Index
Introduction
PART 1 - PREPARATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Desire, belief, knowledge - the three-step path
Question everything - free your mind
Be prepared - court truth, not popularity
PART 2 - THEORY
DUALITY
Mind vs Matter
Science vs Religion
Individuality vs Holism
Resolutions
Consciousness and the Material World
Logical Enquiry and Spirituality
Me and the Universe
EXISTING BELIEF SYSTEMS AND IDEOLOGIES
Buddhism
Veganism
RECENT SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
Chaos Theory
String (and Superstring) Theory
Revealing The Fundamental
Flow
Freedom and Natural Law - a Brief Analysis of Ethics
Happiness vs Pleasure
The Nature of Mind
Duality Redux
Wisdom
Intermission – A Brief Retrospective
PART 3 - PRACTICE
Revealing The Fundamental II
Work
Receptivity
Responsibility
Mindfulness
Respect
Ego
Balance
Study/Research
Maturity
I've been intending to gather together all my thoughts and learnings into some kind of coherent whole for some time now, so I've decided, rather than present the magnum opus as a fait accompli at some distant future date, to tackle the thing, as it were, live on this website. The intention is to write very much 'off the top of the head' with no written plan or scheme, just to proceed intuitively according to some vague and necessarily nebulous internal vision. Yet I still hope to work to a kind of natural chronology, to discuss preparatory matters before the main conclusions, to show the signposts before taking to the road.
The title is partly inaccurate, partly facetious, yet with a very genuine element: inaccurate inasmuch as there is an intention to include theoretical matters; facetious insofar as the task, taken at face value, is almost preposterously large for anyone without any particularly relevant qualifications; and genuine in a sincere desire to make some small positive difference to the world's suffering.
Perhaps the crux of the matter is almost quantum in nature: how to resolve apparent duality; to celebrate individuality while becoming more integrated with the universe as a whole; how to reconcile material life with spiritual meaning. This work will be a synthesis of ideas and subject matter culled from diverse arenas: philosophy, science, Buddhism, history, mathematics, books, music, art, drugs, creativity, inspiration, religion, technology, evolution (the temptation to throw in an 'Armani' or two here is almost unbearable!)... the list could on, but the words are like patches applied to a 3-dimensional object - there is overlap, there are bits missed. What is the nature of the object we are trying to cover? What is inside? Time to embark on a journey to find out!
PART 1 - PREPARATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Desire, belief, knowledge - the three-step path
This simple triumvirate can be considered in two distinct ways: as a dictum for self-help in a particular area and as a general rule for preparing the mind. It is the second form we are more interested in here. Without a true and deep desire to attain knowledge, wisdom, enlightenment, whatever... there can never be any success. But you must really, deeply desire, as opposed to just wish: it should feel like a driving force, almost a necessity, what some religions have called a 'vocation'. Gradually, a belief system emerges from the information gathered. And you need to truly believe in the rightness of your choice, against all the doubters and mockers who will be only too ready to put you down. If the beliefs are true, if they are self-consistent and also consistent with others, then they will begin slowly to crystallise as knowledge.
But knowledge is not an end in itself, merely the soil in which to germinate the seed that produces the tree that provides the fruit of enlightenment. It is a stage, a rite of passage in one's development towards something less tangible, which must eventually be laid aside. That is not to say that we should forget everything we've learned, merely that it eventually becomes superfluous to further development. Knowledge as we think of it, as information, is still very useful in our everyday lives: wisdom will dictate when to apply it.
Question everything - free your mind
There are no shortcuts: if you don't already possess the right attributes, you must cultivate them. One of the most important aspects of development is to go back to first principles and question everything you take for granted, from society's mores to your everyday acts. To provide examples, consider the following:
Marriage is considered to be the correct and most acceptable form of union between the two sexes. But what actually is its function, and is it necessary? Its principle function is twofold: symbolic, as a formal public declaration; and legally binding, to protect the interests of both partners in case of later difficulties. Once something has been recognised as symbolic, its necessity becomes questionable: true sincerity requires no grand demonstrations. And the legal issue? If the future of this great commitment has to rest upon the law, doesn't that already put the basis of the relationship in doubt? If there is real love and trust between two people, there is no need ever to involve a third party. The very fact of marriage is a subtle indictment on some of society's basic values.
After watching television, do you leave it on 'standby' when you retire for the night? A simple act (or non-act), performed thoughtlessly. I remember coming upon a statistic that revealed how much electricity would be saved if everyone in Britain alone actually switched off their TVs instead of using the standby mode. That's less fossil fuels burned, less atmospheric pollution. All from one tiny action, almost insignificant in itself. And why do people continue to do this? Out of sheer laziness, and/or the fact that the TV comes on about 2 seconds faster.
These examples show, albeit very briefly, the kind of open-minded spirit of inquiry necessary to arrive at meaningful conclusions concerning established views and mundane actions.
After a while, you begin to feel free of all the old shackles holding down your mind - I liken the process to being in a hot air balloon tied down by many, many ropes and gradually having them severed one at a time: the view changes as you jerk up higher, then finally you float and begin to see new vistas. Clearing out further mental junk is like jettisoning ballast - you go higher and begin to perceive patterns and relationships not discernable from a bogged-down terrestrial viewpoint. It is lonely, yet exhilarating.
Be prepared - court truth, not popularity
Already touched on in the preceding sections, it's best to realise beforehand that few people will even begin to understand your 'new direction'. You will need the cooperation and understanding of those closest - if they refuse to accept, should they really be that close to you? Harsh, perhaps, but for me, it almost seems to be included in the definition of that person's relationship to oneself. The process of change will really sort out those who care for you, and those who care for what they can get out of you.
There will surely at some time be hostility, or just juvenile snickering, to face. Everyone deals with this kind of thing in their own way, but avoid aggression if possible - it tends to lead to a kind of self-conflict: between ideals and real life, and one of the most important practices is to harmonise these two aspects. More on that later.
