Now. Fare foreward, voyagers

Featured

How can the present moment be infinite and eternal while each moment also appears as a fleeting instance within the flow of time? Someone commented that yesterday’s post seemed inconsistent with the boundlessness of the present moment of Now, which Eckhart Tolle’s book leads us toward. That is a really interesting thought: how are moments both eternal, yet obviously fragments or instances lost in the flow of time?

Tolle has it that there is a stream of consciousness within which we participate as both one and many, and that this flows from a source (which I name God). His metaphor is of the sun and the sunlight flowing from it. Could it be that this necessary flow is what creates the direction of time and breaks the otherwise symmetrical perfection to allow physical experience?

One way into this question is through physics, not as an explanation of purpose, but as an analogy for how form may arise. One of the concepts within physics is symmetry and symmetry breaking as a creative act. In essence, physicists observe that almost everything is symmetrical, but there are rare transformational moments when this symmetry breaks and the physical world comes into existence.

An instance of this is the mirror of matter and antimatter. It is said that these spring into existence all the time in a kind of infinite fizz, but matter and antimatter immediately annihilate each other. Except sometimes, for some reason, they do not. In that case, matter exists on its own and a whole physical world is born. Perhaps, speculatively, some answer to this imbalance lies in the 97% of the cosmos physicists still do not fully understand: dark matter and dark energy.

I remind myself that, whilst fascinating, physics is all about how things work and does not speak at all to reason or purpose. Still, it may help illuminate why this existence might be like this. Perhaps the flow of consciousness from its creative source is what gives time its direction, breaking otherwise symmetrical perfection so that physical experience can unfold. This brings me back to T. S. Eliot’s insights in the Four Quartets.

He seems to hold together the paradox I am circling: that time is not merely something to escape, but the very medium through which timelessness is disclosed.

“Only through time, time is conquered” — T. S. Eliot, Burnt Norton.

“History is a pattern of timeless moments” — T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding.

“At the moment which is not of action or inaction / You can receive this: ‘on whatever sphere of being / The mind of a man may be intent / At the time of death’—that is the one action / (And the time of death is every moment) / Which shall fructify in the lives of others / And do not think of the fruit of action. / Fare forward.” — T. S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages.

The physicist David Bohm had deep insight into the connection between the how and why of the world. Like Eliot and so many others, he drew on Eastern thinking. He conceived of existence as flow, like a river, where what appears to us as stable is actually an eddy in that flowing oneness. Perhaps this is a different way of putting Tolle’s sense that we can dive into being through the gateway of Now, and that this is an infinitely connecting flow of consciousness from the creative source. In that case, as Eliot says in The Dry Salvages — in the voice of Krishna — we never simply say goodbye to what has been, or to each other, but embrace the movement itself.

“Not fare well, but fare forward, voyagers” — T. S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages.

Not farewell, then, but a willingness to dive into the flow of being rather than simply doing: to fare forward.

Energy, Fire, Love

Featured

these are -I think – different expressions of the same thing. What’s more this is the basis of all that is, since Einstein found that matter itself is condensed energy. (Energy = Matter times the speed of light squared),

So, energy and fire and matter are the same. Why Love though….?

“In the beginning was Power, intelligent, loving, energising. In the beginning was the Word, supremely capable of mastering and moulding whatever might come into being in the world of matter. In the beginning there were not coldness and darkness: there was Fire.”

The Mass on the World, 1923 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

“The one discharge from sin and error.
The only hope, or else despair
Lies in the choice of pyre or pyre-
To be redeemed from fire by fire.”

Little Gidding, 1942 TS Eliot

“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”

Albert Einstein


“Love is the real power. It’s the energy that cherishes. The more you work with that energy, the more you will see how people respond naturally to it, and the more you will want to use it. It brings out your creativity, and helps everyone around you flower.”

Marion Woodman

“But what is passion, what are emotions? There is the source of fire, there is the fullness of energy. A man who is not on fire is nothing: he is ridiculous, he is two-dimensional. He must be on fire even if he does make a fool of himself. A flame must burn somewhere, otherwise no light shines; there is no warmth, nothing.”

Psychology of Kundalini Yoga Carl Jung

People and Ideas

Featured


Wir betreten feuertrunken..

I have always been fascinated by the way ideas travel through people. A thought begins in one mind, is taken up by another, and is carried into a new setting where it changes shape. Something is preserved, but something unexpected is added. The result is not a straight line of influence, but a web: people, books, conversations and disciplines crossing one another until a new pattern becomes visible.

