109
INTRODUCTION
The Journal of the SPR has carried short reviews of the work of the
late Michael Whiteman, an emeritus professor of applied mathematics
at the University of Cape Town, who had extensive psychical and mystical experience, along with an expert knowledge of classical mystical
texts (Poynton, 1994, 1996, 2007a, 2007b). His death at the age of 100
in 2007 calls for fuller exploration of his work. This review focuses on
aspects that have particular relevance to phenomena studied in psychical
research; it is conceived as a guide to this area of his complex work, using
extracts and references to his extensive publications.
In conventional scientific theorising, any explanation for psi is
presumed to be discoverable in physical realities. As attempts to
explain psi in physical terms fail, the conventional conclusion is that
data purporting to demonstrate psi must be faulty in some way. This
conclusion disregards a fundamental understanding, especially evident
in some areas of physics, that what is observed cannot be explained at
the level of the events themselvesexplanation requires seeking another
level of causation beyond ordinary sense perception. This multi-level view
is a keystone of Whitemans work, which emphasises the fruitlessness of
110
April 2011 ]
looking for the causes and processes of psi at a physical level, and instead
provides some guidance as to where understanding may be found. It is
an exploration into how worlds of experience are constituted, and how
we may comprehend something of their working. This involves thinking
about many levels of causation, and the possibility of many different
worlds of experience.
These ideas were not the result of speculative theorising but of direct
observation combined with conceptual analysis. A cornerstone of Whitemans writing was to provide evidence of direct experience, as declared
in his first book, The Mystical Life (Whiteman, 1961), whose subtitle is:
An Outline of its Nature and Teachings from the Evidence of Direct
Experience. The term evidence also appears in the title of his series,
Old and New Evidence on the Meaning of Life (Whiteman, 1986, 2000,
2006). Contracting the title of these volumes to The Meaning of Life and
ignoring the first part of the title, Old and New Evidence on . . . , is to
misjudge the thrust of Whitemans work.
THE FAILURE OF THE RULING WORLD-VIEW
Whitemans multi-level view may be approached through his criticism
of what is currently the ruling world-view, discussed by him as classical
ontology or one-level naturalism (Whiteman, 1967, pp.374375, 1973,
pp.348349, 1986, p.140). This view, which had become established by
the seventeenth century, is firstly, there is just one real space and time
. . . secondly, the only realities are point-particles and fields . . . thirdly,
there exists a complete set of mathematical laws by means of which the
measures for particles and fields are exactly determined for all future
time (Whiteman, 1975a, p.124). Despite the astonishing successes
achieved in some cases, a total reduction to mechanism proves to be
irrational or unworkable, owing principally to the theory of relativity
(which shows there is nothing absolute about mathematical measures
of space and time) and quantum theory (which shows that waves, or
other structures controlling probability, are beyond the scope of physical
observation, and cannot be physically located ) (Whiteman, 1975a,
pp.125127). The standard one-level naturalism also fails to account for
what he listed as consciousness, the self, free will, meaning, knowledge,
and moralityin other words, the essentials of being human. And it fails
especially to account for the more exceptional features of human being,
such as psi phenomena, out-of-body experiences and mystical states.
Whiteman saw a parallel between the problems raised in physics and
in parapsychology: in each case there is a crisis in that the results of
experiment are incompatible with the classical ontology; there is the
problem of reality in that the causes of what is observed physically
cannot themselves be observed physically; and there is a problem of
111
112
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
arises with the possibility of interaction between the impersonal potentialities of a physical event and the thought-image potentialities of an
individual, resulting in the production of impressions in the individuals
thought-image sphere (Whiteman, 1975a, p.130). Psychokinesis could
be called a reverse clairvoyant interaction, because it is an interaction
between a thought-image sphere as cause, and a physical body as a
subject of the action (p.130). Factors controlling interaction were seen
principally to be resonance analogous with the synchronising of
vibration frequencies in quantum theory together with moderating
factors of intensity, such as emotional intensity, and openness of mind.
Precognition will be considered later.
