I am a story with no beginning, and no end. I am our story continually untold. Seen sleightly. History objectively pronounced. Widthless I, emergent reality we.
Histoires, eglantine entwine. Tsunami of becoming.
Mine und dein. Aller Seelen. Gilt mesh, braided golden vine in guiltless compassion wound.
Electric pain imprison’d, refracted joy enprism’d. Fire and Rose.
Infinitely time divides, bounds and binds – differentiating an all-embracing integration.
We are mystery with no beginning, and no end.
Though as we flow – we shine.
True art requires utter commitment. That applies to creativity of any type. The artist is a vehicle to “body forth” the new idea.
Here is Martin Buber’s take
“This is the eternal source of art: (I) am faced by a form which desires to be made (by me) into a work. This form is no offspring of (my) soul, but is an appearance which steps up to it and demands of it the effective power… The work does not suffer me to turn aside and relax into the world of It; but it commands. If I do not serve it aright it is broken, or it breaks me.”
I think that “bodying forth” is an accurate description of creative birth. I also have a note to myself on commitment. My wife (a psychoanalytic psychotherapist) talks of “claustro-acrophobia”, roughly translated as – sitting in the fence. Well, true originality requires utter commitment to the relationship with the idea. Otherwise the idea is broken and so am I…
“We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do” Einstein (in relation to wave-particle duality)
Quantum mechanics has repeatedly proved that energy and matter is contradictory – it is both a wave and a particle at the same time. In addition, it is observation that crystallises out our particular reality from the infinity of possibilities.
“When bodies to their graves, souls from their graves remove” John Donne
There is almost incontrivertible evidence that there is meaning within the universe. The physical constants are incredibly finely tuned to allow even atoms to form, never mind reflective consciousness. There are those who fervently wish to deny this meaning. (Why?). Their only defence is what is called the multiple universe proposition – that there are infinity universes and we happen to live in the one that has these constants aligned. Their problems are these. Firstly, there is not a shred of evidence for the proposition. Secondly it fails the test of simplicity (this is certainly not the simplest solution). Thirdly, even were it true – what then is the origin of the multiverses? Indeed, by definition Universe is all that is, and so multiverses are subsets of that. I personally dismiss this concept for what it is, materialist desperation. The Universe is significant and not simply material.
Material is but one aspect of reality, there is another a dual aspect. John Donne would call that “soul” as distinct from “body”…
“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
“The attitude of the “I” towards an “It”, towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience. The attitude of the “I” towards “Thou”, in a relationship in which the other is not separated by discrete bounds…human life finds its meaningfulness in relationships” Ich und Du, Martin Buber
Martin Buber expresses this duality in his wonderful verse-philosophy “Ich und Du”. Not only is there duality in all-that-is, but it is in the dance – the relationships between the Within-Without, the wave-particle, the Ich-Du – that meaning exists.
People have called that meaning by all sorts of names. Who cares about semantics – a rose is still a rose by any name. If you’ve felt the connectedness of the Universe, then you’ve known joy in all its emphemerality, within the life of this body at least.
Dual, we certainly are, and inexplicably so. Although maybe…
“And all shall be well and All manner of thing shall be well When the tongues of flames are in-folded Into the crowned knot of fire And the fire and the rose are one” TS Elliot
* There is a tradition of theft within evolutionary science. Dawkins stole the concept of evolution in the noosphere and clothed in the language of the “meme”. He did not credit Teilhard de Chardin. Charles Darwin stole the concept of evolution by natural selection from James Hutton, who in 1794 wrote “in conceiving an indefinite variety among the individuals of that species, we must be assured, that, on the one hand, those which depart most from the best adapted constitution, will be most liable to perish, while on the other hand, those organized bodies, which most approach to the best consitution for the present circumstances, will be best adapted to continue, in preserving themselves and multiplying the individuals of their race”.
