Printed in the Spring 2022 issue of Quest magazine.
Citation: Smoley, Richard, "Patterns of Connection: An Interview with Fritjof Capra" Quest 110:2, pg 14-19
By Richard Smoley
We make up boundaries and objects, but reality is fluid and always changing.
We have heard endless amounts about Taos and Zens of physics and everything else; they have become clichés today. This was not the case in 1970, when Fritjof Capra published his groundbreaking (and much imitated) work The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, paving the way for a new worldview. Since then, the book has sold over a million copies. Other works of his include The Turning Point; The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems; Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with Remarkable People; and The Science of Leonardo: Inside the Mind of the Great Genius of the Renaissance.
The essence of Capra’s thought is what he calls the systems view of life, and he has pursued and promoted it in the past fifty years. This perspective is meant to replace the old (but still prevalent) mechanistic worldview, which views objects and living things as isolated elements interacting in a more or less automatic way. Capra’s view holds that everything is interconnected and is best understood as a system of interrelated, constantly shifting, living processes.
In 2021, Capra published Patterns of Connection: Essential Essays from Five Decades, which traces his thought from the earliest days to the present. Essays include “Where Have All the Flowers Gone? Reflections on the Spirit and Legacy of the Sixties”; “The Dance of Shiva: The Hindu View of Matter in the Light of Modern Physics”; “The New Physics as a Model for a New Medicine, Psychology, and Economics?”; and “The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systemic Analysis.”
In October 2021, I conducted a Zoom interview with him to discuss his new book.
Richard Smoley: Let me start with a question that my eleven-year-old son asked me last night: is reality there when no one is looking?
Fritjof Capra: That’s pretty profound for an eleven-year-old.
Actually, this is part of the new systemic understanding of life that I have explored and synthesized for the last thirty or forty years, and which I call the systems view of life. I have published several books about that, and my grand synthesis is published in a book with that title: The Systems View of Life, coauthored with Pier Luigi Luisi. This book is related to Patterns of Connection, which represents the evolution of my thinking over five decades.
In response to your son’s question: we have discovered that if nobody is looking, reality is still there, because it’s independent of the observer. What happens with the human mind, or the process of knowing, is that we bring forth a world.
Wherever there is life, we find this cognitive dimension. For example, when we look at a tree, we know that a bird or an insect looking at the same tree will see something quite different. Even if we, say, were to have a couple of glasses of whiskey and look at the tree, we would see something different, because our mind would be influenced by the alcohol.
There is an existing world out there—I’m not saying that we made it up—but the way we divide the world into patterns and structures and parts depends on our process of observation, so we bring forth a world. If nobody were there, there wouldn’t be objects, patterns, and things as we define them in the process of knowing. It’s quite a complex issue.
Smoley: One fundamental theme that pervades your thought and your book is this: “In order to maintain themselves effectively, living organisms must be able to discriminate between the system itself, as it were, and its environment. This is why all living organisms have a physical boundary.”
That certainly makes sense in light of what you’re saying, but could one also say that about the supposedly inanimate world, since all things have physical boundaries? Does the electron have some kind of capacity to distinguish between self and other, even though it would be in a form that is radically different from our own?
Capra: I don’t know whether “distinguish” is the right word, because as far as we know, there are no mental processes going on in electrons or atoms, whereas, linking the mental or cognitive process to the process of life, we can specify, say, how a bacterium distinguishes between a greater and a lesser concentration of sugar. Mind, or cognition, requires a certain complexity. That complexity arises with the living cell, which is the smallest unit of a cognitive system, of a living system.
Smoley: Very good; thank you. You discuss Hinduism and Buddhist thought in your book and relate them to current scientific discoveries. Yet one of the basic insights of Hinduism and Buddhism is the concept of delusion—avidya, maya, whatever you want to call it—the idea that this cognition of ours is somehow defective. How do you integrate that idea into your system?