This section examines some of the issues and ideas that must be incorporated into a more enlightened philosophy, one that does not simply reject some ideas outright because they "don't fit in" but looks for some element, some grain or essence that at least partly validates the ideas, that shows they do have some basis. Much of this way of thinking originates from my interpretation of the ideas of David Bohm - he saw that reality must be an unbroken whole, with movement (and its converse, relative stability) defining its essence.
What do we mean by duality? In this case, it's about having two different viewpoints or theories which, taken alone, are self-consistent but which effectively seem to contradict each other. The normal response to this situation is to align oneself firmly in one camp and loudly denounce the other. Or you could denounce both, and offer a third way, or not. Or you could believe both without showing how to resolve the contradiction. But the most healthy response is to find a resolution that allows for both to be, in a limited sense, 'right', whilst showing that they are both limited in their application. Hence neither offers a complete description of their subject, only a partial one.
Let's look at some specific examples to get a better handle on the subject:
Although the old Cartesian notions of mind and matter have long since been overturned, the 'new' version of this problem may be considered more as: is mind an emergent property of matter in living beings, or does mind create matter (does the universe exist if no-one's looking?)? Of course, most people would opt for the 'commonsense' view of the first postulate, but there are phenomena that cannot be fully explained within that framework. I'll return to this after briefly outlining other dualities.
It is possible to logically hold these two belief systems simultaneously, but only if you're an agnostic. But since established religions are strictly complete packages, I would argue that there is much in science that contradicts the edicts of all the major religions; indeed religions try to "re-brand" themselves in the light of new scientific discoveries - this is pure desperation!
Are we all distinct individuals, or are we just tiny parts of something much bigger? Is our individuality an illusion, or is it the essence to cling to? We must resolve this one in particular if we are ever going to find our own real place in the universe.
So, how do we get around these problems? Better to visualise going through them, finding a small crevice that lay unexplored, leading to a different view of the situation that reveals that the two opposites were simply different facets of the same object.
Consciousness and the Material World
A possible resolution to the mind/matter argument may be to consider that consciousness is a universal phenomenon, in a kind of undefined, nebulous form. The entire material universe may just be a kind of random quantum fluctuation in which circumstances were suitable for growth to the size we observe now. Whether consciousness is actually confined to the universe or transcends it is not relevant at this point - it may be that matter effectively tunes into and 'amplifies' this consciousness in some way. This process then creates a local concentration of consciousness which, high up the evolutionary scale (at highly organised levels of matter), becomes self-aware. This scheme actually removes the distinction between living and non-living things, between 'conscious' beings and more primitive ones - the whole of the universe contains a spectrum of entities all constituted from the same basic stuff.
Logical Enquiry and Spirituality
By stripping back religions to their original basic ideas, there emerges a ground of commonality which I'll refer to as 'spirituality' - this, I contend, has no conflict whatsoever with the spirit of logical enquiry that is at the root of the scientific philosophy.
So what are the basic foundations of the major religions? I'm not pretending to be exhaustive here, but I'll say that they include the following: that man has 'taken a wrong turn' during his evolution and needs to overcome the illusions of ego and achieve better integration with the universe; that there is some kind of 'absolute' (generally considered as a deity by religions); and that there is some kind of existence beyond the death of our physical form.
Where religion went wrong, of course, is the same story as politics and many other ideas - it became corrupted and dogmatic, hijacked as a power-base by those wishing to gain personally, thereby acting against one of its own basic tenets. Sadly, the same kind of problem is manifest in scientific circles, in a kind of Catch-22 situation: certain areas of enquiry are effectively closed to the serious investigator wishing to retain credibility. Yet without proper investigation, these areas will never reveal their secrets and will always be marginalised as 'mystical'.
I (and many others, including some of serious stature in science) propose that by seeking some kind of spiritual awareness, coupled with an open-minded and non-dogmatic spirit of enquiry, we could heal the rift between the two seeming opposites and begin to discover the underlying principles of existence - surely the one common goal of both. More on this later.
Perhaps one way to visualise our relationship with the universe is as plants in a meadow. At one level (our material reality, the 'surface' of the meadow), we are distinct individuals with manifest differences between ourselves and all others around us. At another (our 'higher' selves, the plant roots in the soil), there is less distinction, indeed if we descended below the molecular level, the root/soil boundary would blur and this illustrates our own connection with the absolute, the ground of existence. Hence, damage done to others eventually equates to self-mutilation.
EXISTING BELIEF SYSTEMS AND IDEOLOGIES
There are many different belief systems and ideologies around, so why do we need another? What I'm proposing is not so much a competitor for existing systems, rather a modus vivendi that is sufficiently dynamic to adapt rapidly to change. Still, its well worth looking at systems that have some history behind them. My opinions on religion per se have already been made clear. But I'll look at two systems for which I have a great deal of respect, that have remained true to their aim and uncorrupted.
I don't claim to have extensive knowledge of Buddhism, but from my limited reading and prior knowledge, this stands out as the only major international belief system that has maintained its distance from rigidly hierarchical power structures and material gain. Exactly why this is so is perhaps slightly mystifying, but is probably at root connected with the fact that compassion is at its core. Not just as an idea, but as a constant practice. There is, of course, a sort of natural hierarchy, but this is based on natural abilities gained through genuine practice - there are no cheats or shortcuts!
So why not just opt for a proven system? Why am I bothering to offer something different? I would answer that there are three main reasons:
1. Although age is indicative of success, it also carries negative
perceptions - why, if the system is so good, hasn't it been more widely adopted?
What relevance today has a system that originated so long ago? These questions
are, of course, trivial, but they remain in the meme pool of the populace as
minus points.
2. The language in which the system is couched, along with the mythology, is
very off-putting to the average western mind. Buddhism needs to be stripped down
to its bones to see what are the many nuggets of truth.
3. There have been so many developments in thinking since its inception that it
is easier to start afresh than to try to adapt an existent system.