I have noted elsewhere how Martin Buber’s ideas about dialogue were taken up by the physicist David Bohm. Buber’s central insight was that human beings are formed in relationship: we do not simply meet the world as detached observers, but are shaped by the encounters we enter into. It is within the “between” that meaning originates. Bohm brought this relational philosophy into conversation with modern physics and with his own concern for collective thought. At MIT, and through later dialogue groups, these ideas helped inspire new ways of thinking about systems, ecology, organisations and creativity. In this way, ideas from an Austrian mystical philosopher flowed through a small nexus of thinkers—David Bohm, Peter Senge, and Donella Meadows—to help found both the field of ecological economics and the culture of enormous learning organisations like Microsoft and Google.

What interests me in this example is not only the ideas themselves, but the role played by an individual who becomes a point of connection. Bohm acted as a kind of nexus: someone able to hold together an almost mystical philosophy of relationship, the scientific imagination of relativity and quantum theory, and the practical need for groups to think together. Through him, ideas crossed boundaries that might otherwise have remained separate.

David Bohm

Wholeness and the Implicate Order; On Dialogue

Maurice Merleau-Ponty offers another example of this same pattern. He drew from philosophy, especially Husserl’s phenomenology and Sartre’s existentialism; from psychology, especially Kurt Koffka’s Gestalt theory; from art; and from evolutionary thought, including Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s vision of emergence. His work can be read as an attempt to show how meaning arises not inside a sealed individual mind, but in the living relationship between body, world and others.

Merleau-Ponty’s early book, The Structure of Behaviour, was inspired by Gestalt psychology with its insistence that a whole cannot be reduced to its separate parts. His major work, Phenomenology of Perception, developed this insight further. Perception, he argued, is not a camera-like recording of the world by a disembodied mind. It is embodied. We encounter the world through movement, touch, habit, gesture and attention. We do not stand outside the world looking in; we belong to it, and it continually shapes the way we see.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Structure of Behaviour; Phenomenology of Perception; Invisible and Invisible

This is where Merleau-Ponty comes close to Buber. For both thinkers, meaning is relational. It is not made by an isolated subject and then projected onto a passive world. It emerges in the space between: self and other, body and environment, perceiver and perceived. The scientific revolution of relativity may have helped prepare the ground for this shift, because it made it harder to imagine reality as something viewed from nowhere. Relationship, position and perspective had become central even in the hard sciences.

In his final, unfinished book, The Visible and the Invisible, Merleau-Ponty pushed this thought further. He used the phrase “the flesh of the world” to suggest that we and the world are not two separate substances facing each other across a gap. We are made of the same fabric. To see is also to be visible; to touch is also to be touchable. In every act of perception there is a crossing-over, or what he called a chiasm: I meet the world, and the world meets me.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

The Phenomenon of Man

Teilhard de Chardin deepens this thread through his account of evolution as emergence. Although he and Merleau-Ponty never met, Merleau-Ponty discussed evolution in his lectures at the Collège de France and quoted Teilhard’s phrase that “man came silently into the world”. Both thinkers resisted a simple split between matter and spirit. Instead, they saw meaning appearing through thresholds: the physical world giving rise to chemistry, chemistry to life, life to consciousness, and consciousness to the subsequent evolution of ideas.

The common thread, then, is relationship. Ideas do not move by abstraction alone. They move through people who are alive to more than one world and able to bring those worlds into contact. Buber, Bohm, Merleau-Ponty and Teilhard each, in different ways, point beyond the isolated individual toward a more dynamic picture: meaning arises in the space between things. It is made in encounter, in perception, in dialogue, in evolution. A person becomes a nexus when they can recognise this space between, enter it with enthusiasm, and help others see what might be born there.

…. Next post: Creative Cost (the other side of encounter)

Being and Doing

Reality is bound up with the present. This, according to Zen and as re-expressed by Eckhart Tolle – the Power of Now.. 

The present, now, is the door to reality and focus on the past and future distracts from the intensity of experience.

But…

How does that square with Alfred North Whitehead’s theory of relativity – where reality is a process and certainly not an instant?

It seems to me that the integration of these two concepts through the interpretation of the present – Now – as momentary rather than instantaneous. By this I mean to include the immediate past and the immediate future into a lengthened and extended instant. I think (though I’m never certain when trying to understand Process and Reality) that this is what Whitehead refers to as prehension.

It seems then that consciousness requires some element of time, that which immediately surrounds the instant in which we exist. It is observation that crystallises out the particular reality which we choose. (Bohr, Born, Schrodinger – the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics). The experience of reality requires the flow of time – to allow the immediate past and future to give context to the instant that is now. 

Consciousness can then be described as observation surfing on time, and the fragment of time that surrounds the instant creates the moment in which we exist. Hence – reality as momentum, moment.

Now. Eckhart Tolle

The Power of Now

I heard Eckhard Tolle speak yesterday. Two hours of rapt attention. He talked without notes and with presence and humour. (I was reminded of the Dalai Llama who I saw some years ago who chuckled as he chatted.)