Capra: I will relate this exactly to what we were talking about before. There is a material world, which we don’t make up. I would say from the scientific point of view that we introduce the division of reality into objects and events, and that would be the maya.
I should also say that in my collection of essays, spirituality forms sort of a set of bookends. I begin with my interest in Eastern spirituality in the 1960s, as well as the parallels I discovered between modern physics and the basic ideas of Eastern mysticism. At the end of the collection, I end with a reassessment of my view of science and spirituality, so this is a very important dimension of my work. Spirituality is always an underlying dimension to my whole work.
Smoley: What you say makes sense: we construct reality as we understand it through our cognition. But to pursue this line of thought, these Eastern systems say not only that our perceptions are delusory, but that we can go further to a true or accurate understanding of the world beyond these categories; this is called enlightenment. How does this fit into your system?
Capra: The way I read mystical traditions, they are saying that we can experience a true understanding, but when we express it in words, we are always limited. In the Chinese Taoist tradition, for instance, the Tao Te Ching opens by saying, “The Tao that can be expressed is not the real Tao”—Tao meaning the ultimate reality.
This is the bedrock of my comparison between modern physics and Eastern spiritual traditions: they are both empirical. These disciplines are based on observation and experience, and they both say that whenever that experience is expressed in words, we have limitations. The deeper we go into the nature of reality, the more severe these limitations become.
Smoley: Still, what these traditions seem to be saying is not that it’s simply a matter of being ineffable or inexpressible in words, but that our minute to minute cognition—the way we experience the world on a day-to-day, moment to moment basis—is somehow flawed.
The classic Advaita metaphor tells us that we are like a man who sees a rope and thinks it’s a snake. So this illusion is not merely a matter of expressing something in words, but of what we see moment by moment.
Capra: From the point of view of cognitive science, which is a whole new interdisciplinary field, we perceive the world in a certain way: we make up the boundaries; we make up the objects and events. And of course we don’t just do this individually, but culturally, because we’re all bound together by linguistic and cultural tradition and tradition. We make up these boundaries and these objects, but reality is fluid and always changing. We tend to hang on to objects, fixed ideas, and fixed categories instead of realizing this fact. This is the most profound insight of the Buddha and of the whole Buddhist tradition.
Smoley: Let me turn to a different question, which has to do with particle physics. My background is in the humanities, I have no scientific training, but, as I understand it, at one point there were believed to be atoms that were supposedly indivisible. Then they were divided into protons, electrons, and so on. Later, these were divided into still simpler particles, known as hadrons, quarks—whatever the terms are. In your book, you mention one of the latest theories, which is string theory. It says that subatomic particles are composed of vibrating strings in a bizarre nine-dimensional space.
So what are these strings supposed to be made of? Is there something that makes them up in turn, and so on? Is this an infinite regress, or are you going to end up with some fundamental particle, like the indivisible atoms of Democritus?
Capra: It seems to be an infinite regress, although the strings are very abstract. They are mathematical vibrating structures that are not material. The activity, the vibration, involves certain patterns of energy which, according to Einstein and relativity theory, are equivalent to certain masses. String theory is a very elegant theory that says at this level of abstract strings, everything is self-consistent: there is a fundamental vibration in the universe that creates the various patterns, which then manifest as subatomic particles.
The problem is that it’s not a proper scientific theory, because it doesn’t explain the observed quantities in the subatomic world. Also there’s not just one string theory; there is a whole range. You can vary the parameters and get different theories, and you can’t decide which one is the most accurate. Still, its elegance is compelling, and that’s why most particle physicists today are working in this world of string theory.
Smoley: I’d like to move on to something slightly different, which goes back to an essay in your book that I believe was written in 1982. In it, you say that these holistic perspectives need to be brought into other disciplines, such as medicine, psychology, and economics.
Again speaking as a layman, I see nothing like this in those disciplines. Medicine seems as fragmented, or more fragmented, than ever. Psychiatry has basically become a matter of prescribing drugs. So to what extent has this vision been realized? Am I missing something?
