The goal of this Research Project is to integrate psychology, philosophy, meditation research, and neuroscience to investigate, identify, and contrast structural changes and constants of consciousness in awake adults. The word ‘structural’ here refers to both entirely new kinds of experiences as well as alterations of the structures in which we usually frame everyday experiences. Such structural shifts can be accompanied by more or less control of those who are undergoing them. Examples of uncontrolled or even uncontrollable shifts are psychotic episodes, developing depression, schizophrenia, or mania. Arguably, examples for more controlled changes are those brought about by deeply immersing oneself in artworks or artistic performances, cultural rituals gearing toward a state of trance, and even administering drugs like hallucinogens. The most controlled manner to bring about such changes is through meditative practices and philosophical methods of exploring the constitution of consciousness.
For instance, experienced meditators report the dissolution of boundaries characteristic of everyday consciousness, e.g., of self and world. Patients suffering from schizophrenia often report a loss or only intermittent presence of conscious self-identity. Philosophical attitudes like the Husserlian epoché and J. G. Fichte’s intellectual intuition might be able to open new dimensions of conscious experience which remain undiscovered within everyday consciousness. Hegel assumed a similar conscious construing of the world among those who live in the same historical epoch, shifting gradually between the ages.
At first glance, shifts like these risk jeopardizing intersubjective first-person research on consciousness. After all, the scientificity of consciousness research relies on an observer-independent generalization of what conscious experience is like for everyone. Precisely this, however, seems to be impeded by the mentioned structural shifts. Furthermore, the characterizations and practices of these shifts tend to presuppose peculiar cultural or traditional notions as well as metaphysical or religious convictions which cannot simply be adopted by science. On the contrary, science ought to exclude any unwarranted assumptions while being relevant to everyone irrespective of their culture. Thus, a way to ‘translate’ such shifts into science is necessary, also to achieve mutual comparability. As these shifts tend to endanger the applicability of established but one-sided consciousness theories, they are often woefully neglected or sidelined by simplistic explanations. This Research Project instead welcomes them as both challenges and chances to strengthen the scientificity of consciousness research via identifying and differentiating them within an interdisciplinary approach.
We welcome contributions addressing questions like:
Which possible structural variations can occur in consciousness? How can we scientifically describe the starting point, transition, and new state? What distinguishes voluntary and controlled transitions from those occurring involuntarily? Can involuntary transitions be avoided? And if so, how can they be avoided? Which – if any – structures of consciousness seem to be unalterable by such shifts? How can generalizability within such shifts be established and, if possible, within consciousness as a whole? How can we relate and compare two or more of these shifts to investigating commonalities and differences? For example: Is it possible to relate a new dimension of conscious experience discovered in a certain philosophy with one entered during meditation? Can we assess whether they have a similar direction and whether and where they might have overlaps? Similarly, one might ask: What connects and sets apart the dissolution of self-boundaries in meditation and the loss of self-identity in schizophrenia or trance?
How – in this field of study – can a descriptive scientific terminology unburdened by traditional metaphysical or religious dogmas be established? Is it possible to determine an ‘average’ in the sense of an everyday consciousness which could serve as a frame of reference for contrasting the possible shifts? If this is not possible, what factors prevent establishing such an average consciousness, and can at least a generalizability relative to these factors be established and characterized? How can we best understand patients describing their psychological condition and how should we relate these descriptions to structures found in everyday consciousness? How can we develop therapies both from the inside and in guidance from the outside to help people who have undergone involuntary shifts of consciousness to return to everyday consciousness? Can structural changes within first-person experience be reliably correlated with third-person observations and if so: in how far?
While this Research Topic may not yet reach a conclusive and comprehensive scientific description of all the possible alterations and their mutual relations, we do hope that it will lay a solid groundwork and provide valuable methodological reflections and approaches.
The goal of this Research Project is to integrate psychology, philosophy, meditation research, and neuroscience to investigate, identify, and contrast structural changes and constants of consciousness in awake adults. The word ‘structural’ here refers to both entirely new kinds of experiences as well as alterations of the structures in which we usually frame everyday experiences. Such structural shifts can be accompanied by more or less control of those who are undergoing them. Examples of uncontrolled or even uncontrollable shifts are psychotic episodes, developing depression, schizophrenia, or mania. Arguably, examples for more controlled changes are those brought about by deeply immersing oneself in artworks or artistic performances, cultural rituals gearing toward a state of trance, and even administering drugs like hallucinogens. The most controlled manner to bring about such changes is through meditative practices and philosophical methods of exploring the constitution of consciousness.
For instance, experienced meditators report the dissolution of boundaries characteristic of everyday consciousness, e.g., of self and world. Patients suffering from schizophrenia often report a loss or only intermittent presence of conscious self-identity. Philosophical attitudes like the Husserlian epoché and J. G. Fichte’s intellectual intuition might be able to open new dimensions of conscious experience which remain undiscovered within everyday consciousness. Hegel assumed a similar conscious construing of the world among those who live in the same historical epoch, shifting gradually between the ages.
At first glance, shifts like these risk jeopardizing intersubjective first-person research on consciousness. After all, the scientificity of consciousness research relies on an observer-independent generalization of what conscious experience is like for everyone. Precisely this, however, seems to be impeded by the mentioned structural shifts. Furthermore, the characterizations and practices of these shifts tend to presuppose peculiar cultural or traditional notions as well as metaphysical or religious convictions which cannot simply be adopted by science. On the contrary, science ought to exclude any unwarranted assumptions while being relevant to everyone irrespective of their culture. Thus, a way to ‘translate’ such shifts into science is necessary, also to achieve mutual comparability. As these shifts tend to endanger the applicability of established but one-sided consciousness theories, they are often woefully neglected or sidelined by simplistic explanations. This Research Project instead welcomes them as both challenges and chances to strengthen the scientificity of consciousness research via identifying and differentiating them within an interdisciplinary approach.
We welcome contributions addressing questions like:
Which possible structural variations can occur in consciousness? How can we scientifically describe the starting point, transition, and new state? What distinguishes voluntary and controlled transitions from those occurring involuntarily? Can involuntary transitions be avoided? And if so, how can they be avoided? Which – if any – structures of consciousness seem to be unalterable by such shifts? How can generalizability within such shifts be established and, if possible, within consciousness as a whole? How can we relate and compare two or more of these shifts to investigating commonalities and differences? For example: Is it possible to relate a new dimension of conscious experience discovered in a certain philosophy with one entered during meditation? Can we assess whether they have a similar direction and whether and where they might have overlaps? Similarly, one might ask: What connects and sets apart the dissolution of self-boundaries in meditation and the loss of self-identity in schizophrenia or trance?
How – in this field of study – can a descriptive scientific terminology unburdened by traditional metaphysical or religious dogmas be established? Is it possible to determine an ‘average’ in the sense of an everyday consciousness which could serve as a frame of reference for contrasting the possible shifts? If this is not possible, what factors prevent establishing such an average consciousness, and can at least a generalizability relative to these factors be established and characterized? How can we best understand patients describing their psychological condition and how should we relate these descriptions to structures found in everyday consciousness? How can we develop therapies both from the inside and in guidance from the outside to help people who have undergone involuntary shifts of consciousness to return to everyday consciousness? Can structural changes within first-person experience be reliably correlated with third-person observations and if so: in how far?
While this Research Topic may not yet reach a conclusive and comprehensive scientific description of all the possible alterations and their mutual relations, we do hope that it will lay a solid groundwork and provide valuable methodological reflections and approaches.