I took a moment afterwards to note down what I took from the evening:

  • Think of two dimensions. Along the horizontal is “doing”, what we are bound up with almost all of the time. We strive toward something. Living will be achieved is some “future”. This is the dimension of our ego. Infinitely more is the vertical dimension, that of “being”. Through this we have access to the power of all consciousness and the source of it. Within this dimension everything is created.
  • The entrance to this “being” dimension is in the present. Now. It starts with a realisation that all is now. The future of doing never arrives. It doesn’t need to; we are infinitely alive now. A way to arrive at what the Buddhists might call “resting in the present moment, where you are home” is to find external silence and within that to realise an internal stillness. That stillness which contemplates no thing is your real self which is part of the whole Self.
  • Thinking is a distraction. This and all truth is within not-thinking. A way to not-think is to become aware of your thoughts, to be able to see the process of thinking happening – separate from you.
  • Your real self is within the flow of all consciousness. You come to recognise your self in others, in all other. This is what Indians mean with the phrase Namaste (I salute you in me). People recognise when you are living in the now, and your real self connects to and acknowledges their real self. These are most obscured by the persona that our ego constructs.
  • The flow of consciousness is infinitely creative. Life, matter, thought – all flows from this. The source is what has been called God. Something like the sun from which consciousness shines and within which we and all that lives is infinitely at home. All shall be well and and all manner of thing shall be well.
  • Our purpose is to live fully in each present moment and to “be” within that flow of conscious awareness. This is the flame which can bring us all to a shared awareness. Humanity needs this full living in our daily lives.

Eckhart Tolle was as pains to say that he was speaking old truths, rather than some invention of his own. As he spoke it resonated with and echoed so many others. Carl Jung, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, David Bohm, Martin Buber, Buddha, Christ, Eastern thought…

I am so very glad to have been there.

“Good enough” fathering?

My father 1943 Italy

My father died 35 years ago today. I reflect that when he was alive I found him overwhelming and I gravitated to my mother. Yet, he was there – a balance and it turns out a vital part of developing. Even if only as a scratching post.

Donald Winnicott has a concept of “good enough” mothering. Essentially that a newborn needs love and encouragement, which he termed “maternal reverie”. He made the point that mothers do not have to be perfect, just good enough. Does this same apply to fathers? Indeed, how many now grow up in single-parent houses with no experience of one. How many of us experience a kind of “father hunger” in our life, and what does it mean to be “good enough” as a father?

I simply don’t have answers, but it is worth meditating upon. A little late for my children who are in their 30’s, but perhaps an acknowledgement of failures would help them?

I would be so interested in others’ views, and indeed I am going to make it a point to ask all the people I meet. In the meantime, at least as a start point I think there is a lot of wisdom in James Hollis’ book “Under Saturn’s Shadow”. He speaks of the burden placed by the patriarchy on men. This excerpt anyway speaks to me. It seems to me that work on the “deficit” that he refers to will never end..

All imagos are two-sided. If an image has a depth dimension it must express the dual character of reality. Acknowledging and maintaining the tension of opposites is a fundamental Jungian tenet. One-sidedness begets distortion, perversion, neurosis. Thus, for example, the archetype of the mother expresses the dual aspect of nature, that which giveth and that which taketh away. The Great Mother represents a life force that both begets and destroys, gestates and annihilates. As Dylan Thomas so succinctly put it, “The force that through the green fuse drives the flower… is my destroyer”.

So , too, the archetype of the father is dual. Father gives life, light, energy – no wonder he has historically been associated with the sun. But father can also blast, wither, crush. The preliterate mind, playing with the image of the sun as centre of energy, the vitalising principle, evolved God the Father who energises and fecundates the feminine earth. Patriarchy replaced the worship of Earth Mother with that of Sky Father. (The halo associated with Christ is a relic of the solar aura of the Father even as the serpent associated with the maternal deities is spurned by the emergent patriarchy in Genesis.). When the experience of the father is positive, the child experiences strength, support, the energising of his own resources and modelling in the outer world. When the experience of the father is negative, the fragile psyche is crushed. 

To use a modern metaphor, the child’s psyche is a set of potentialities, a data base to be shaped by the affirmation and modelling of the parents. Through his mother he may experience the world as a nurturing and protective environment. From father he may receive the empowerment to enter the world and to fight for his life.  Of course mother can help empower him and father nurture him, but archetypally they play specific roles. Mother also actives the mother complex, which must be transformed and transcended lest he remain childlike and dependent. He must leave the world of the mother and enter that of the fathers. All mythology is a playing out of some variant of two great mythologems. The mythology  of the Great Mother is the great circle, the death-rebirth motif, the Eternal Return. The mythology of the Sky Father is the quest, the journey from innocence to experience, from dark to light, from home to horizon. Each mythic cycle must be served. 