Capra: No. I actually address this question in the epilogue of the book. I say that after five decades, it is fair to ask, has this paradigm shift, which I have written about and promoted during my whole professional life, actually happened?
The answer I come to is that it is not a smooth transition.
In various disciplines at different times, it has happened in various countries and regions of the world to different extents. Even in those places, there have been backswings.
To describe this situation, I use the metaphor of a chaotic cultural pendulum. I go through the various phases of this pendulum from the counterculture of the 1960s to the New Age, ecology, and feminist movements of the 1970s, then to the rise of Green politics and the Gorbachev phenomenon. With the end of the Cold War, there was the so-called peace dividend. We were all very excited, saying, “Now we can really change our economic system. We don’t need all these military expenses.” Of course, today military expenses are vastly higher than they were then.
Finally, there was the information technology revolution, the new global economics, based on electronic networks, a new global capitalism, and a countermovement in the rise of a new global civil society, so the answer is not straightforward.
You can say that, yes, medicine is still very fragmented, but on the other hand, there is a lot of a more holistic or systemic approach to health and health care. For instance, I have a general practitioner to whom I go regularly; I have known him for twenty or thirty years. He prescribes herbal teas to me. He gives me a full standard medical checkup, but he is very preventive, and he actually has on his business card that he practices preventive medicine. So there are two parallel movements. There’s a huge popular movement around healthy eating and healthy living.
In the academic world, most of our big universities are still committed to a fragmented view. They find it very hard to overcome it, because the university departments and scientific journals are structured that way. Academic degrees and tenure tracks remain fragmented, but on the other hand, there are smaller universities and colleges, and pockets in larger universities, where they teach a more systemic, holistic view.
Two trends that are quite obvious today have helped the breakthrough of the systemic view. One is that people in all fields realize that we live in a complex world. Secondly, people realize that networks are extremely important, especially young people, who live in social networks in their day-to-day world. They find it natural to talk about complexity, systemic networks, and systemic thinking. I find that very hopeful.
Smoley: One area that seems to have retrogressed in the last forty years is psychology, not only as an academic discipline, but in terms of the mental health of Americans, which is probably worse than it’s ever been. Clinical psychology cannot be blamed for that, but it doesn’t seem to be helping very much. Do you see any breakthroughs in psychology that will help deal with this epidemic of mental illness in America?
Capra: I haven’t followed the field in detail in recent years, but I heard a lecture some time ago by Dan Siegel, who is a psychologist and neurologist in Los Angeles, and he says the same thing. He advocates an integrative vision.
Smoley: It seems that psychology has hit a wall in focusing on individuals. It seems there’s been fairly little work done on mass psychology: how people think as a mass, both as a mob in the street and as a social network community. It has always seemed to me that this needs to be understood a lot better before even individual psychology can progress. This fits into your idea of a systems way of thinking, so I’m wondering if you have any observations along those lines.
Capra: I agree with you that it’s extremely important to get some clarity about cultural and social dynamics, especially in politics today. We have populist political leaders arising in several countries who notice the malaise of the population, which in many countries is suffering from the effects of economic globalization and the maldistribution of wealth—the systematic shift of wealth from the poor to the rich. A population suffering from such economic effects is very susceptible to those manipulations. To study those from a systemic point of view, I think, would be very important, but I am not aware of any such study.
Smoley: Another question that comes up in people’s minds these days is a real or imagined revival of fascism. You grew up in postwar Austria, so you saw the effects of that much more immediately than, say, someone like me. Do you see fascism arising again as any serious threat?
Capra: Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about. The most extreme version of this populism is fascism, and there are a lot of fascist elements in populist politics. You could say that various radio shows of the far right are almost like the propaganda ministry of the Nazis.
Now the situation is by no means as extreme, and I think our democratic institutions today are much stronger than they were in Austria and Germany in the 1930s, so I’m not worried about it, but I think that the tendencies are definitely there.
