Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

diversity in the autumn garden

It’s common for us to experience loss, break down, destruction and disintegration.
In the middle of it, it can become hard to see the wood for the trees, and it can feel like this falling apart is not just inevitable but permanent.

As the leaves fall from the trees in the autumn, the bare branches of the winter woodland give the appearance of life being over for those trees.

Human beings know they don’t live forever, and although some have a belief in reincarnation, or lives of different forms from this life, nobody expects they are not going to experience loss, degeneration and death.

If the course of Life could be summarised as destruction and decline, then what kind of Life would that be? Is that really what we believe? That the direction of Life, the direction of the Universe even, is towards destruction and disintegration? Having begun with a Big Bang, are we heading for the final whimper (as T S Eliot wrote?)

But look again at the photo above. What do you see? Death and destruction? Loss and endings? Life and growth? Change and diversity?

The old mechanical, materialist view of the world teaches the idea that we try hard to resist destruction. “Entropy” is the term used to describe the inevitable run down of a system. But this view is more relevant to machines (which are “closed” systems), than it is to Nature (which is full of interconnected “open” systems).

Prigogine coined the term “dissipative structures” to better describe the reality of Nature and living organisms. He found that complex adaptive systems used dissipation to renew themselves, and in this renewal they grew, developed and adapted to changes in their environment. Indeed, Varela and others coined the term “autopoiesis” (self-making capacity) to describe the essential characteristic of a living system.

All living systems, ourselves included, are continuously breaking down existing structures and elements in order to create ourselves anew – in order to not just adapt, but to flourish. Not a single cell in our bodies lives as long as we live. In fact cells live between a few days and few months on average. It’s not the material, or the “stuff” of which we are made which makes us who we are. In that sense, we are much more like a river than we are like a machine.

I find this idea thrilling. Partly because I work every day with people who are experiencing loss and breakdown, people whose lives are falling apart. When a loved one dies, when your relationship or your job ends, when disease appears suddenly, or slowly in your life, it can all become quite overwhelming and it can be hard to see how any good can come of this experience. But here’s the key point, such continual change, such cycles of breaking down and destruction are not just inevitable but they are a necessary part of growth and renewal. These special times are times of renewal.

Spring time (not quite managing to appear yet here in the UK) is a good time to reflect on this. I’ve mentioned before how the Japanese celebrate transience through the cherry blossom festivals.

Renewal occurs through adaptation. As our lives change, if we take the time to become more aware, and we learn not to cling to current forms, we can see that in the midst of dissipation we discover the vast potential for creativity and growth. Just think of the universe story for a moment. Is it one of era after era of decline and destruction? No. It’s one of ever increasing diversity and complexity. It’s a story of cycles of joining together, breaking apart and forming new connections. It’s a story reflected in every single living being. Here’s the miraculous truth. The universe is not a closed machine heading day by day towards destruction. It’s a vast interconnected web of open systems producing the most elaborate, most complex and most amazing phenomena day after day after day.

snowdrops closeup

Read Full Post »

Margaret Wheatley works in the area of leadership and organisational change from the perspective of what we can learn from living reality. She has the complex adaptive systems concept at the core of her work. I recently stumbled across her writings, particularly her four “principles of living systems”. Here they are -

  1. Participation is not a choice
  2. Life always reacts to directives, it never obeys them
  3. We do not see “reality”. We each create our own interpretation of what is real
  4. To create better health in a living system, connect it more to itself

The first principle relates to the reality that everyone, every thing, every aspect of our world, our universe, exists inextricably embedded in the contexts of its existence. A living organism is an “open system”, with information and energy constantly flowing into and out of it. A living system is dynamic and perpetually changing and “co-evolving” with the other elements of the ecosystem in which it lives. You can’t change a part of a person without producing changes in the rest of that person, and you can’t change a person without setting off a cascade of unpredictable changes in the world in which that person lives (and vice versa – you can’t change something in someone’s world without setting off changes in that person). Participation is not a choice, it’s an inevitability.

The second principle is the core of adaptation. Every individual is unique and cannot be controlled like a robot or a machine. You can force people to behave a certain way for a period of time, but ultimately all the organisations and political systems based on force collapse. You can’t force the sun to shine, the wind to blow, the rain to fall, or Life to obey your commands.

The third principle is something we often forget. Iain McGilchrist, in The Master and His Emissary, highlights how the left cerebral hemisphere is particularly well developed to “re-create” reality. It creates “re-presentations” of the raw information and energy which flows into the person. These representations allow us to make sense of the world and to literally to grasp things better. It’s a fantastic development and is probably at the core of our industrial and technological development as a species. We also know now that the part of the brain just behind the forehead, the mid-prefrontal cortex, has many, many functions, but amongst them is a map-making facility. It’s crucially involved in creating, what Dan Siegel calls, “a me map, a you map and a we map”. We never know any of this reality directly. Rather we constantly create our perceptions and our understandings, influencing those creations with our memories, our hopes, our beliefs, our values and our desires.

