What’s the matter?

Or put another way, what actually is it, and does it exist at all? John Bell, the physicist, settled the 40 year old argument between Einstein and Neil’s Bohr and the Quantum sciences. What Bells Theorum (since proved experimentally) means is just this..

The universe is singular, connected. All parts no matter how distant instantaneously influence all other parts. Bells Theorum underpins David Bohm’s breakthroughs, arising from his work with Einstein at Princeton. This appears to show that reality is a single unboundaried flux or stream, with thoughts and matter as evanescent eddies and whirlpools. The model of the universe built up over centuries as material, atomic – is simply wrong.

In fact everything is dual – both wave and particle. That from quantum mechanics. Also matter is really a form of energy (e=mc2).

So everything is one, and that one thing is a complexity of energy and waves. Our conscious thought and matter, eddies and ripples in the one thing. Sounds like something from Hindu writing? It’s also prefigured by the beliefs of the oldest European cultures, with the three sisters of Wyrd spinning fate in the roots of Yggdrasil- the Tree of Life.

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).

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”

Parmenides

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

Let us become conscious of infinity

Humanity is only half conscious, because conscious only of finity. Collectively we are unconscious. Surely, we are in the process of birth into consciousness, together, of infinity.

Now.  Humanity is conscious of itself, himself, herself. Self-conscious. Even that is a marvel,  the “phenomenon” which distinguishes our species.

But, within that -we are generally conscious only of finity. (Death is certain, our ego will cease). Ego does NOT want to be conscious of infinity. (Have you ever experienced the terror of existential angst?)

Yet, in glimpses – “through a glass darkly” – I (and thus surely many of us) have been conscious of infinity as pure love. “All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well” according to Eliot. I wish for each and all of us that we die to sorrow and are born to joy. Infinity as the “word existing beyond time” as the Book of Common Prayer has it, or the release from the cycle of birth and death as Buddhists and Hindus express it.

Now, being conscious only of finity we are still trapped in the cycle of death and birth. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes an approaching Omega Point as a supreme consciousness. Then, being conscious of infinity, we will have arrived. Together.

Here is an extract from the Wikipedia entry on “The Phenomenon of Man” by Teilhard de Chardin. The book is wonderful – floridly French and yet scientifically profound. If you have time it really repays to consider it together with Harari’s “Homo Deus”. We should welcome Artificial Intelligence but struggle to keep learning and knowledge in our common, societal hands….

“Teilhard views evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity. From the cell to the thinking animal, a process of psychical concentration leads to greater consciousness. The emergence of Homo sapiens marks the beginning of a new age, as the power acquired by consciousness to turn in upon itself raises mankind to a new sphere. Borrowing Huxley’s expression, Teilhard describes humankind as evolution becoming conscious of itself.
In Teilhard’s conception of the evolution of the species, a collective identity begins to develop as trade and the transmission of ideas increases Knowledge accumulates and is transmitted in increasing levels of depth and complexity. This leads to a further augmentation of consciousness and the emergence of a thinking layer that envelops the earth.Teilhard calls the new membrane the “noosphere” (from the Greek “nous”, meaning mind), a term first coined by Vladimir Vernadsky. The noosphere is the collective consciousness of humanity, the networks of thought and emotion in which all are immersed.
The development of science and technology causes an expansion of the human sphere of influence, allowing a person to be simultaneously present in every corner of the world. Teilhard argues that humanity has thus become cosmopolitan, stretching a single organized membrane over the Earth. Teilhard describes the process by which this happens as a “gigantic psychobiological operation, a sort of mega-synthesis, the “super-arrangement” to which all the thinking elements of the earth find themselves today individually and collectively subject”. The rapid expansion of the noosphere requires a new domain of psychical expansion, which “is staring us in the face if we would only raise our heads to look at it”.
In Teilhard’s view, evolution will culminate in the Omega Point, a sort of supreme consciousness. Layers of consciousness will converge in Omega, fusing and consuming them in itself. The concentration of a conscious universe will reassemble in itself all consciousnesses as well as all that we are conscious of. Teilhard emphasizes that each individual facet of consciousness will remain conscious of itself at the end of the process.”

Losing weight

Mass and energy are different aspects of the same thing. We know that since e(nergy) = m(ass) x the speed of light squared (a constant). We also know that Conservation of Energy is one of the other fundamental laws of physics. Energy is never lost, but just changes wavelength (light to heat etc). This does NOT though apply to mass. Mass is NOT conserved.

How can this be? What does it mean in our struggle to understand meaning and existence? We can lose weight, but not energy. What happens to the weightless energy?

Certainly I think materialism isn’t the way forward. Should we focus on being – energistic. I’m told that Hindus think in terms of vibrations, auras and energy flows within their cycles of transformations. Is this where angels live – energy dissociated from mass. Any thoughts?

Discovering the other

The wonderful part of being male is that its the anima that you are focussing on, integration being our goal. We are more familiar with our neighbour’s house – at least the outside of it, than our own – because that’s what we look out on. The world explodes into life and interest truly when you begin to be familiar with the inside of our neighbour’s houses. All that richness of life and connection. And the only way to see the other – from the inside – is with, through and in love.  Jesus said – love your neighbour as yourself.  Hindus say – Namaste or Namaskar – I bow to the divine in you/in us/that we share.

Our “self” is anyway surely only the path that we tread in this life. Like any path it’s habitual, a kind of morphic resonance through time.  It’s only a path, not a universe in itself. It is a joy occasionally to glimpse its irrelevance except as a platform from which to perceive the divine majesty of existence.

We live through our connections. Our connecting. That is where God’s will works. God, the word existing beyond time.

Through the discovery and integration of other, we are unshackled. From space, from time, and from the smallness of our self.