These ideas were presented at a conference held in Johannesburg
in 1973 (Poynton, 1975a); at a Parapsychology Foundation conference
held in Geneva a year later (Oteri, 1975), he similarly treated these psi
phenomena in a recorded discussion, where he emphasised that, for
the deduction of all parapsychological phenomena we need first of all to
distinguish various levels of spatio-temporal phenomena, not only at
the one physical level (Whiteman, 1975b, p.197). Thus in clairvoyance
what we have is a non-physical spatio-temporal manifestation in the
mind of the seer, but it is out of step with the physical potentiality being
actualized at that time . . . The shift in space or time gives us the phenomena of clairvoyance, precognition, retrocognition, and even memory
(p.198). What I would say is that the clairvoyant or paragnost has
become practiced at focusing on the non-physical level from which
physical actualizations spring. There can be actualization at the physical
level, and there can be actualization of the same potentialities, along
with others, at the thought-image level . . . he can shift his attention
to another place, or to the future or the past, and the picture changes
accordingly (p.200).
Structures of potentiality, whether subconscious or influencing external manifestation, were held by him not to be beyond comprehension.
They are open to essential insight and transcendent comprehension,
by which details of intelligible structure in any experience may be held
changelessly in view (Whiteman, 1967, p.395). As will now be discussed,
the structures of potentiality, even though outside the sensory world,
are not, as Locke and Kant believed, closed to direct acquaintance.
COMPREHENSION OF INTELLIGIBLE STRUCTURE
AND STATES WHERE THIS MAY HAPPEN
Whiteman was in agreement with Kant that ordinary practical
experiencing (Erfahrung) and ordinary understanding (Verstand) will
not directly disclose the level of intelligible structure, but unlike Kant
he maintained that there is a third sphere of experience where this can
116
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
imaginative in character, to what is judged to be more real and meaningful than physical phenomena (p.9).
To give precision to this evaluation he developed what he termed a
General Index of Reality (Whiteman, 1986, p.41f, 2006, p.7f). This gave
numerical ratings for a number of factors, including the degree of control
or reflection, sense of significance, ability to make rational comparisons
with the physical state, communication with other minds, and continuity
of memory between different states. This index flies against conventional
ideas in several ways, notably in admitting degrees of reality, and in
excluding any physical reference.
As regards degrees of reality, his index covers a range from
uncontrolled dreaming (low rating) to noetically releasing and unitively
fulfilling objectivity with a high degree of reality (Whiteman, 1986,
p.34), which he termed mystical experience (high rating). The term
mystical is often taken in a derogatory sense of suggesting vagueness
and mystification, not a state of noetically releasing and unitively
fulfilling objectivity. The inclusion of dreaming alongside mysticism in
his classification of non-physical states might seem to cater to this idea.
Yet this is not so in the light of what he termed scientific mysticism,
aimed to provide a treatment of physical and non-physical states and
happenings that was scientific in the best sense of the word openminded, rigorously tested, rationally coherent, and illuminating (p.vii).
Dreaming is conventionally supposed to be located somehow in the brain,
yet a moments reflection should make one realise that, whatever is
thought to be the cause of dreaming, the experience is firmly in a space
that cannot be equated to the physical space in which the dreamers
physical body is located; it is in a different world. Whiteman therefore
wrote (p.213), a world, when understood in reference to separative
experience, is the continuous and continuing manifestation of objects
in a stabilised non-physical space-time, which we can enter in a nonphysical body manifestly located in such world. Thus a dream-state,
however unreal it may seem, can be said to take us into a non-physical
world. Dreaming is clearly a fit subject for ontological investigation
(e.g. Whiteman, 2000, pp.127139), even if transience and lack of control
give it only low reality rating.
As to his exclusion of physical evidence in assessing the reality of outof-body experience, he saw the usual assumption that the physical state
should be given prime importance in choosing what we call reality to be
unthinkingly based on outdated one-level, one-space prejudice and to be
without any evidential warrant (Whiteman, 1986, p.38). Fixation on
physical data was seen to devalue the internal evidence of a recorded
experience, and so limit comprehension. Any apparent physical supporting data merely had chiefly propaganda value for the uninformed or
sceptical, who do not realise that separation is not established by them,
121
April 2011 ]
123
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
April 2011 ]
137
APPENDIX
WhitemanStevenson Correspondence on Reincarnation
The SPR has received a large quantity of archive material pertaining to Professor
Whiteman. The contents of the archives include correspondence with many notable
scientists, and contain exchanges with the late Professor Ian Stevenson, a principal
writer on reincarnation. The exchanges give further insight into Whitemans thinking
on reincarnation, and Stevensons contrasting ideas.
In what appears to be missing correspondence, Whiteman evidently raised the
idea that physical personality is composite, and that on dissolution after physical
death only a fraction of one personality may carry memories into the composition of
a new physical personality (discussed above under strict and loose reincarnation).