A new way would therefore not be in any opposition to this great tradition, but rather a re-interpretation for a more diverse audience, that also encompasses all the baggage of the present age. A kind of 'wot, no robes?' Buddhism!
This is obviously something close to my own heart and I believe it should form one of the cornerstones of an enlightened lifestyle, but it isn't enough on its own. It is, of course, far more than a diet, and its tentacles reach out into all the 'right' areas. It would surely be over-generalising to say that all vegans care deeply about other people and the planet, yet I'll wager that the percentage correspondence on these issues is high - and that's as near as I ever get to 'pigeonholing'!
To state the issue formally, veganism is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for enlightenment.
It’s worth briefly summarising some of the ideas resulting from the major scientific theories of the last century as these have had a profound effect on modern thinking. Also, they tend to point towards integration and participation rather than separation and determination.
Possibly the most famous of the major recent scientific theories, certainly the one yielding the most famous equation of all time, Einstein’s magnum opus was strictly two separate theories, the Special and General Theories of Relativity.
The Special Theory gave us an upper speed limit for the universe – c, the speed of light, 300,000 km/s, 186,000 miles/s. It also gave us mass-energy equivalence via the iconic E=mc2. A universal property and a union between two fundamental aspects, previously considered as separate.
The General Theory effectively replaced Newton’s gravitation, though incorporating the older theory as a very good approximation under certain conditions. It also united two previously separate properties, space and time.
I’ll use the popular notation, though the name is loosely employed to refer to anything falling under the rubric of Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics. But it’s the first of these two theories that’s best known (the second deals with sub-nuclear particles, the quarks), particularly for wave/particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle.
The wave/particle duality of matter/energy first came to light (sorry!) when experiments with so-called ‘black-box’ radiation failed to produce results in accordance with the established wave theory of electromagnetic radiation. It emerged that by treating the radiation as though it were comprised of packets or ‘quanta’ of energy, a viable solution was found. This is effectively working the ‘wrong’ way round (an established theory has another added to it), yet the same theme is present: there are two distinct and conflicting ways of looking at a single phenomenon, both valid in their own way.
The Uncertainty Principle has a different kind of relevance: it removes the clockwork-like determinism of Newton’s universe by showing that, at tiny scales, it is impossible to know completely both the momentum (mass x velocity) and the position (co-ordinates) of any particle, via the seminal inequality:
δp δx ≥ h/2π
where:
δp = uncertainty in momentum
δx = uncertainty in position
h = Planck’s constant
Suddenly, free will was in the limelight and the theologians went off into a corner to re-interpret their mythology.
This is not really a single theory but a loosely related group of strands that have become bound together to form a passable rope to haul us out of the stale quagmire that had become associated with the ‘middle scales’ – i.e. anything larger than an atomic nucleus and smaller than a star. For the entire previous century, the cutting edge of science had concentrated on the extreme scales – the very large (Relativity) and the very small (Quantum Mechanics), in the belief that new discoveries could only be made at the extremes of scale. Chaos Theory changed all that, revealing new phenomena within what are correctly called ‘complex dynamical systems’ simply by looking at things in a different way.
These ‘complex dynamical systems’ include life (at many levels, from cells to communities), natural phenomena (weather patterns are the classic example) and even human-instigated systems like economies. The common feature of these systems is that they may be ‘stressed’ – deliberately pushed beyond their normal functioning parameters. The pattern runs as follows for increasing stress: linear response, periodic response, the onset of chaos (the interesting bit) and chaos (like turbulence).
The onset of chaos was the tiny region that opened up a new world of possibilities, and that world was only realised with the development of computer technology that allowed the region to be expanded from a slit’s width to a vast plane. First, there is a rapid escalation of period-doubling (bifurcations), then a region that seems chaotic, then, surprisingly, the bifurcations reappear as miniature copies of the first ones. This behaviour can be seen pictorially in fractals.
A particularly interesting phenomenon that came to light was that the computational power of a system reached a maximum at the onset of chaos. Analogous is the borderline region of the Mandelbrot set. In the set, colour is uniform and pattern absent. At the border, beautiful swirling structures appear (representing the computational power), which tail off to uniformity again on moving further away. It may be argued (by a bold and picturesque analogy) that those who live ‘at the edge of chaos’ are maximising their computational power. This is certainly true of creative genius (think of the great artists who were close to madness) and may have connections with drug-induced insights, via pushing consciousness to a different level.
But the most significant contribution of Chaos Theory to the main thread here is that of connectivity and sensitivity to perturbations; this is enshrined in the now famous idea of the butterfly effect, namely that the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in, say, Tokyo may be the first cause of a hurricane in the Caribbean. That is, all actions may have a much greater significance than might have originally been considered. Food for thought indeed for those wishing to make some kind of difference.
String (and Superstring) Theory
Now beginning to get some TV airtime, this set of theories (with its meta-theory) returns us once more to the domain of the very small, down to the Planck length (10-33cm) and below. Here, it would seem, distance loses its cosy meaning that we’re all used to in our daily life. The best versions of the theory so far demand the presence of ‘extra dimensions’ in order to give viable solutions, but these dimensions must be ‘coiled up’ at these tiny distances so they are never manifest in our reality.
Now that’s a difficult concept to get a grip on, but I did come across a wonderful analogy that really helped me: imagine looking at a rope from a considerable distance – it appears to possess a single dimension, that of length. Closer up, we see three dimensions, but closer still, the individual fibres may be discerned, embedded in the three dimensions yet providing a much richer structure – it’s these fibres that may be considered as representing the ‘coiled up’ dimensions of string theory.
It has been postulated that science and spirituality may finally meet at these distances. Science becomes something else, much fuzzier and less rigid, and so-called spiritual phenomena may at last reveal their hidden mechanisms. Of course, these are just bold speculations, but the direction is clear. As quantum theory was to the mechanistic universe, so string theory may yet be to quantum theory. Time, as they say, will tell.