There are two trends, focusing on two problems: the climate catastrophe and economic inequality. The two are also linked, so I see a very interesting connection.
This year marks the ten-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which had a creative idea of pinpointing social injustice and economic inequality by saying we are the 99 percent and the superrich are the 1 percent. This has had any number of political repercussions since then. To me, this is very hopeful, because it shows that a grassroots movement with the right values, which is often pooh-poohed as not being effective, has in fact had a tremendous influence.
Smoley: In the economic sphere, you have mentioned thinkers like E.F. Schumacher, who have attempted to integrate a holistic systems approach into economics. How do you see this influence pervading economic thought these days, or do you observe it at all?
Capra: I have written quite a lot about economics in these essays. I see something that is almost incomprehensible: the persistence of economists, and also of corporate and political leaders, in this illusion that unlimited economic growth is possible on a finite planet. This is irrational, yet it is pursued by almost all political and corporate leaders and economists.
Together with my colleague Hazel Henderson, I advocate a shift from purely quantitative and differentiated growth to qualitative growth, because that’s what happens in nature. Growth is obviously an essential part of life, but in nature, not everything grows all the time. While certain parts of an organism or ecosystem grow, others reach maturity and decline. This integrates and liberates their components, which become resources for new growth. I call it qualitative growth to distinguish it from GDP [gross domestic product] growth, which is promoted by our economists.
This shift is happening: there is a European organization called Beyond GDP and various other organizations that promote different economic indicators, but it’s still a minority view.
Smoley: I think of the announcement made in 2019 by the Business Roundtable in a double-page ad in The Wall Street Journal, according to which corporations were now going to consider the interests of “stakeholders”—everyone affected by their activities—instead of just the shareholders.
Capra: Yes, I was very excited about that, but subsequently not much happened; it seems it fizzled out.
Smoley: Let’s go on to something more personal. How does someone go about integrating some of these principles into their own daily life?
Capra: The first step would be to educate yourself. When you speak of integrating those principles into your lives, I would ask which principles? Educate yourself to really know what an ecological view and a systemic view means.
I have mentioned The Systems View of Life, my 500-page textbook. I also teach a course about the systems theory of life, which is known as the Capra Course. I’ve been teaching it now for six years, and I have an alumni network around the world of over 2,000 people. They discuss precisely how to integrate this view into your lives.
I would say the good news is encapsulated in the bad news, because our crisis is so multifaceted that it doesn’t really matter where you start. Whatever you do, you can change your way of life. If you are a teacher, you can teach differently; if you’re an architect, you can do architectural design differently; if you are a greengrocer, you can sell different kinds of fruits and vegetables and connect with organic regenerative agriculture; if you are a doctor, you can practice medicine differently.
No matter what activity or profession you are in, you can involve yourself in this change of paradigms from the fragmented, mechanistic view to the holistic, systemic view. It’s so broad and deep that you can start anywhere; you can just start recycling or invigorating your local community.
I would also say to people, you’re not alone; there are already thousands and thousands of grassroots organizations that are involved in this project. My colleague Paul Hawken has written a book called Blessed Unrest, in which he portrays numerous grassroots organizations. You can just go on the Internet, type in the area you want to look at and the region you live in, and you will find an organization pursuing precisely what you’re seeking in your area: it’s that widespread today.
Smoley: Apart from involving oneself in these groups, could you say how this works in terms of practical day-to-day ethics? How does, or should, this outlook affect people’s day-to-day ethical behavior?
Capra: It does, absolutely. It affects the way you live, your daily life. When you go shopping or post a letter, do you drive, or do you walk or bicycle? Do you take a paper bag from your supermarket, or do you have a cloth shopping bag? How are you dealing with your own health and nutrition? How are you dealing with your community? Do you have a local community of neighbors that you can rely on for mutual support? It affects all aspects of daily life.