We set God up, to knock Him down

Now we seek to destroy Him…

I was reading a passage by Donald Winnicott about the development of self. How the infant initially believes they are omnipotent and needs to seek to destroy their mother, as a test of their capacity to be held.

Isn’t it probable that God is not male, or parental at all? Hindus have a far older belief system and think about spirituality entire differently. We – Christians, Muslims and Jews alike – have created an archetypal father figure; which many now revile. But maybe it is necessary for us on this journey that we try to destroy God, and it is in the ever-loving survival of our destruction – that we finally perceive His (or Her) loving reality? Perhaps revealed as something different from the father figure we set up?

What Winnicott said

Donald Winnicott (paediatrician and psychoanalyst) studied the development of the Self within the child. He found that an infant is reliant on a “good-enough” mother (he was writing in the ’40’s, ’50s and ’60’s) to reveal to the infant that their feelings are real. Initially an infant believes he/she is omnipotent. He/she does not know there is a Not-Me. The reality of the loving mother as an “external object” is established by her survival of the child’s attempt to destroy her – and doing this whilst continuing to love. It is a parent’s fundamental role in allowing their child to develop a sense of the their reality in relation to all-else that they provide a “holding” environment within which the child can develop. In Winnicott’s words.. “The self is first made real through recognition, the object is first made real through aggressive destruction; and this of course, makes experience of the object feel real to the self. The object is placed outside omnipotent control by being destroyed while, in fact surviving the destruction”. In an illustrative dialogue about the process “The subject says to the object: ‘I have destroyed you’, and the object is there to receive the communication. From now on the subject says: ‘Hullo, object!’ ‘ I destroyed you.’ ‘ I love you. You have value for me because of your survival of my destruction of you. While I am loving you I am all the time destroying you in (unconscious) fantasy’ ” (The Use of an Object and Relating through Identifications 1969). “Shall I say that, for a child to be brought up so that he can discover the deepest part of his nature, someone has to be defied, and even at times hated, without there being a danger of a complete break in the relationship” (Home Again 1945).

Dream relationships

Intimacy can be a nightmare. Or dreamy. Which is it to be? It’s within our gift. To ourselves.

They want to take. Do I give?

Maybe. Probably, but do they understand that you are giving, and what they’re taking? It shouldn’t just be giving in. Just  It seems to me that this is how it works. I have my own image of who I am. You, my beloved, have your idea of what is “me”; it’s quite different from mine. When we started out on our journey together –  you needed me to be that person. Remember all of the friction back then? It was all around my idea of me and your idea of me. (Oh, and the versa of course. In fact probably more so!. So many years later our ideas and images of me have jostled toward each other. Giving and taking.

Mirror, mirror, you’re my all

It was a bit gritty sometimes, but looking back; thank you. Without your idea of me – I wouldn’t have become this facet of me-ness. You have been my  mirror; which seemed to be distorted at first. Not so much giving and taking; more pushing and pulling; cajoling, believing, shining a light.

Here’s what I think. All  the  versions of self  – are all dreams. Stories.. There is no real thing called me. Except perhaps the sum total of everyone’s idea of me. So can I change? As easily as changing channels. I can become how you see me, or how I’d like to be – just by thinking it.

Four in a bed

Really  there are (at least) four people in our relationship. Me (according to me). Me (as you imagine me). You (who you are, to you). You (as I need and imagine you to be).

And we dance, don’t we. So many steps and pirouettes and sore toes.; but it’s the stuff that’s kept us going through the years. Holding our our gaze. An emergent quartet. That’s us.

We have trodden on each others toes  quite often; but thank you for staying on the floor with me.

Think of all the fabulous stories that could be told. If we stuck, rather than twisted – when our dream of ourself is confronted. We’ve all walked out from friendships and marriages; all to preserve a fantasy of one particular me-ness or you-ness. Give, but don’t give in. Take, but not to cause heart ache.

Everlasting life

Of course this is true..

1 e=mc2.. matter and energy are the same thing. We are energy

2 law of thermodynamics. Energy as always conserved. Never lost. It just changes form

3 the water you drink has been through many other people. In your lifetime every molecule in your body has been replaced many times. As you age your body is made up of molecules that have been part of other s, and vice versa

4 there are no boundaries. Matter and energy is fuzzy and exerts influence throughout the universe. There aren’t any clear boundaries to protons, electrons etc. Literally even our molecules are already partly existing entangled with everything else, everywhere.

5 Heard of Schrödinger’s cat? Well quantum physics shows that it is the act of observation that crystallises infinite potential into a particular form. The act of observation. What is observation? Does the act of observation die? There really is something the separate from matter and energy that influences and creates a particular reality. Separate from mass and energy.

