serious injury, but through a brilliant therapy combining surgery and music with specific frequencies, it became possible to cure her. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon and journalist at CNN, confirmed the procedure in an interview with Anderson Cooper. In a January 2011 interview, Dr. Gupta stated to Anderson Cooper, “Music can have an amazing effect on the brain. Just hearing or reminding sounds crossing from the left side of the brain to the right side can truly harness the brain.

Another cogent synergy between music and neurology that positively impacts the brain is achieved through a technique called “brainwave entrainment” or “brainwave synchronization,” a practice than aims to cause brainwave frequency to fall into a step with a periodic stimulus having a frequency corresponding to the intended brain-state (for example, to induce sleep), usually attempted with specialized software. The brain itself is a mass of muscles, that is, matter. Since sounds and appropriate frequencies can affect matter, music (essentially organized, rhythmic and coherent sounds) with relevant frequencies can affect the brain as well and any other form of matter. The most common instance of this causality principle (sound over matter) is demonstrated whenever soldiers prepare to cross a bridge. Prior to crossing it, they must stop marching rhythmically to reduce the intensity of the frequencies generated by their rhythmic march (sound and vibration/frequency and its underlying energy). Failure to do so will cause the bridge to break and collapse. Nurtured by this observation and empirical verification, brilliant minds such as Nikola Tesla and Einstein stated: “If you need to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

Today, Superstring Theory, a new branch of physics, has successfully demonstrated that at the core of the universe we do not have atoms, but music, that is, vibrations, energy, and frequencies. Indeed, in his book Beyond Einstein, Dr. Kaku explains the Superstring Theory and demystifies the myth surrounding the universe:

The universe is not made up of atoms, but tiny vibrating strings. The ultimate building blocks of nature consist of vibrating strings […] the protons and neutrons in all matter, everything from our bodies to the farthest star, are ultimately made up of strings. Nobody has seen these strings because they are much too small to be observed. (They are about 100 billion billion times smaller than a proton.) The atoms and sub-atomic particles are but different harmonics of the superstring: hence the name “Superstring Theory (4-5).

He asserts:

This theory is the best candidate in the quest for the unification eminently sought to synergize the two major types of physics: relativity and quantum physics and will explain everything in the universe. Since these strings vibrate, they can generate music at specific frequencies. De facto, they gave birth to our universe and its sister because our universe was primarily a portion of another universe and made up of tiny vibrating strings, but it was very unstable and almost a bubble. Owing to the intense vibration of its strings and instability, it detached itself from the other and exploded (Big Bang)(12).

Such was the status of the pre-Big Bang universe. In The Elegant Universe, another astrophysicist, Dr. Brian Green, validates music as the genesis of our universe. He acknowledges that it is fundamentally composed of very subtle tiny vibrating strings. We can extrapolate this fact to our own bodies because it is also composed of sub-atomic particles, which are essentially different harmonics of these tiny strings. De facto, our body can vibrate as well, and with adequate instruments, such vibration can be translated into music. Therefore, to a certain extent, we can consider that music as the source of the entire universe. It has thus been rediscovered, or reconfirmed, by the pioneers of the Superstring Theory. Pythagoras of Samos, a mathematician, astronomer, and musician (c. 570 – c. 495 BC) and Kepler, an astronomer (17^th century), had already discovered it. The former and the latter were already cognizant of the music of spheres.

According to Pythagoras’s biographer Iamblichus, Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC) believed that planets move at different rates of motion, that they produce sounds, and that sounds vary according to the rate of motions. Because of the way these sounds relate to one another, they have a ratio that leads to the production of sublime harmony. Moreover, Pythagoras and his disciples found that a string stopped at specific fractions of its total length produces harmonious sounds. So, sounds are produced by matter and the universe. They have a mathematical quality and properties. They are really an expression of the divine. Consequently, we find a recurrent pattern in terms of the deep connections between music/vibrations/frequency, mathematics, physics, medicine, neuroscience, quantum physics, painting, and the universe.

Furthermore, since good poetry is fundamentally prosodic (rhythm, meter, imitative harmony, phonic mimologism), it is musical in its true essence. In actuality, poetry cannot exist without music because both are mutually inclusive. A good poem is necessarily endowed with musical qualities and can thus be set to music. Most of Mallarmé’s poems, for instance, were set to music by Debussy. All the symbolist poets (such as Verlaine, Mallarmé, Rimbaud, Rodenbach, Yeats, etc.) valorized music and regarded it as one of the major esthetic canons of their creative endeavor. In his Art Poétique (Poetic Art), Verlaine declared, “de la musique avant toute chose [. . .]” (“music before everything […]”). It can thus be inferred that poetry can coalesce with music and synergize with all the above-mentioned disciplines.