Many people feel that beneath the veneer of quotidian existence, there must lie something imbued with meaning, something that will give colour and relief (in a 3-d sense) to what seems, at times, pointless. There are many different ways of perceiving an underlying something, but I would contend that they all have a common feature, that of pattern. This is particularly interesting as pattern recognition is one of those higher properties of consciousness that seems especially difficult to replicate in AI research - some pundits say that it can never be replicated.
A simple one-dimensional example of pattern is rhythm: this may be expressed as sound (the most common way of thinking about it); as vibration (often as a by-product of sound); and even as light pulses. A good rhythm can 'get you going', indeed it seems to work on a subconscious level - sometimes you'll find yourself tapping your feet to something you weren't particularly listening to.
Moving up to higher dimensionality, we may encounter many things: a great painting, a piece of music, the play of light on water, the flow of words in poetry. This last is particularly interesting as language is a human construct, yet its most sublime constructions inspire within us a feeling similar to that engendered by the other more 'natural' examples of beauty mentioned here. (See note below).
Or we may take it a stage beyond (and virtual reality offers yet further vistas here) and opt for a total immersion experience: a music festival, under the influence of psychoactive substances, the music both heard and felt, the lights providing a visual counterpart - a loss of the feeling of self and the emergence of a strong connectivity with other people, with the world.
Perhaps the ultimate (thus far!) experiences are to be undergone through meditation and its confreres. Although I've said that all these experiences involve pattern, this seems a somewhat woolly concept when applied to the higher ones. However, if we consider the hologram as a kind of metaphor, things become clearer - the 3-dimensional 'image' of a hologram is the result of a stored interference pattern. Perhaps the experience of hidden meaning, of beauty, truth, is a kind of resonance between one's self and the external object. Perhaps the interference pattern produced, if it could ever be captured or recorded, would correspond to a type or set of types. It may then be considered as a 'mutual fitness of patterns'.
This describes the passive state, that of appreciation or reaction. What is the active state? Obviously creativity - in this scenario, creativity involves the manipulation of the phenomenal world to create a 'something' (a work of art, a theory, whatever) that expresses to others some aspect of the fundamental, whether or not in the manner perceived by the creator. Hence, the act of creativity is analogous to setting up the reference channel of a hologram-in-the-making.
* * * * * * *
Note: an explanation for how language can work in this manner is essential for consistency. I postulate that any system, whether natural or man-made, may reveal greater depths only if a certain 'complexity threshold' is surpassed. The actual feature may be disarmingly simple, yet it must fall out of complexity to work. Language is an ideal candidate: its complexity is huge, yet sometimes a short confluence of words, so simple in their arrangement, may reveal a truth of much greater depth than would seem possible by a mere structural analysis.
Past thinking, especially in science, has concentrated on stability, that is to say on aspects of the universe that remain in a consistently recognisable form over extended periods of time. It may surprise most people, therefore, that there is no such thing as complete stability, only different relative (finite) levels thereof. The simple truth is that 'all flows' - it's just that from our limited human standpoint, anything that lasts longer than we do seems eternal. Even that most stable of particles, the proton, has been postulated as possessing a finite half-life, certainly of the order of the age of the universe, probably much greater.
If flow is so fundamental, where does stability come in? Quite simply, it is essential if there is to be any kind of material existence. Why this is so remains unanswered and may simply be an aspect of the anthropic principle - if it wasn't so, we wouldn't be here to ponder the question. How it is so is another darling of Chaos Theory - it seems that relatively stable structures naturally 'fall out of' flowing media. A particularly good example would be Jupiter's 'Great Red Spot', a storm system of planetary dimensions thought to have been raging for millions of years.
Yet this kind of stability is what I would term, oxymoronically, as 'dynamic stability', the characteristics of which may be considered as a subsystem that utilises its environment to remain in a state of equilibrium (apparent stability). We are a good example thereof - we take energy from our environment in the form of food, excrete the waste back into the environment, gradually replacing our whole physical selves about every seven years, yet we remain stable to ourselves.
Multiple subsystems may exist together in meta-subsystems which I may term, with due respect to Douglas Hofstadter, 'tangled hierarchies', examples of which are molecules, communities, the Internet …
And yet we still cling to the notion of stability as a kind of Platonic absolute, as an illusion like that of the ego. Only by realising that stability, in the sense of relative and dynamic stability discussed here, arises from flow, essentially from continuous change, can we begin to align ourselves with the 'forces behind reality', though I utilise the phrase with due caution!
Freedom and Natural Law – a Brief Analysis of Ethics
Freedom has always been at the heart of all liberal thinking, but it is a concept open to some considerably different interpretations. Sane people will surely agree that we need a degree of freedom in order to further develop, but what exactly is freedom?
Firstly, there are two opposite viewpoints for analysis: “freedom from” and “freedom to”. The first is a consideration of the absence of negatives, the second an analysis of potentials. Yet they may still fall into the same traps: “freedom from” a restraint against killing = “freedom to” kill. Both are clearly undesirable, yet may be legitimately discussed under the rubric of “freedom”.
This is where the (controversial) concept of ‘natural law’ enters the fray, as a kind of moderator to the potential excesses of total freedom. However, it must be applied sparingly or we are faced with a situation akin to the present Western legal system, with effort being directed towards finer and finer amendments to already ludicrously over-attenuated statutes.
‘Natural Law’ is a rather woolly term, but I’ll attempt to pin it down in as simple a way as possible. If it is to form a basis for a universal ethic, then it must be simple. The old tenet of “do unto others only as you would have unto yourself” sounds like a sensible start but becomes problematic when ‘perverted’ individuals are considered, someone who takes pleasure from torturing others but would also take it themselves. I prefer to use the phrase “minimise suffering” as a starting point since it neatly sidesteps subjectivity (except for the kind of idiots who’ll argue that we cannot define suffering objectively because we are only ourselves and cannot ‘be’ any other being). It also steers clear of right/wrong and good/evil arguments by effectively defining them. Thus it may be considered a beginning, providing a kind of space to move around within.