6 we absolutely all know that after a loved one’s body ceases to hold together, life still goes on. Right. ( what is life – another day). So what do we mean when we say someone dies? Their molecules are incorporated into other things, as they always have. Their acts of observation continue .. they have influenced what we have together crystallises out – this particular reality. They are part of the story. Are they they just in the past?. But

7 Einstein’s relativity shows that time and space are part of one thing – spacetime. So is the past actually in the past? (Eliot wakes one up to this in The Four Quartets)

8 so what do we mourn when we say someone has died? I hold that it is their ego. And next up is why I think the ego is an illusion. We shake that off – stunning realisation. We are part of everything, now and for ever. so

Next time. Why the ego is an illusion…

Is there life after death?

Doesn’t it feel like everyone is trying to sell you something on this one? As if they “need it”, that they gain if they convert you. There are so many evangelists. The worst in my view are the atheist humanist materialists – because they pretend that their beliefs are backed by science. Non. Sense. There is no unarguable rational line.

So where can you get to, using common sense?

First. What do we mean by the terms in the question. Leaving “life” and “death” till tomorrow – let’s start with “after”.

You can’t have an after unless you have time; and what we know from Einstein is that space and time are one thing. (So is matter and energy). So really the question should be phrased “is there life outside space time”. Suddenly there’s a new complexion – and a whole explosions of thoughts. My only point is this. It would be brilliant surely for each of us to set aside our entrenched positions, reach out and explore all of this together.

.. and in that exploration – David Bohm’s “Dialoguing” – we might just find love and joy in the connecting.

(I don’t know if anyone reads this stuff, but I’ll ramble on tomorrow about why (I think) we don’t die anyway.)

Parmenides and Rupert Brooke

Truth in different clothing. Perhaps even different facets of The Truth?

Three disconnected phrases, which nonetheless seem to harmonise.

. “..and think this heart all evil shed away, a pulse in the eternal mind no less”

Rupert Brooke The Soldier

“..the Word, existing beyond time”

The Book of Common Prayer (I think)

“what exists is uncreated and imperishable for it is whole and unchanging and complete. It was not or nor shall be different since it is now, all at once, one and continuous”


It seems to me that what I perceive now, and in this world and time, is a minute fragment. That in fact you and I are eternally part of each other and this life is a chimera, a fantasy. We are like leaves on a tree, adopting a sense of independent life within our ego; whilst in fact being eternally connected. Yes, The leaf “dies”. It browns, separates and falls, but its  molecules and atoms simply change – eventually to be reabsorbed in the living tree. Why would I wish to imagine myself therefore – as materialists do – as nothing more than the leaf?

 I wish rather to I-dentify with the whole that is me – for I am you also. Or rather we are Us. Where there is no death, no grief of separation. No aloneliness.

Older, even than the truth revealed by Christ, is the same message..

“An ignorant man is lost, faithless, and filled with self-doubt;
A soul that harbors doubt has no joy, not in this world or the next.”
-Bhagavad-gita 4:40

Scotland. Dependence and Poverty Beckon

Scotland. Dependence and Poverty Beckon

Consider this. Scotland spends 9% more than it earns (it has a 9% negative GDP). That’s before the coronavirus. 

How does we balance the books then? Right now we arebanked by the UK Treasury. Quite right. The union was a Scottish project (King James). We survive in lockdown because the UK can borrow at very low interest rates. And subsidises Scotland to the tune of £2,000 per person through the Barnet formula. 

OK then. So 58% of Scots apparently want to unhitch themselves from this onerous arrangement. We are told by our SNP government that “it’ll be all right on the night”. How?What are the options?

First – become a member of the EU. With a 9% negative GDP? We’d have to first endure the pain of getting under 3% negative GPD. A bigger shock than that to Ireland after the financial crash. And, we’d be doing this our own. We’d have to endure a period of poverty and isolation first. Without the helping hand of the RUK (rest of the UK). The people we’vejust abandoned.

Second – be completely on our own. A small country with an independent currency. Oh and the 9% negative GDP. Doesn’t this add up to a quick road to the bankruptcy? It was of course Scotland’s bankruptcy (caused by the Darien Crisis) that led the Scots to petition for union in 1707. (Incidentally fiercely resisted by much of the English parliament). I don’t see this as “independence” in any proper sense. It would more likely lead to increased dependence on England. This time without representation.

Third – retain the pound and  continue to live within the shelter of our common currency. But without representationwe would be “takers” of the rules of that currency and peoples. 

I truly don’t get it. You have to ask – independence from what? To do what?

Right now we have a Scottish national government, with local decision making on everything significant, except a shared foreign policy, treasury and defence. We combine this with over-representation within the UK parliament which determines those matters. Don’t believe that? Just wait for the next parliament when Labour and SNP together have a majority and can forge a new fairer social Britain. 

There is a religious wing of the SNP. I say religious. Independence, damn the consequences for the people. What’sthat then? It is this wing who are pressing for another referendum. They want to take advantage Coronavirus, blind the people to facts; and most of all get the thing done before Britain throws out the Tories in 2024.