Lord, Lady, Sister, Brother

Beloved, whose heart is heaven
Hallowed be thy pain
Our kingdom come
As will is one
On earth as it is in heaven
Give us today a body bred
From shriven trespasses forgiven

Surprising lilacs out of dead land
Redeeming deserts of isolation
Delivering us from evil.
Thy love is the kingdom, the power and our glory
Now and for ever

The Word

The Cathedral in Edinburgh has come alive again; and not just post COVID, but also with a spiritual power that touched me at least. Here are the opening words of today’s service..

Christ the King. You became poor, that many might become rich. You emptied yourself of all power. That we might be empowered to choose. You show us Gods kingdom in our midst. And invite us to kneel with you. To humble ourselves, to serve those in need. And to find you here with us now.

We are here to serve, and in that way to find connection to all that is. (My words).

Boy it’s tough though to stop thinking of ourselves even for a minute of grace. At least for me

Lord, help me this night and tomorrow to serve justice and generosity and the love that animates and unites all of us.

You show me Heaven

A love letter

G and U and I my dear, I and G and thee,
He made you and I my dear, together to be we,
He and She is God my dear, one and one is three,
Who made the M and E my dear, and the timely C
Entangled N and T my dear, an angled entity,
you are all my world my dear, For God made you for me

Apparently a GUI is a General User Interface. Strikes me that’s our purpose, to be each a user interface, to reveal the rich love that is a God.

You, my sweet darlings are all, every one of you – my GodsUserInterface x

You show me Heaven

A love letter

G and U and I my dear, I and G and thee,
He made you and I my dear, together to be we,
He and She is God my dear, one and one is three,
Who made the M and E my dear, and the timely C
Entangled N and T my dear, an angled entity,
you are all my world my dear, For God made you for me

Apparently a GUI is a General User Interface. Strikes me that’s our purpose, to be each a user interface, to reveal the rich love that is a God.

You, my sweet darlings are all, every one of you – my GodsUserInterface x

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).

God only knows

It is all, let’s admit, unprovable. All – reality, God, no-God, meaning, purpose etc. That’s because there is no independent starting point, no external (to the Universe) objective truth. That is, there may well be – but it isn’t available to us as humans and to our thinking minds. That being so – all is conjecture and belief. I have been irritated by the messaging from materialists and atheists that tries to claim that “science” dis-proves God. They are trying to manipulate, and they do – or should – know better. However, as atheists can’t prove Un-God, neither can other religions prove God.

However there is the small matter of probability, and it seems to me highly unlikely that there is no God. This does not speak to what God might be. Declaring my hand, I do believe in God as personal and loving – but that is belief. However, if God were defined as “that which came before” or ” the ultimate cause outside existence”, then it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that God exists.

Cosmologists agree that the chain of events that have led to this existence are not random. The likelihood that the Universe – with it’s 26 physical constants (eg the exact speed of light etc) – is a random event is vanishingly small. Think of it –  from the “Big Bang” through rapid inflation of the Universe, pausing every now and then just long enough to create stars, the elements, the conditions for life and then an aware and self-conscious mankind. At every stage, if the “laws” of physics were just fractionally different – we wouldn’t be here. You only have to read the discoveries of science – and wipe away the slant that materialists would like to put on them..

In the face of this mountain of evidence that the Universe is not random, atheists and materialists hold up a model of Multiple Universes. This is their line of defence against God, or at least a God as I defined earlier. They do this because they can then say that in an infinity of Universes there would be one that had just the right conditions for awareness and life – and we think that’s special because we happen to be in it. Let me pause here simply to contrast probabilities. All agree that this Universe is infinetly unlikely. Which is more probable? Either that there is a creative impulse that set up the Universe (I define this as God), or that infinite Universes arises all the time and we happen to keep on track with the only one where awareness is possible? Leave aside the question of what was the creative impulse behind setting up the infinite Universes.

The Multiple Universes theory is  the “alternative” explanation to the Copenhagen Interpretation of the observer effect which has been proven in Quantum Mechanics. (There is a third, a kind of fudge called Environmental Decoherence – but that anyway relies on the Universe being singular and everything in it relative).

