The Science Of Wholeness

  • Menas KafatosEmail author
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 107)


Astronomy has played a key role in the development of science and in humanity’s view of the universe and our place in it. The view of the cosmos has always held a special place in the minds and hearts of cultures throughout the history of the world. In some sense, looking at the night sky reminds us of the depths of our own existence. It is not surprising then that as we attempt to search for the holy grail of science, the unification of diverse fields, that astronomy would find itself central. The universal diagrams provide glimpses of such unification and astronomical objects play a very important role. However, the future science of wholeness will need to go much further than any physical theory has gone so far and provide bold steps to unify everything in the human experience. We are referring to an approach that starts from a set of foundational principles that are universally applicable and can form the very roots of the science of wholeness. The first such steps are outlined in the present paper.


Quantum Theory Quantum Universe Human Consciousness Mental Phenomenon Foundational Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I am indebted to my friend and colleague Mihai Drãgãnescu for developing and working with me on many of the ideas here. Mihai unfortunately passed away this year. He is being missed.


  1. Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bohr, N. 1958. Atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers, D. 1995a. Puzzle of conscious experience. Scientific American, December: 62–68.Google Scholar
  4. Chalmers, D. 1995b. Facing up the problem of consciousness. Journal of Conscious-ness Studies 2–3: 200–219.Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, D. 1996. The conscious mind. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coveney, P., and R. Highfield. 1995. Frontiers of complexity. The search for order in a chaotic world. New York: Fawcett Columbine.Google Scholar
  7. Drãgãnescu, M. 1985. Ortofizica (Orthophysics), Bucharest.Google Scholar
  8. Drãgãnescu, M. 1990. Informatia materiei (Information of matter), Bucharest.Google Scholar
  9. Drãgãnescu, M. 1993. Principes d'une science structurale-phénoménologique, Bulle-tin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, Academie Royale de Belgique, 6e série, Tome IV, 7–12: 255–311.Google Scholar
  10. Drãgãnescu, M. 1996. L’universalité ontologique de l’information, préface et notes par Yves Kodratoff, Prof.,Université de Paris-Sud, Directeur de recherche au CNRS. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
  11. Drãgãnescu, M. 1997/1979. The depths of existence, published in English, 1997, on the Web: (translation of the Romanian edition “Profunzimile lumii materiale”, Bucharest, 1979).
  12. Drãgãnescu, M. 1997. Deep reality, conscious universe and complementarity. The Noetic Journal 1.1: 114–117.Google Scholar
  13. Drãgãnescu, M. 1998a. Structural-phenomenological theories in Europe and USA. Paper presented at the workshop Convergences, Workshop on Convergent Ideas in the Philosophy of Science in USA and Europe, George Mason University, July 21, Fairfax.Google Scholar
  14. Drãgãnescu, M. 1998b. Constiinta fundamentala a existentei (The fundamental consciousness of existence), Academica, ianuarie 1998, 20–21 (I-a), Feb. 1998, 20 (II-a), Mar 1998, III-a, 28–29.Google Scholar
  15. Drãgãnescu, M. 1998c. Taylor’s Bridge across the explanatory gap and its extension. Consciousness and Cognition 7: 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drãgãnescu, M., and M. Kafatos. 1999. Generalized foundational principles in the philosophy of science. The Noetic Journal 2(4): 341–350.Google Scholar
  17. Drãgãnescu, M., and M. Kafatos. 2003. Community and social factors for the integrative science. Research paper, Institute of Research for Artificial Intelligence, Romanian Academy, Romania.Google Scholar
  18. Drãgãnescu, M., M. Kafatos, and S. Roy. 2001. Main types of phenomenological categories. Proceedings of the Romanian Academy 2(3); 115–122.Google Scholar
  19. Kafatos, M. 1986. Astrophysics of brown dwarfs, eds. M. Kafatos, R.S. Harrington, and S.P. Maran, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Kafatos, M. 1989. Horizons of knowledge in cosmology. In Bell’s theorem, quantum theory & conceptions of the universe, ed. M. Kafatos, 195–210. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Kafatos, M. 1998a. Non-locality, complementarity and cosmology. In Causality and locality in modern physics and astronomy: Open questions and possible solutions. A symposium in Honor of Jean-Pierre Vigier, eds. G. Hunter and G. Jeffers. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Kafatos, M. 1998b. Non-locality, foundational principles & consciousness, communication at the Workshop Convergences.Google Scholar
  23. Kafatos, M., and M. Drãgãnescu. 2003. Principles of integrative science. Bucharest: Editura Tehnica.Google Scholar
  24. Kafatos, M., and T. Kafatou. 1991. Looking in, seeing out: consciousness and cosmos. Wheaton: Quest Books.Google Scholar
  25. Kafatos, M., and R. Nadeau. 1990. The conscious universe. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kafatos, M., and R. Nadeau. 2000 The conscious universe: Parts and wholes in physical reality. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kato, G., and D. Struppa. 1999. A sheaf theoretic approach to consciousness. The Noetic Journal 2.1: 1–3.Google Scholar
  28. Kaufmann, St. 1995. At home in the universe. The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nadeau, R., and M. Kafatos. 1999. The non-local universe: The new physics and matters of the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Perminov, V. I. 1988/1979. Cauzalitate (causality), Bucharest 1988 (translated in Romanian after the Russion edition, 1979).Google Scholar
  31. Rosen, R. 1988. Processes and natural law. In The universal turing machine, a half-century, ed. Herken Rolf, 523–538. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rosen, R. 1997. Are our modelling paradigms non-generic? ch. 14. In Time process and structured transformation in archeology, eds. S. van der Leeuw and J. McGlade J. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Stapp, H.P. 1997. Why classical mechanics cannot naturally accommodate consciousness but quantum mechanics can. Noetic Journal 1: 85–86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Schmid College of ScienceChapman UniversityOrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations