top of page

The Human Group - session 3 - Einstein and the new way of thinking.

Einstein and the new way of thinking.

A human group discussion and reflection.

‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.’ - An evolution of Einstein’s quote - “a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels.” - in the context of discussing the dangers of atomic weapons.

The discussion was ignited by the evolved quote attributed to Einstein’s comment on atomic weapons.

What are the problems we are faced with?

What is the old way of thinking?

What is the new way of thinking?

The discussion

We started questioning the static idea of a new way of thinking; one being old and the other being new. It was then suggested that the current thinking is dynamic and therefore unable to be pinned down. This could be evading the work to define the current thinking, it could also suggest we are in a transitory period (this could be said for all time), or the dynamic nature could actually be the new thinking or even recognising thinking as being inherently dynamic.

The conversation felt rather fragmented at the beginning as we fished for a collective interest for investigation. We flew across topics such as life without possessions, virtual reality psychotherapy, in which we interact with and observe our digitally created selves in order to gain insight into our behaviour and psychology, and more.

One of the main topics was technology, nature and what weaponises and what facilitates new technology into the current unsustainable economic value system. Fear and internal weakness was brought into focus.

We spoke of linear time versus cyclical and how integrating the two into one creates a spiral.

Tribalism, identity and feminism were also briefly explored with the question of old ideas from the original Feminist movement effecting the current movement. How do we get outside of tribalism and fear of the other?

We spoke of what lies outside of rational decision making and responding to radical views with compassion and empathy; encouraging relationship rather than separation and conflict. What kind of world view or perspective is required to give one’s life?

Throughout the discussion I wondered whether I need to tighten the discourse and keep everyone on topic. I soon realised that this required a specific agenda and could in turn isolate perspective. Therefore setting the intention with the topic and trusting the process facilitated an all encompassing discussion interconnected through the theme of ‘Einstein and the new way of thinking.’

Towards the end of the discussion we explored connecting movements such as feminism and climate change. A turning point from separateness to interconnectedness. How can everything be in relation to everything else?

At this point the discussion became quite juicy but was cut short due to time constraints.

At the end of the discussion a human said that we all just discuss what we want to discuss, further justifying our own perspective, rather listening to others. Taking note of this I will talk about active listening and asking questions next session.

So looking at the discussion as a whole I can see that a new way of thinking is arising. It is dynamic, individual, and has the power to manipulate our material world. It seems to have always existed yet nature seems to be calling it to our attention. Words such as connection, possibility, integration, nature, and the feminine are all hinting at what it might be.

Below is an investigation stimulated by the discussion.

A reflection upon the discussion

Safe to say there are as many ways to think as there are people in the world. Therefore the idea of ‘a way of thinking’ suggests a dominant form. Examples of this can be found all throughout our society, education teaches it, media appeals to it, science proves it, etc.

It is linear, logical, reasonable, material, direct, binary and static.

'Living in an age dominated by science, we have come more and more to believe in an objective, empirical reality and in the goal of reaching a complete understanding of that reality.' - Robert Lanza (1)

However, with the rise of quantum theory a new possibility has arisen. That our intentions have the power to effect the outcome of our reality. In a society in which the dominating paradigm seeks to prove our reality based on hypothesis it could suggest we created the world with ideas in which we have influenced into reality with our attempts to prove them. This attempt to create a single defined reality has indeed convinced us of a single defined reality.

A single defined reality as the dominating story has induced a huge amount of conflict. As before mentioned there are as many ways of thinking as there are people. It is subjective and cannot at this time be quantified or fully understood by another. So having the idea of one static truth leads to a battle to dominate all other subjective views, eg. ‘there is one truth and it is my truth’.

Then we have science which has a rather complex and thorough process of proving that consequently trumps all other less thorough subjective views. It is claimed to be objective but when quantum theory interjects it suggests it is simply a consensual idea of realities all brought together under the proving mechanism or in other words a complex ritualistic mechanism of intention.

Thought is becoming decentralised, or perhaps it is simply delivering onus to something that has always existed in this way.

It is safe to say that this idea has been represented in many ancient philosophies from the Buddha , Jesus and Shamanism. Science is late to the party.

“Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking and pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness.”’ – Buddha (2)

When Jesus invites Peter to come to him across the water from the boat he walks upon the water to meet him, however once arrived and frightened by the wind he begins to sink. He calls for help, ‘Lord save me!’, Jesus immediately grabs his arm and says, ‘You of little faith, why did you doubt?’.

If mere observation can cause a change, can sufficient faith result in the desired change in matter, energy, or space-time? Christ implies that faith can do just that when he scolded Peter for having little faith and that being the cause of Peter’s sinking into the water.’ - John Coble (3)

This is a powerful question and idea to pose. Can our intention facilitate such a powerful manipulation of matter? Shamanism, although seen as uncivilised has many rituals in which information is harvested from other realms to inform our inclination in the present and therefore effect our trajectory positively. The ritual can be understood as a prolonged focus upon an intention backed by a faith, trust, confidence or belief. The scientific method could be seen as a complex creative ritual that performs the same function; facilitating belief and effecting matter as we perceive it. This is also true of our economy; money has no inherent value, yet the story we associate with money creates value and confidence.

We have rid the world of faith and confidence in paradigms such as religion and shamanism and as a consequence their functions have lost power. They sink like the disciple Peter, who’s of little faith.

While science grew in faith and trust, it grew in power. Quantum physics gives us the framework to understand how our belief systems effect our reality.

Jesus demonstrated the power of faith with the ‘miracles’ he performed. Can we also herald such impenetrable faith that we too can walk on water?


1. Robert Lanza. ‘A new theory of the universe.’ -

2. Buddha. (19.09.19)

3. Coble, J. 'Einstein, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Jesus'. (19.09.19)Jesus -

Further Exploration

- Roberty Lanza - Biocentrism -

15 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All