But what are we to do in this space? Metaphorically, it would seem that we may wander around without getting anywhere, or even choose to stand still. Whilst this does not constitute an abuse of the freedom, it seems to contradict an implicit secondary characteristic, that of development. Development implies change, movement, process, vector, and I would argue instinctively that this acts as a kind of purpose for the freedom gained. It has been suggested that the quest for freedom is the search for a kind of prelapsarian paradise – perhaps a less mythological viewpoint would be a state in which we are not bound by material reality but are free to explore ‘higher’ (or at any rate, ‘other’) levels of existence.
Perhaps, then, our over-keenness on the material world is, did we but know it, the only bar to true freedom. It was always an illusion. We need to detach ourselves from it (as far as it is possible for an entity with a material form to do so) in order to take the first tentative steps towards liberty. And here is the link to more traditional ideas of freedom: while there exists a political climate that strongly favours materialism, that outlaws certain activities that may undermine its central concern, we can never as a species be ready to move beyond.
Another universal desire, along with freedom, is happiness. Yet despite our constant striving towards this goal, it continues to elude the majority. This is because of a fundamental confusion of ‘pleasure’ with ‘happiness’. Whereas, I’m sure, many people understand this difference, there’s still a majority who would struggle to articulate it satisfactorily.
Stated baldly, pleasure may consist of an event or a process; happiness is a state of being. Pleasures are treats, rewards, goals achieved; happiness just is, and requires none of these things. Pleasures may be sought directly; happiness requires either good fortune, or the Buddhist approach of pursuing the goal directly at first, then turning away one’s attention as it nears. Pleasures may arise from wealth; happiness does not require it.
Are the two things mutually exclusive? Not at all. Is pleasure-seeking ‘bad’? Not necessarily. Can one come to happiness through pleasure? Not in a directly causal sense, though a life consisting almost entirely of pleasures may bring about a satisfactory illusion of happiness.
And so true happiness (not a bovine, unquestioning self-satisfied stupor, but a dynamic contentment) should be one of life’s goals, though the pursuit of pleasure, in a reasonable balance, is not incompatible.
I touched on this briefly in the discussion on duality, but it’s time to return for a more thorough examination of the subject as this is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the universe and our place within it. The major question, then, is whether ‘matter’ or ‘mind’ is the primary element, that is, which precedes the other? Perhaps the question itself is flawed: if time, as we know it, is entirely bound up with the universe, there can be no logical enquiry as to what happened ‘before’.
It makes more sense to think in terms of David Bohm’s Implicate Order. This is an interpretation of ALL phenomena as a gradual unfolding from a single ever-flowing ‘something’. This neatly puts everything on an even footing – mind, matter, time… it’s all taken care of. If it seems like a cop-out, that’s because it necessarily lies outside the experience of material entities like ourselves.
To return to the main subject, mind and matter are therefore co-emergent properties (explicate orders) of the implicate order, obviating the requirement of precedence. But is there some kind of relationship between the two, some kind of symbiosis whereby each is enhanced by the other? An answer to this question may form the basis of an empirical answer as to why the universe is as it is.
If we postulate that mind on its own, unchained by matter, is somewhat nebulous and ill-defined, there emerges a scenario that mind benefits from an association with matter in that it can more easily and directly affect the material world. Matter, on the other hand, although possessing many principles of self-organisation (via the hierarchy of ‘particles’ and the various ‘forces’ that govern their interactions), benefits tremendously from an association with mind (I needn’t illustrate how, just look at the products of technology).
Perhaps the association is necessary as a step for the development of mind. And perhaps that is a key word here, ‘development’. The whole concept of the implicate order is one of constant movement. In a more familiar sphere, the entire history of life on our planet, evolution, is also a process of constant movement, with the additional factor of development. Whilst development itself does not necessarily imply a positive direction, we must consider what ‘positive’ actually means. We tend to impute a value judgement to the meaning, whereas perhaps something more neutral, such as ‘increase in complexity’ might be more helpful. This is a useful definition for any self-organising principle – thus we can see that the material and mental worlds are balanced between two opposing ‘forces’, that of decay (via the second law of thermodynamics) and that of development.
From the viewpoint of mind, the natural tendency to development is expressed
in creativity; it would thus be fair to say that creativity is in the nature of
mind. Therefore its opposites - stasis, stagnancy, mechanical thought – are
contradictory to the nature of mind. Yet these states are so prevalent in the
population as a whole that we need to answer the question “Why?”
So we make a return to duality, this time in a different guise. Throughout the Theory section, we’ve been looking at opposing pairs of ‘forces’. It’s worth making a summary of these, along with other related topics:
| Area of consideration | 'Positive' | 'Negative |
| Traditional/Moral/Mythological | Good | Evil |
| Natural universal processes (matter/energy) | Self-ordering principles (Chaos Theory) | Decay (2nd law of thermodynamics) |
| Mind | Creativity | Mechanical thought |
| Political | Freedom | Repression |
| Relationships | Integrative | Separatist |
| Perception 1 | Pattern, relationship | Separate pieces |
| Perception 2 | Movement | Rigidity |
| Attitude | Ameliorative | Divisive |
| Activity/lifestyle | Altruistic | Selfish |
| Worldview | Holistic | Atomistic |
It seems as though all major aspects of nature, life, everything are governed by a pair of opposing methods/tendencies/choices. This is quite natural if we consider these aspects to exist on a continuous sort of scale or spectrum of possibilities, much as black shades to white through an infinite number of shades of grey. Opposition then arises as the two extremes.
This provides a rough kind of answer to ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions, but not the all-important ‘why’. Perhaps this falls once more into the ‘anthropic principle’ kind of argument: if things were not like this, we (or equivalent beings) would not be here to ask such questions. It seems a cop-out sort of answer, yet the entire universe seems to be suspended between the two extremes. The goal of all this intellectual meandering is to find the correct human pathway: this may then be considered as the path to wisdom, enlightenment… call it what you will.