When the parental imagos in the child are inadequately modelled by the parents, he carries the deficit throughout his life…

In. Sight

Insight

I hear that as many images have been captured in the past 6 months, as have been taken in the history of humanity to-date (paintings, drawings, films, photos etc). 

There are also increasing numbers of people missing whole longed-for events because they are bound up with capturing them on their mobile phones. Unlike our grandparents we have a constant record of our past. It is re-presented to us on Facebook and by friends and family alike. 

What effect is the fixing of our image having on our psyche and soul?

(It’s not a rhetorical question).

What was the life of our senses like maybe 100 years ago, and indeed for all of the development of our species until that point?

Our world would have been smelly. We each have our pheromones and scent, which are now covered, deodorised and washed away. Then, there would have been a rich scent-scape. Smell is a sense that is strongly associated with emotion. The nerves in the nose are a direct extension of the brain and feed in to the limbic system, our emotional brain. That’s why particular smells evoke such vivid memories and sensations. We now live in a relatively odour-free environment (a non-scence world?) and what smell there is from bottles rather than bodies. What difference does that make to our development?

Our world would also have been full of natural noise, and probably less of it. Birdsong, people arguing, the clip clop of horses in the street, the sound of wind in trees. (Oh yes, and sounds of pain and anguish from the diseased and dying).

Then of course, we lived hugger-mugger and would (I think?) have been constantly in- touching – literally rather than “by phone, “by text” etc…

..and our visual sense would have been present and alive rather than past and fixed. We would, I think, have perceived ourselves through the eyes of others rather than through mirrors and photos. Yes, we aged, but without the constant record and reminder of it. 

We would, in short have been much more fully present. Here, now, alive, available to each other human to human. We would not have been waiting for the e-mail, the text, and the call. We would not have had some part of our mind in another place or another time. 

We’re increasingly going backward into the future, with our eyes fixed on the rear view mirror, rather than on the road ahead or with the passengers in the car with us.

Which fixes us as materialists. The material, physical world is always in the past. Literally (see Whitehead, Process and Reality). It does not exists in the present, but is crystallised out by our free will from the stuff and limitless potential that is the future. As quantum physicists have shown again and again – everything is potential until observed. It is the act of observation that crystallises out the particular phsyical world – and by then its already in the past. As our ancestors put it, we are the sisters of Wyrd, spinning fate at the foot of the Tree Ygrdrassl. 

The past, the material, is dead and done. Let’s live in the present, with each other, and look to the future.

The cost of creativity

Juggling whilst Jumping

Humans are fundamentally creative; it is in our nature to originate.This requires us to live close to boundaries.That’s hard, painful because edges are unsafe. They are the source of the unknown – not just because of what lies beyond the boundary – but mostly because of what new forces are stirred up at the tidal line where systems interact.

There is a condition known by psychoanalyists as claustroagrophobia. This is a type of psychosis when a person lives on the shoulder of many societies. Claustrophobic if immersed at the centre of a group, agrophobic if excluded. It seems to me that many great thinkers may have expressed this as a quality, rather than a problem – oscillating between sociability and introversion, living even in this way at the boundary between the external and internal world.

The reward for this stressful unsafe existence? Certainly not money or security. It is the glistening fish of a truly new idea – hooked and netted out of the maelstrom and whirlpool of the meeting of many worlds.

When we create something unique and original – whether written, composed, painted, or thought  – it is hard work. Analagous to giving birth.

“This is the eternal source of art: a man is faced by a form whihc desires to be made through him into a work. This form is no offspring of his soul, but is an appearance which steps up to it and demands of it the effective power. The man is concerned iwth an act of his being. If he carries it through, if he speaks the primary word out of his being to the form which appears, then the effective power streams out, and the work arises. The act includes a sacrifice and a risk. This is the sacrifice; the endless possibility that is offered up on the alter FJLof form. For everything which just this moment in play ran through the perspective must be obliterated; nothin of that may penetrate the work. The exclusiveness of what is facing it demands that it be so. This is the risk: the primary word can only be spoken with the whole being. He who gives himself to it may withhold nothing of himself. The work does not suffer me.. to turn aside and relax in the world of It; but it commands. If I do not serve JLit aright it is broken, or it breaks me.”

Martin Buber Ich und Du

Next: Sight and insight

Dusein (we are brother and sister, you and I)

Heidegger’s existentialism centres on “Dasein,” or being, which he describes as something we are “thrown” into. I find Martin Buber’s view more compelling: in Ich und Du—I and Thou—meaning arises through relationship. Buber contrasts the distance of addressing others as “Sie” with the deeper relatedness of encountering them as “Du,” or “Thou.” For me, the essence of existence lies not in Dasein, but in what we might call Dusein : being with Thou.

Our brother whose heart be heaven

(Our sister, our father, mother)

Hallowed be thy pain

Our kingdoms come

When will is one

On earth as it is in heaven

…

lead us out of that isolation

Which delivers each to evil