Stevensons comment in April 1963 was, so far as the empirical evidence available to
me goes, the evidence seems rather to support the beads on a string idea of the theosophists. He evidently saw an earthly personality to be a discrete unit, connected
by a discrete link between one incarnation and the next. Stevensons conception
was linear; in contrast, Whitemans conception was reticular, a network of entities
connecting lives. Yet Stevenson added, I admit, however, that there are few cases
which are not also open to the other idea of a partial incarnation of members of a
group. The cases which, it seems to me, can only be explained by strict reincarnation
are those in which birthmarks occur . . . In these birthmark and deformity cases, the
link between one personality and another seems quite clear, assuming authenticity
for the cases.
In April 1987, this view was repeated when he wrote that a loosestrict distinction may account for occasional cases (of the type I have studied), but certainly
not all of them; it does not adequately explain the occurrence of birthmarks and birth
defects corresponding to specific wounds in a deceased person. Whitemans reply to
this in April 1987 is full of the complexities that he saw in personality structure and
continuity. He wrote, according to Swedenborg and the Buddha (and in my own
experience) a personality does not exist without co-minds ceaselessly coming and
going ( no man is an island). He believed that the occurrence of birthmarks did not
rule out the possibility of the influence of a co-mind being potentially as powerful in
an infant as is the core individuality. He wrote, if one accepts that co-minds (still
attached to experiences in the life they have recently led) will necessarily help to
make up the personality of a baby just born ( in fact may constitute it almost entirely
if the individual in charge is not fully awake, so to speak), then naturally one would
expect traumatic events in the life of those co-minds to be manifested in the physical
body of the baby.
In this letter, Whitemans comments on strict reincarnation expanded on
what appears in his published works, evidently allowing himself some degree of
speculation. Strict reincarnation was taken to occur when the individual in charge
and the co-minds more or less permanently associated with him/her in physical life
have become more or less disunited after death (because in a separated state there
is not the same bondage to the physical body). If the break up of the personality is
very considerable, and the individual in charge comes back to the physical world (as
138
April 2011 ]
a co-mind or as a new individual in charge) for the sake of obtaining more lessons
from life, one could not expect the old physical memories to survive (the personality
having been destroyed). But if the return is quick, so that the personality ( individual
plus co-minds) are little changed, then one would expect the memories to survive.
In this 1987 letter, Whiteman acknowledged that his picture of the personality,
though it is really nothing but a summary of a multitude of different kinds of direct
experience, meets with enormous resistance from the average person in the West.
There are no letters in the collection beyond this one, and it seems that Stevenson
himself remained unconvinced by this multiple picture of the personality and all it
entailed. At the end of his final magnum opus, Stevenson (1997) seemed still to have
adhered to a string of beads idea by proposing the theoretical entity, a psychophore,
a vehicle for memories between lives. The existing correspondence sadly does not
contain reference to any debate on this issue.
In the January 1987 letter, Whiteman wrote of one of the greatest difficulties in
this field of research, which was distinguishing between the entering into a retrocognitive scene, and the plausible identifying of details in the scene with memories in
the same line of consciousness as the presently-living percipient . Stevenson replied
in April that he had little of value to say about the matter. This interpretation
may account for occasional cases (of the type I have studied), but certainly not for all
of them.
The correspondence between Stevenson and Whiteman shows great cordiality but,
in view of differences in experience and approach, the minimal impact of Whitemans
ideas on Stevensons final work on reincarnation need not seem surprising. The
simplicity of a beads on a string idea of reincarnation, and some imaginative
theorising, evidently seemed to Stevenson to be the best he could aspire to. No doubt
he must have felt he had enough complexity to deal with as it was.
It is worth noting that Stevenson and Whiteman showed agreement regarding a
multi-world conception. Stevenson (December 1986 letter) wrote of becoming more
and more convinced that a further understanding of the existence of two spaces, or
perhaps multiple spaces, is necessary for our understanding of the relationship
between minds and brains and also for the solution of many problems in parapsychology. Whiteman (January 1987 letter) stated that everything hinges for me
on the admission of other spaces, which I classify along with other kinds of mental
control by which one can become open to them or enter them. I was delighted to
read that you are coming to a view of this kind . But it seems that Whiteman was
only partly correct in this assessment: Stevenson evidently had reservations about
an individual being able consciously to enter non-physical spaces, even though
Whiteman believed that the out-of-body experience is exactly this.
REFERENCE
Stevenson, I. (1997) Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of
Birthmarks and Birth Defects (2 vols.). New York: Praeger.
139