In the light of all that’s gone before, we can perhaps tentatively define some of the qualities necessary for wisdom. Indeed, there seem to be four essential components, with a fifth implied:
1. Compassion
2. Enquiry
3. Humour
4. Balance
Memory is the implicit fifth component; this is really a part of the definition of being human, and so although it is also essential, it may be taken as read since we are considering everything from a human standpoint. Taking each point in turn:
1. In order to achieve an enlightened state of being, it is necessary to be
able to distinguish ordinary self-related thinking from a more universal mode of
consideration. It is also necessary to appreciate how other individuals may
perceive the world around them. The quality of compassion is the natural means
to this end. Only by truly understanding ourselves and appreciating how others
may relate to both us and the universe are we able to separate the personal from
the larger picture, the quotidian from the universal.
2. A spirit of enquiry is fundamental to wisdom: without it, we would never seek
answers, rather simply accept what we are told without any questioning or
discernment. This would seem completely antithetical to ‘being human’, yet a
surprisingly large percentage of people continue to live closer to this state
than to the enlightened one.
3. This may surprise some people as a choice, and it should be qualified. A
sense of humour does not involve making a joke about everything, or treating
life as one big joke – nothing could be further from my intention. Indeed, such
people prove very tiring after a short while as they seem to possess very little
‘substance’. No, humour in this case refers to the maintenance of a buoyant
attitude in all circumstances, an ability to keep overly heavy situations
lighter, to inject a little fun when boredom sets in… It leads us nicely to the
fourth and final quality:
4. Balance (yin-yang in Eastern cultures) is the helmsman navigating the path to
enlightenment. Without an appreciation of things within a wider context, without
an ability to keep a check on our own obsessions, it is so easy to ‘take a wrong
turning’. Maintaining a sense of equilibrium, even through the most trying of
times, is so necessary for the preservation of sanity, never mind development.
Intermission – A Brief Retrospective
This concludes the overview of relevant theoretical background material. Briefly, we have looked at:
• The bipartite nature of major influences on us all
• The direction of modern scientific thinking
• The fundamental nature of both ourselves and the universe
• Some basic prerequisites for development
• The qualities required for following a more enlightened pathway through life
In short, we have sufficient background material to begin looking at practical ways to improve both the quality of our own lives and, by a natural extension, those of others.
This section suggests practical ways to utilise ideas already outlined with a view to giving a new direction and richer vein of meaning to lives feeling dulled and over-sated with too much materialism, too much sheer daily grind. We shall examine in particular activities, techniques, attitudes and the general mental environment for which to strive in order to achieve the goal. None of the ideas are rigid, rather they define the kind of space in which there is plenty of room for development and the exercise of personal preferences.
Back in the ‘Theory’ section, we looked at aspects of life that suggest a deeper level of meaning than much of modern thinking would have us believe exists. The obvious way to tap into this is to take up an activity directly connected with one of these aspects.
Beginning with the arts, it’s worth making a list to see the variety of choices on offer:
Music – from playing an instrument to DJ-ing, there are a whole range of areas to suit those with a musical bent. And it needn’t cost a great deal: think second-hand instruments to free mixing software. The important thing is to be involved, to put something of oneself into something external and see one’s original idea take shape and begin to almost have a life of its own. And it’s a two-way street: the act of creation may bring about changes within the creator.
Visual arts – here I include painting, sculpture, photography, video/film and computer-based art. As with music, there are many inexpensive ways to get started.
Crafts – of course, sculpture overlaps into this area, but I’ll keep things simple. There are too many possibles for me to list, but I’m thinking here of practical activities where first a skillset is learned, then applied with a covering of creativity to produce artefacts e.g. pottery, hand-made jewellery, clothing… This is one area where a hobby can easily turn into a lifestyle, as the circle of commerce spreads by oral means (assuming the person makes good stuff!).
Writing – I don’t hold with the adage that “everyone has a novel in them”, but many people may find some area suited to themselves where writing is the central activity. Short stories may be a more modest start than a novel, but a really good one is rare. Poetry is even more difficult: witness the trite sentimental self-indulgent twaddle that often mistakenly gets dragged under the umbrella, and I’m sure you’ll understand. Journalism is now a very broad area: not restricted any more to newspapers and magazines, we now have many opportunities for web journalism, from specialist areas like computing to general exposition in personal blogs (indeed, what is this website but some form of meta-blog?). Get writing, if only as an exercise, and see if you can find your niche in both subject and style!
The other main area mentioned was consciousness-alteration via different means. I’m certainly not going to recommend taking lots of drugs in an unqualified blanket statement, but some of those who have experimented have been profoundly affected by the experience – this one is down to the individual! I would say that maturity (a thorough self-knowledge) and a certain detachment would be qualities required, but the whole scene is extremely dangerous unless you happen to be already familiar. No, the main thrust here would be an activity involving meditation. Yoga is probably the best there is as it is good for both mental and physical health. For those not inclined towards the physical side of things, there are modern techniques that concentrate solely on meditation. Experiment to find what suits.
The idea behind all these activities is to explore one’s own mental landscape
to find suitable outlets connecting with ‘higher’ areas of consciousness. Once
inculcated, these may provide a lifetime of positive experiences.
Ah, the four-letter word! Love it or hate it, it’s a difficult one to avoid in some form. This is not the time for a discussion on the place of work in the structure we call ‘society’, so I’m taking as a gross simplification the fact that most people need to find some means to support themselves in the world, and that usually involves getting a more or less conventional job. If you’re of the extravert type, you’ll have no trouble getting and changing jobs, in fact you’ll probably love whatever you do. In fact you probably won’t be reading this ;-) For the introverted type (and I include myself here), and to varying degrees those of mixed make-up, the situation is less straightforward. If you’re not lucky enough to already have the right job, then you may consider change, or may prefer ‘the devil you know.’