On the other hand, the distinction between art and science is spurious.  De facto, when art complies with eminently rigorous criteria, such as symmetry, higher order, coherence, mathematical accuracy, and lacks any form of randomness, then it becomes science. Similarly, when science complies with eminently rigorous criteria of refinement, complexity, and sophistication, then it becomes art. For instance, Picasso’s Dora Maar, Dali’s Christus Hypercubus, or Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper can be viewed either as art or science according to the criteria applied to these three masterpieces. Consequently, art and science are just two sides of the same coin whose combination can help us to comprehend and explain the arcana of the universe. They are truly complementary, not opposite. A common mistake is to oppose them.

In light of these considerations, we realize that within the quest for truth there were divisions that did not enable researchers from most epistemic fields to materialize the outstanding leap that mankind deserves to assert its sovereignty over the universe. Each one was busy and singlehandedly working in his/her little area. It has been proven, repeatedly, and even ad nauseam that in the realms of human matters—knowledge not being an exception—division does not catalyze progress; it creates failure and chaos. It can even wreak havoc. This was the case in many areas, especially in physics.

In his book Beyond Einstein, Dr. Kaku shows that in the course of history most physicists were confined in their small individual areas, and this state of affairs did not spark progress in physics. Einstein, for instance, rejected the field of quantum physics because of its subjectivity, unpredictability, uncertainty (see the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg (Impossibility to predict the place and velocity of an electron), and randomness (quantum entanglement/even if we separate entangled particles by billions of miles, changing one particle will induce a change in the others). He preferred the objective logic and coherence of relativity to the perspectivism, probabilism, and randomness inherently associated with quantum physics. Einstein confessed: “One cannot play dice with God.” As a result, he could not fulfill the dream of his life: to finalize the unified field theory. Today, it has been proven that quantum physics can be unified with relativity through superstring theory, which, according to renowned researchers, will likely hold the best promise to unify the four forces and explain everything in the universe. In a sub-chapter titled “Hostility toward Unification,” Dr. Kaku provides the rationale behind such hostility when he states the following:

Not unlike some professionals in other fields, when physicists have been laboring over a problem for years, they sometimes tend to be skeptical or even jealous of anyone who suddenly proposes the answer to the entire problem […] this peculiar hostility comes from the unconscious tendency of most physicists who suffer from the mechanistic process of thinking often found among physicists in the West, which tries to understand the inner workings of an object by examining the mechanical motions of its individual parts […] it blinds one from seeing the overall picture and noticing larger patterns. For decades, this mechanistic thinking prejudiced physicists against thinking in terms of unification (105).

There was a very interesting case regarding Einstein, the physicist, and Riemann, the mathematician. The former had almost built the field theory of gravity, but one piece of the puzzle was missing to formulate his theory coherently and cogently: rigorous mathematical formalism. Unfortunately, as genial as he was, he still did not have enough mathematical skills to decrypt this formalism. Surprisingly, Riemann did have this mathematical talent and was about to decrypt the mystery of gravity, but he still did not have enough knowledge of physics to translate it from a purely mathematical concept to a solid theory nurtured by physics. Einstein spent three whole years endeavoring to find the underlying mathematical principle for the theory of gravity! He mailed a letter to a friend of his, mathematician Grossman, desperately asking him for help. He said: “Grossman, you must help me or else I’ll go crazy!” Grossman did some library research and located the work of Riemann on “metric tensor,” which he showed to Einstein. Dr. Kaku reports this case in Hyperspace:

Grossman showed Einstein the work of Riemann and his metric tensor, which had been ignored by physicists for 60 years […]. To his shock, Einstein found Riemann’s celebrated 1854 lecture to be the key to the problem. He found that he could incorporate the entire body of Riemann’s work in the reformulation of his principle. Almost line by line, the great work of Riemann found its true home in Einstein’s principle of general relativity. This was Einstein’s proudest piece of work, even more than his celebrated equation E = MC². The physical reinterpretation of Riemann’s famous 1854 lecture is now called the general relativity, and Einstein’s equations rank among the most profound ideas in scientific history (93).

Through this outstanding synergy of three researchers: a physicist (Einstein) and two mathematicians (Grossman and Riemann), we clearly understand the unique advantage that undergirds the transdisciplinary approach of knowledge, a solid and tangible example of how one epistemic area (mathematics) can help solve problem in another (physics) and vice versa. That is precisely the type of epistemological paradigm mankind needs and deserves to achieve the level of progress designed to elevate it to a type I civilization. Unfortunately, this kind of approach was very rare in our last centuries.

In the other sciences there were also divisions. Mathematics, for instance, was cut off from the rest of the sciences. Being abstract by nature and detached from factual realities, it was predisposed to have a status of insularity. Some mathematicians even took delight in working on certain fields that were deemed never to be applied to the realms of physicality, as if they were functioning in a universe fraught with disincarnated platonic essences. Furthermore, they endeavored to refuse to grant to their research any form of applicability to the real world. This especially occurred in the nineteenth century. In Beyond Einstein, Dr. Kaku elaborates on this insularity:

With the development of Lie groups, based entirely on abstract mathematical constructs, mathematicians thought they had finally discovered a branch of knowledge that had no practical use whatsoever for the physicists. (Apparently, some mathematicians delight in producing mathematics so pure that it has no practical application (102).