The final principle is Margaret Wheatley’s way of talking about integration. When a system is well integrated there are healthy, mutually beneficial relationships between all the connected parts. That produces coherence and harmony. It’s the basis of health.

When I first created this blog, I wrote a permanent page on “ACE” – “Adaptation, Creativity and Engagement“. It was really interesting for me, therefore, to discover this quote from Margaret Wheatley (which I believe, essentially highlights the same characteristics)

Over many years of work all over the world, I’ve learned that if we organize in the same way that the rest of life does, we develop the skills we need: we become resilient, adaptive, aware, and creative. We enjoy working together. And life’s processes work everywhere, no matter the culture, group, or person, because these are basic dynamics shared by all living beings

 

Read Full Post »

The other day there I came across a reference to an Alan Watts teaching about the limitations of reductionism. I’ve tracked it down -

You cannot understand life and its mysteries as long as you try to grasp it.  Indeed, you cannot grasp it just as you cannot walk off with a river in a bucket.  If you try to capture running water in a bucket, it is clear that you do not understand it and that you will always be disappointed, for in the bucket the water does not run.  To “have” running water you must let go of it and let it run. ~Alan Watts from “The Wisdom of Insecurity”.

Read Full Post »

We are in a transition time to a more ecological way of understanding our place in the universe. Here’s a short video where Thomas Berry explains why we are at the junction of era change

Read Full Post »

Thomas Berry (The Great Work) wrote that the Universe is a

community of subjects, not a collection of objects

….a simple little phrase which has the potential to radically alter your perspective.

If the Universe is a collection of objects, and every person, every animal and every plant is just such an object, then we’ll relate to others in a certain way. In fact, if we consider that all of Nature is a collection of objects, we’ll not only treat the other as an object, but we actually objectify ourselves. What does it mean to live as if you are a random, meaningless, occurrence of a machine-like thing?

If the Universe is a community of subjects, then we open ourselves up to becoming aware of the experience of the other, and to our relationship with them.  And we open ourselves up to the phenomena of subjectivity – from love to beauty, to pain and distress, to consciousness itself. What does it mean to live as if you are a unique, purposeful, utterly connected manifestation of the Life Force?

How we view the world profoundly influences our experience of it. We really do create our own lived worlds.

Read Full Post »

What is it to be human?

We have a tendency to break wholes into parts and then conceive of the parts as entities. This is just a conceptual skill however and often it doesn’t reflect reality terribly accurately. Mind and body, for example, is one such common division of a person. At one point I thought of myself as a “mind body doctor”, or as a doctor who “took a mind body approach”. I don’t do that any more. It’s too falsely dualistic for me. I think the mind and the body are no more separate than the wave and particle forms of light. (You know how light when considered in one way behaves as an energy wave, but in another way, as if it is made of individual particles?)

So from the conceptual perspective of looking at a human being in two ways, we can see that human beings are physical organisms. Becker, in his “The Denial of Death”, uses the term “creatureliness” for this aspect. I rather like that. Our creatureliness is what we share with all other creatures. Our bodies are physical and transient. They will degenerate and expire, like all other creatures. And like all other creatures, part of our behaviour and experience can be understood from an examination of instincts and “basic drives” – hunger, thirst, safety and so on.

However, we have another aspect, not shared with other creatures. It’s that invisible part of us. What shall we call it? Soul? Consciousness? Spirit? Becker calls it “the symbolic self”. I’m not sure I’m that keen on that particular term, but it does capture both our facility of imagination and our ability to give and gain meaning in all sensations and objects. We don’t just see the colour red. The colour red is laden with meaning. And this is true of the whole of our experience in life.

We live both a creaturely life, and a symbolic, invisible life.

Interesting, huh? And a consideration of a person which ignores either of these two perspectives, is a consideration of a person at a less than human level. Let’s always see a human being as fully human.

Heroes not zombies.

Read Full Post »

This blog name grows on me with the passage of time. People like it, and they tend to “get it” very quickly. I came up with it because I saw that an awful lot of people seem to live life on autopilot, but when you sit down with them in a consultation, you discover one hero after another. People are truly amazing. And every person is the hero of their own story. It’s wonderful to hear the stories unfold and see the heroes emerge.

In Becker’s “Denial of Death”, he writes

Modern man is drinking and drugging himself out of awareness, or he spends his time shopping, which is the same thing. As awareness calls for types of heroic dedication that his culture no longer provides for him, society contrives to help him forget. Or, alternatively, he buries himself  in psychology in the belief that awareness all by itself will be some kind of magical cure for his problems.

And he refers to Kierkegaard who criticised the tendency to live a “safe” life by living at “a low level of personal intensity” as a form of

Tranquilising itself with the trivial

……..there’s a lot of that about!

Read Full Post »

Here are two questions which are in my mind during every consultation I have with a patient.

What kind of world does this person live in? and What coping strategies does this person use?