And what exactly would be ‘the right job’ anyway? Ideally, this is an activity, the totality of which provides satisfaction and fulfilment at a deep level without it ever feeling like it intrudes on your ‘real life’: in short, it is an essential component of your life. And how many of us do such a job? In the tiny fractions of percentages, I’ll bet! Given the structure of Western society (and I must necessarily write from this restricted point of view due to my own lack of broader experience), it is unlikely that the situation will radically alter from the top down, so it’s a case of optimisation rather than realisation.
Aim for a job that doesn’t seriously conflict with your ideals; that offers opportunity for creativity, or at a minimum some flexibility; whose results count towards the greater good; that you enjoy per se at least for the most part.
That said, there are situations that may work in an opposite manner: there is perhaps a certain dignity in diligently performing a menial task quietly and efficiently; in providing an alternative example of lifestyle when colleagues are for the most part drawn from those areas of society where materialism and selfishness are the norm; or, for the particularly gifted, dipping one’s toe only occasionally into the murky waters of commerce in order to finance a completely different, less materialistic lifestyle for the rest of the time.
This one is a little tricky – lack of receptivity is a characteristic of the self-satisfied blundering fools who march through life without a care in the world, yet see and know so little. Too much receptivity, and life may just become unbearable through over-identification with others’ suffering. Hence it is very important to be mindful of balance.
So what distinguishes ‘receptivity’ from ‘compassion’? The former is a pre-condition for the latter, or possibly the latter is a subset of the former. Hence it is possible to possess receptivity without compassion, but not the reverse.
But how to cultivate it? Proust provides a supreme example, though no doubt his own hypochondria was a result of going too far. Sense data is a good area to start. Look at nature with a fresh eye. Watch the interplay of light and shadow. Learn to distinguish shades of colour – think ‘lemon’, ‘cornfield’, ‘golden’ rather than just plain ‘yellow’ all the time (HINT: study paint charts for some fanciful naming!). Smell the flowers. Really taste your food and learn to spot the use of quality ingredients. Wine tasting provides an excellent education! Listen to music (classical is always good for this) and pick out repeating themes. Above all, experiment with your own preferences. And never stop – this is a continuous process, a state of being, rather than merely a rite of passage.
From sense data, the step towards aesthetic sense in general then seems small and easily taken. It’s about getting in touch with your own feelings and responses, for example identifying a piece of music that can bring a lump to the throat or even tears, or perhaps raise goose-bumps on the arms. Sometimes, it’s just a moment, a confluence of different aspects of life, for example a particularly beautiful ambient light in a particular situation. These moments may be sought deliberately for pleasure, but not too hard. Just let them come if they do, don’t fret if they don’t. The best approach is to maximise your chances.
And of course, try to sense the mood of others. If someone’s feeling a little down, they may not appreciate a full-on account of your latest read or ideas. By learning to respond tactfully, your own sensitivity will increase and you’ll be seen in a more positive way by others. (WARNING: don’t end up as everyone’s agony aunt/uncle – remember balance!).
I don’t mean deliberately taking on a large set of accountabilities, but merely accepting full accountability for your actions. I’ve always avoided the former sense of the word as too many ‘responsibilities’ merely shackle you to the materialism of quotidian existence (Thoreau: “…simplify, simplify.”). I have, though, always stood up to be counted for my actions, even when ashamed of them – it’s surprising that even in a culture where deliberate distorting of the truth is fully entrenched (see here for more), you can still earn a kind of respect from others for this behaviour, at least in my limited experience.
Approaching life in this manner is a kind of self-regulating mechanism – you have always to think “would I be prepared to admit to this?”. This is actually enshrined in the Buddhist idea of the ‘life review’ – as a part of the post-death interim, each ‘person’ must look back over their own life (and this is said to happen very quickly, in great detail) and judge their own behaviour according to universal standards that become known to all during this ‘time’. So, practise this approach as a preparation for moving on!
This recently seems to have taken on the mantle of something approaching a buzzword, though I think that it has many shades of meaning. The basic use of the word is really something like “awareness of the possible consequences of one’s actions”. This is in itself a perfectly noble practice and links in closely with the previous idea of responsibility: if we were always ‘mindful’, the incidence of suffering in the world would surely decrease.
But how about another, more subtle, meaning? Try “constant attention to the content of one’s thoughts and actions”. This meaning links more to the idea of receptivity. The combined meaning approaches the Buddhist version of the idea. An example is in order: when you ‘catch yourself’ thinking in a negative manner, for instance a generally bleak outlook or an uncharitable thought concerning another person, stop briefly and examine your immediate mental environment. Is something in particular, or a confluence of several things, causing you to feel negative? If so, what actions can be taken to diminish or remove these things? Why do you feel this way about this particular person? Have they done something specific to annoy you or do you think them unworthy in general? Imagine being them. They probably share many basic human characteristics with you. They’re not some unit of pure evil (OK, there are exceptions!) consisting only of the characteristic(s) that you dislike. Concentrate on the shared values and remember these in your future dealings. Your own attitude and approach can dramatically affect how others behave towards you.
These are the rewards of mindfulness. Try to use this technique regularly, don’t just let things pass unconsidered. Also utilise for analysing positive things and understand what makes you happy. Approach others warmly and openly and you may find that the differences you once so keenly perceived will be ‘smeared out’ more and there is dialogue – this leads nicely to another important concept, that of respect.
A satisfactory system of living could be founded on this single word alone. Consider the following as broadening circles from the central idea, like ripples on a pond:
• Self-respect
• Respect for other people
• Respect for other creatures
• Respect for the environment (expandable in the logical limit to the entire
Universe)
These are presented in ‘logical’ order, though it’s quite possible to change it. However, the first necessarily remains the first. Without self-respect (NOT self-adoration or self-centredness), it will never be possible to truly respect others. Real self-respect should help to dissolve the boundary that we perceive as defining the illusion we call ‘self’ (this appears as either contradictory or ironic, yet this is one of the paradoxes to be viewed in a similar way to those considered under ‘Duality’ – the old philosophical edict of ‘the law of the excluded middle’ must here be laid to rest).