Accordingly, its status of isolation from other disciplines and proclivity to subscribe to sheer abstraction proved to be a recipe for failure in terms of pragmatical contribution to the advancement of progress.

The field of medicine also failed to catalyze epistemic synergy. As a matter of fact, those who pursued Louis Pasteur’s research could have worked in dynamic symbiosis with physicists for an exhaustive and diligent study on entropy, for instance; with cellular biologists for a meticulous and diligent study on the mitochondria, the powerhouse cell; with dieticians for a cogent analysis of food and its impact on health; with musicians for designing how to master sounds, vibratory frequency of specific types of music and frequency and their impact on the brain (brainwave-entrainment), (the frequency 528 Hz and its role in repairing DNA, for example); with yogi and experts in meditation (e.g., the role of meditation and its ability to elevate the brain up to Delta waves state). New areas could have been integrated to maximize efficiency within the spectrum of knowledge: harmonization with nature by delving into the role of physical exercise, breathing, waves, frequencies, reflexotherapy, and magnetism in therapy.

It is noteworthy that man is structurally complex because he is both matter (Newtonian mechanics) and energy/frequency/waves/vibration/soul (Quantum mechanics). Modern medicine has failed because of its isolationism and reductionism as well. It has indeed reduced man to matter, an object, whereas he is also energy, frequency/waves/vibration, and soul. De facto, he is a whole. Therefore, futuristic medicine, holistic by essence, must take this wholeness into account to heal the patient. A sick man does not only suffer from a physical pain. Most of the time, such a pain is psychological by nature. When a man is overwhelmed by bills to pay, deadlines to meet, a stressful work environment, or the loss of a loved one to cope with, any or all these factors can severely jeopardize his health and should be taken into consideration to treat him. That is exactly where physics can help (through frequency, brainwave-entrainment) with cymatics, psychology, music, meditation, and relaxation among other adjuvants and epistemic areas. Unfortunately, such tremendous synergy was never considered. If it were, it could have led to reverse entropy or at least increase longevity by a few hundred years. Consequently, the quest for truth has been crippled by a reductionistic and monistic approach to knowledge climaxing into epistemic isolationism.

It follows that the epistemological paradigm of our Aquarian age is holistic. It resides in a transdisciplinary approach of knowledge as the panacea that will factually spark our sovereignty over the universe. However, this paradigm will relish its golden letters if we build its five pillars: the critical reassessment of knowledge, prohibition of epistemic imperialism or bullyism, respect for every area of knowledge, heuristic humility coupled with open-mindedness, and funding of research.

❧ Part II: “The Quest for Truth in the Twenty-First Century.”

References

Crick, Francis. Life Itself, its Origin and Nature. New York. Simon and Schuster, 1982.

Einstein, Albert. The World as I See It.  New York. Kensington Publishing Corporation, 2001.

Green, Brian. The Elegant Universe. New York. Norton and Company, 2012.

Greer, Stephen. Unacknowledged. L.L.C. West Palm Beach. A & M Publishing, 2017.

Hobbs, Angie. Plato’s Republic. Penguin Books Ltd, 2019.

Kaku, Michio. Beyond Einstein. New York. Anchor Books Edition, 1995.

Kaku, Michio. Hyperspace. New York. First Anchor Books Edition, 1994.

Lipton, Bruce. The Biology of Belief. New York. Hay House, 2016.

Pais, Abraham. Subtle Is the Lord…Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

[1] Taxonomy of civilizations in the universe by Nikolai Kardashev in Kaku’s book Hyperspace – chapter titled “Masters of Hyperspace”:

• Type I Civilization: the one that controls the energy resources of an entire planet. This civilization can control the weather, prevent earthquakes, mine deep in the earth’s crust, and harvest the oceans. This civilization has already completed the exploration of its solar system. We can consider that it has mastered the cure of all the diseases or even eliminated them.
• Type II Civilization: the one that controls the power of the sun itself. This does not mean passively harnessing solar energy; this civilization mines the sun. The energy needs of this civilization are so large that it directly consumes the power of the sun to drive its machines. This civilization will begin the colonization of local star systems.
• Type III: Civilization: the one that controls the power of an entire galaxy. For a power source, it harnesses the power of billions of star systems. It has probably mastered Einstein’s equations and can manipulate space-time at will (277-278).

Categories: Articles

Tags: Albert Einstein, benchmarks, Bonaventure Balla, epistemic area, epistemological paradigm, Michio Kaku, quest for truth, thinking across disciplines, transdisciplinary approach of knowledge, twenty-first century