Revisiting what these theories attempt to address. Experiments show that everything exists (at least at the quantum level) as possibility – until observed. It is the act of observation that collapses possibility into a single reality. This isn’t contentious, simply fact established by experiment time and time again. (For me this leads to the critical role of consciousness, us, as reality engines. We crystallise out reality by our observation.).

” Before observation, a particle is in a superposition state of all possible values. During measurement, what causes the reduction of this state to a single value?” (Hidden in Plain Sight: The fundamental link between relativity and quantum mechanics. Andrew Thomas). Einstein famously could not refute the conclusions of these quantum experiments, but couldn’t accept them because he couldn’t explain them – “What I am really interested in is whether God could have the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all”.

The Many Worlds Interpretation states that all the time the world is splitting into infinite Universes. Therefore the collapse of superposition into one state of reality is not caused by the observer, it is that the observer is also splitting infinitely. There is a logical problem with this however. To work – the “observer” has to be in a state of superposition before the observation (so that it can continue to split infinitely as supposedly does the “observed”. Yet the observer is not, the observer is in a single well-defined state.

So, for what it’s worth. This is why I believe that Un-God is overwhelmingly Un-likely. There is one Universe (Uni-verse!). It is agreed by all scientists that it is almost inconceivably un-likely that the conditions within this Universe leading to conscious life is random. It it’s simplest if God is defined as the primal cause, then God exists.

God, then at least as “the Word existing beyond Time and Space”. An implication of this logic is that, here and now, the nature of God is un-knowable (since we exist IN Time and Space). The nature of God, then, and not the existence of God is a matter of belief.

For me anyway…

 

In reality, we’re all entangled

“William Blake says the body is ‘that portion of soul discerned by the five senses”

Marion Woodman, Conscious Femininity: Interviews With Marion Woodman (Studies in Jungian Psychology By Jungian Analysts, 58)

Quantum mechanics tells us that there is no such thing as a completely isolated object: objects are connected. The impression of separateness is just an illusion. It is possible for a particle to interact with another particle in such a way that the two particles form a single entangled quantum state. What this means is that the state of one particle is dependent on the state of the other in some way. Because of this dependency, it is a mistake to consider either particle in isolation from the other. Rather, we should combine the states and treat the result – both particles – as a single, entangled system. …. What this reveals is that our human perception of objects being separated is not a match with the physical reality of the situation.

“The relationships between particles and the entire Universe are interacting with each other through their inward and outward waves. Thus they become joined into one ensemble of waves which determines the behavior of the individual particles. The simplest example is Mach’s Principle, which proposed (1890) that all the matter of the Universe determines the Law of Inertia (f=ma)”

(The Eightfold Way of The Universe. Milo Wolff).

Surprised to Joy

For reading click here …surprised to joy

What is the colour of silence?

Here presently co-occupied

Fire and rosary’s concrescence

Or shirt of flame thus belied?

 

What pattern the fret-saw begets

In knot-stitch broider’d relief

A surf-line that curves as it whets

sharply thrown stones of belief

 

Common be-cause with time’s passing

Caught in your fawn-liquid glance

Through hours our pow’rs thus amassing

Surprised to joy from this trance

Equating God

G and U and I my dear, I and G and thee,

He made you and I my dear, together to be we,

He and She is God my dear, one and one is three,

Who made the M and E my dear, and the timely C

Entangled N and T my dear, an angled entity,

you are all my world my dear, For G made you for me

GUI – graphical user interface, how humans interface with computers

E=MC2 – e = m x c x c Einsteins equation showing that energy and mass are the same thing

N and T – N is the symbol for Newton and T for Time. Newton formulated the laws of motion

Entanglement – quantum entanglement shows that our physical universe is created by observation and does not exist independently. This was finally proved by John Bell in the 1960’s following intense debate between Bohrs group and Einsteins.

Entanglement and relationship is the fundamental concept in existential philosopher Martin Bubers work “I and Thou”