There is always difference of opinion. Consciousness requires boundary; an other must be established in order for there to be a conscious self. An “I” (Ich) requires a dance with a “Thou” (Du). Reality is the dynamic balance that results from the interplay of opposites.
But balance can be achieved with different dynamics.. A child’s see-saw has a balance – but with big amplitude waves – whereas as we stand we unconsciously make fine adjustments to stay upright.
And of course, opposites are related to each other. They are in a sense part of the same thing; coins with two sides. Mrs Thatcher was a consequence of Arthur Scarghill – in a way a part of the same system. Donald Trump’s appeal and Daish are parts of systems reacting to each other. Brexit and Boris Johnson is a response to Euro-fanaticism and Jean-Claude Juncker.
Why are the swings in politics so severe now? Is it simply that we have had decades of stability in the west and that we’re due for challenges? Is it the pressure of global population growth? Is it the split between those who have and the rest of humanity?
Whatever, it is the duty of civilised peoples to work to temper the big swings, to be considerate in our language and to see the point of view of the other.
Otherwise, we’ll all fall off the global see-saw together.
What is the colour of silence?
Here presently co-occupied
Where fire and petals concresence
Our rose-garden life be descried
But, Mirror Mirror here inside
Deep blue-black pool, the vista wide
Mine the immortal hand and eye
Selfie-framed frozen symmetry
What pattern the fret-saw begets
The knot-stich embroid’ring reliefs?
The surf-line that curves as it whets
The sharpening stones of beliefs?
Common our cause in unknowing
Reflecting, our I in this prism
Darkly the glass yonder flowing
Secur’d lie i in this prison
Time’s presence, bloom of time passing
Consciousness, your fawn’s liquid glance
Thou and mine I, hours amassing
Surprising to joy from this trance
We often know when we are being looked at, even from behind. This has been proved repeatedly in mass experiments; and it’s something we each have felt. It doesn’t happen always, but the statistics are indisputable. We often know when we are being watched.
What is the quality that distinguishes the times that we do, from those where we don’t (know that we are being observed)? Intensity surely is partly responsible. There is a difference between a casual glance and a powerful gaze. We need then to beware an intensity that intrudes, that breaks into privacy. I also believe that the type of focus is important. If you like, the intention or quality, of attention. There is a difference between a young man’s gaze at a girl, a boxer’s focus on his opponent, and a mother’s rapt enwrapping of her infant. (Winnicott’s “maternal reverie”).
Lord, grace this day with your restful gaze. Let me look at those around me unintrusively, respecting silence and privacy – but with something of the lilt of your enfolding joy.
What is clear, at least to me, is that living is meeting. Thinking, no matter how clever, is futile if there is no engagement. (When all is done and all is said/ that all takes place inside my head). Attention, the meeting of minds and souls, is the stuff of life. Martin Buber (Ich und Du) distinguishes engagement of I-It (Ich-Es) from I-Thou (Ich-Du), and more – he invites us again and again to live by whole-hearted meeting rather than by withdrawal behind a barricade of ideas. He calls this living the “speaking” of the primary word I-Thou, rather than the emptiness of the primary word I-It.
“To be sure, many a man who is satisfied with the experience and use of the world of things has raised over about himself a structure of ideas, in which he finds refuge and repose from the oncome of nothingness. On the threshold he lays aside his inauspicious everyday dress, wraps himself in pure linen, and regales himself with the spectacle of primal bein, or of necessary being; but his life has no part in it. To proclaim his ways may even fill him with well-being.
But mankind of mere IT this is imagined, postulated, and propagated by such a man has nothing in common with a living mankind where THOU may truly be spoken. The noblest fiction is a fetish, the loftiest fictitious sentiment is depraved. Ideas are no more enthroned above our heads than Resident in them; they wander amongst us – and accost us. The man who leaves the primary word unspoken is to be pitied; but the man who addresses instead these ideas with an abstraction or a password, as if it were their name, is contemptible”
Lord, you are present when I I address all that I meet as Thou. This day, let me speak the primary word I-Thou in all of my looking.