‘Respect’ in the sense in which I use it here does not equate to ‘acceptance’ and certainly not to ‘admiration’; rather, it is used more in the sense of the old saying “I don’t like what you say, but I defend your right to say it”. It is acknowledgement rather than agreement, and hence allows for difference rather than attempting to annihilate it.
But there is a sense in which a culture could be created: YOU only earn MY respect if YOU adhere to the ‘rules’ of respect, stated above. And there are three levels of ‘attainment’ (self-respect is taken as read), each one taking equal weight, any two having more and all three defining the highest level. In this respect (sic!), the word becomes self-defining for the culture, its own means of inclusion.
I’ve touched on an aspect of ego elsewhere, but it’s time to look at methods and benefits of altering ego-related behaviours as an essential step on the way to a more enlightened and wholesome lifestyle. One of the recurring themes within this dissertation has been the dissolution of barriers between the individual and the ‘environment’, and this is now explicitly stated.
If we accept the definition of ‘ego’ as an established aspect of our psychic ‘landscapes’, then one of its main functions is to define the essential individuality of the person of whom it is a part. And this is fine to a point – we all need a sense of selfhood in order to properly function in the world as it is. But when we use this as a definition of a barrier, a line that separates ‘me’ from ‘not me’, then we run into the kinds of trouble so prevalent today and indeed in the past – all that is ‘not me’ may in extremis or indeed all the time be treated with relative contempt, because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.
Once we can accept our integration within the universe, that we emerged from it and will dissolve back into it (in a material sense), then we can see the problem with the above. In abusing what we thought was ‘not me’, it turns out we are abusing a part of ‘me’ – we may consider the universe as part of ‘me’, and ‘me’ as part of the universe simultaneously (c.f. the hologram). We all accept that good physical health is maximised through not abusing the body (there goes my chance of three-score and ten!), that good mental health is achieved by positive states of mind and the avoidance of stress. Good spiritual health may therefore be attributed to an acceptance of the true nature of ‘me’, a temporary abstraction borne of the Implicate Order, not some separate absolute of short but defined duration.
Mentioned already as an essential component of wisdom, it’s time to see what this means in practice, indeed how we can put the concept into practice.
It may initially be helpful to consider a simple example. Consider two ‘opposite’ qualities, say those of thrift and largesse. To follow either of these paths exclusively would lead to trouble. Thrift, over-applied, will not foster good relationships with others. Too much largesse will lead to material/financial ruin. Obvious, but stated thus since it clearly illustrates the necessity to strike a balance. The balance is achieved through application of wisdom: the mix should be appropriate to the situation, therefore the balance is dynamic, never static, to account for the possibility of continuous change, whether in the self or the situation. Another example would be caution vs spontaneity.
Correct practice can only be achieved through analysis of both one's own tendencies and previous situations/experiences. Do you tend towards one of the extremes, or are you happy with the balance? Were you happy with your behaviour on the last occasion that such a situation arose? Analysis provides feedback for possible correction.
In the end, the whole process should become almost instinctive and requires little in the way of constant analysis; more, it is like a continuous dynamic awareness, like a dancer negotiating stepping stones, never still, never falling off.
A very good way to maintain inspiration, interest, involvement, call it what you will, in the process of becoming is to always seek out new material for consideration. As this is strictly non-curricular, the process is all your call: no pompous lecturers, no dull text books, no deadlines, just go at your own pace using your preferred methods. The Internet is of course the easiest place (you're here, so you've got access!), but there are always alternatives: public libraries, television (!), perhaps even a semi-formal course of study.
Most so-called study today has become utterly corrupted from the original idea of real learning. Now, the emphasis is on obtaining a piece of paper that, at least theoretically, gives almost magical admission to some rarefied level of existence in the material world. It is no longer concerned with real personal growth or enjoyment, just adding to a store of highly specialised near-useless facts that enable the initiated to spout bullshit jargon in a certain situation and convince others that they know what they’re about.
But enough of the soapbox: stay initially in your areas of greatest interest, but consider some expansion. For example, if you're particularly interested in an historical aspect of enlightened thought, expand your research to more modern thinkers. Maintaining awareness in general also prevents staleness that can creep upon one from lack of movement - a dynamic involvement keeps pace with time, rather than allowing time to be the weathering agent it may prove to be against that which is static.
One of the benefits of continuous study is discipline - not some horrible scheme of self-castigation and denial but an ability to avoid being dragged too far down into the mire of quotidian existence and therefore maintain a sufficient detachment (but not too much - balance!) from information and events that provide only a chafing of the soul. Discipline, in this form, leads to greater contentment and so one may embark upon an upward-spiral path towards greater spiritual achievement.
This is applicable to all, not just those who seek self-improvement, but you are more likely to get there faster this way. First, it is essential to understand what maturity is, and isn’t.
Try this: maturity is a state of being arising from a combination of detached analysis of the world around, self-knowledge and an acceptance of one’s own nature. In a nutshell, it is the realisation of our potentialities, something internally defined.
And this: maturity is not a well-defined behaviour, a combination of accepted tendencies and achievements or conformity to a certain pattern-type. In a nutshell, it is not externally defined.
The establishment would have us believe the latter – this applies to so many people, it’s depressing. The balance is completely wrong, there’s no room for real self-expression or novelty. If you, reader, find that there is contradiction between this talk of individuality (interesting how the word contains ‘duality’!) and the anti-ego practices suggested, you’ve missed the point – go back and start again!
So, ensure you aim for true maturity, building on what comes naturally from first principles. Never move towards what society seems to define as ‘the norm’, unless this is the right path for you. And that takes more than just courage, it requires real commitment - perhaps to achieve true maturity, the seeds must already be there, awaiting the right environment for germination.