Of course like every doctor I will have a number of questions in mind during a consultation. The primary goal of undergraduate Medicine is to teach diagnosis (as best I conceive it, “diagnosis” is an “understanding” – an explanation for what the patient is experiencing). So that is likely to be one of the main goals of all consultations – what’s the diagnosis? Having achieved an understanding/explanation/diagnosis, the doctor then wants to answer the question “what am I going to do about this?” What the doctor does might be to further examine, investigate, or seek the opinion of a specialist. Or what the doctor does might be a therapeutic act – the most common being either the prescription of a drug, or the carrying out of a surgical procedure.

In other words, the same two questions are important for the doctor too. What kind of world does the doctor live in? And what are his or her coping strategies?  The world view frames the diagnosis, and the coping strategies determine the actions.

The current dominant practice of Medicine has emerged from a particular world view, and this world view is the basis of the actions chosen. So what is that world view? (I’m not going to try and nail down a label for the current Medical orthodoxy, but others have termed it “biomedicine”, “Western Medicine”, or even “scientific Medicine”. Whatever the label, I’m referring to the type of Medicine most commonly practised in the UK, and, yes, of course, you’ll see that is very similar to the commonest practices in many other countries too)

The world view from which the current orthodoxy emerges is based on certain postulates -

  1. There is only one reality.
  2. Reality can be “partialised”. It can be divided into parts which can be studied separately in order to know the whole.
  3. Knowledge can be acquired by an observer who is separate from, and stands apart from, reality.
  4. Observing has no influence on what is observed. (or the influence can be isolated or “controlled”)
  5. The observer’s values and meanings can be isolated and suspended.
  6. Two events related in time can be assumed to be causative – “A is the outcome of B”.
  7. Specifics can be generalised i.e. an explanation from one time and place can be applied to other times and places.
  8. Reality can be described in terms of “laws” and “norms”.

I don’t find these postulates either helpful or convincing. What are the postulates behind my world view as a doctor?

  1. There are multiple realities. No two individuals experience identical realities.
  2. The multiple realities are inextricably interconnected to create the whole. As such no single part can explain the whole.
  3. No-one is outside of reality.
  4. Every act of observation influences (creates even) what is observed.
  5. The observer’s values and meanings create their reality. They can’t be suspended. (Points 3 and 4 are connected to there being no object which can be known without the active involvement of a subject)
  6. Complexity and chaos theories show us that reality is non-linear. Causation can never actually be proven.
  7. Specifics always occur embedded in multiple contexts and as such are always unique. Generalisation involves ignoring the contexts.
  8. Laws and norms are cultural constructions to describe common patterns. Nature is diverse and natural phenomena are emergent (continually evolving and developing into different patterns)

How do you think these different world views affect firstly the diagnosis, and secondly the actions taken?

 

 

Read Full Post »

When I read this passage from Marilynne Robinson’s new book, I immediately recalled Robert Solomon’s “Joy of Philosophy” (which I reviewed and reflected on here)

There is a tendency, considered highly rational, to reason from a narrow set of interests, say survival and procreation, which are supposed to govern our lives, and then to treat everything that does not fit this model as anomalous clutter, extraneous to what we are and probably best done without. But all we really know about what we are is what we do. There is a tendency to fit a tight and awkward carapace of definition over humankind, and to try to trim the living creature to fit the dead shell. The advice I give my students is the same advice I give myself—forget definition, forget assumption, watch. We inhabit, we are part of, a reality for which explanation is much too poor and small. No physicist would dispute this, though he or she might be less ready than I am to have recourse to the old language and call reality miraculous

I do think reducing a human being, in whatever way, takes us into acting at a subhuman level. It’s this reduction of the miraculous, amazing, special individual to a data set of measurable parameters which lies at the core of a lot of our problems these days. (This is why I argue for a SEA CHANGE in our values).

Robert Solomon’s book is subtitled “Thinking Thin versus the Passionate Life” and in that, he nails it.

A data led, reduced, materialism is a poor, thin, inadequate way to live. What I argue for is a rich, passionate life of wonder and amazement – a miraculous life.

Read Full Post »

The view from Sirius……I was exploring the origins of this idea today (it’s actually a French phrase “point de vue de sirius”), and found that someone had helpfully linked it to this clip from the great Dead Poets’ Society (haven’t seen that film in YEARS!)

I like it. In French, this idea relates to the idea of the “vue en haut” – the perspective from on high. Voltaire’s 1752 tale, Micromegas, is often cited as the origin of the Sirius reference. In this amazing, centuries ahead of itself tale, a person from Sirius, Micromegas, visits the Earth. The idea of “le point de vue de Sirius”, refers to both that ability to stand back and take an overview, something we all need to do from time to time (and which I’ve been doing on my week’s break from work these last 7 days), and, also, that ability to experience the extraordinary in the ordinary.
Years ago I chanced across a little paperback in a secondhand book shop – the poet Stephen Spender’s “Life and the Poet” where I read his idea of the poet getting into the mindset of a traveler from Earth visiting the Moon for the first time. The view from Sirius idea encompasses that idea.
However, it’s Pierre Hadot, the French philosopher, I have to thank for explaining it in his brilliant “N’oublie pas de vivre” (“Don’t forget to live”).

Whatever its origins, I think it’s a great concept – so why not try to adopt the “view from Sirius” today, and see how things look now?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 206 other followers