I’ve always found Celtic knots attractive. I think they are both beautiful and fantastic symbols of important characteristics of reality – the indivisible inter-connectedness of everything, and the dynamic, flowing qualities of Nature.
Alan Watts, that great teacher of Zen principles, talks about the reality of inter-connectedness in one of his essays. He says –
interdependence and virtual identity with all other forms of life which the divisive and emboxing methods of our current way of thought prevent us from experiencing……….The so–called physical world and the so–called human body are a single process, differentiated only as the heart from the lungs or the head from the feet………..our intellectual and scientific “establishment” is, in general, still spellbound by the myth that human intelligence and feeling are a fluke of chance in an entirely mechanical and stupid universe—as if figs would grow on thistles or grapes on thorns………wouldn’t it be more reasonable to see the entire scheme of things as continuous with our own consciousness and the marvelous neural organization which, shall we say, sponsors it?
I love that word he uses – “emboxing”. I’ve never seen that word before. Maybe he invented it, but it’s great. The way we label and classify after focusing on only certain aspects of any phenomenon separates and divides. It puts whatever we are looking at into a box. When we apply this technique to ourselves we divide ourselves from the Nature, from the Earth, and even from the Universe.
Dividing ourselves from Reality produces a dangerous delusion. As Watts says, “wouldn’t it be more reasonable to see the entire scheme of things as continuous with our own consciousness and the marvelous neural organization which, shall we say, sponsors it?”
I particularly like his reference to the human body – because if we really did understand ourselves as intimately and inextricably connected to the universe then maybe we’d stop classifying whatever is not “us” as “them” or “it”. Then we would have a chance to create a world which was more like the human body – made of well-differentiated parts which relate to each other in mutually beneficial ways – the reality of integration, not the delusion of division and separateness that seems to result in exploitation, plunder, killing and rape.
Zen principles contradict natural selection or survival of the fittest.
The one paints a world of unity the other a world of fierce competition.
If there is unity it is a dog eat dog unity.
The Nature you reverantly speak of has no nature , no morals and no direction. Richard Dawkins calls it The Blind Watchmaker.
We are the Watchmakers greatest creation we have morals and live by principles.
I’m really not sure what you are saying. I’m certainly not an expert in what zen is or isn’t but I’d imagine that if a zen principle is the unity you mention then conflict, struggle and survival are probably a part of that unity, not something outside it.
I’m struck by your saying “…Nature you reverently speak of…” – comes across as a criticism. Is it? Are YOU also in awe of Life on this planet? I confess. I totally am. But I’m puzzled by your Nature has no nature argument. Could you explain what you mean?
I do think we can see separateness and difference everywhere but equally I see connections, relationships, inter-dependencies.
I’m also aware there are many more forces in the universe than just Chance
Does the deer as the tiger plants his teeth think of unity?
Does the poor cancer victim think of
the unity of creation.
As Rent a Kill lays the poison which may kill the female rat so her young starve think of unity.
Do the wealthy nations of the earth think about the 23,000 humans who starve to death each day.
I used to be in awe but not anymore since I read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. At the same time I became aware that Nature is amoral as well as blind so why should we be in awe. I had been greatly influenced by the fictional realism of Thomas Hardy.
Thank you for taking the time to expand your comment. I understand your world view more clearly now.
How’s that working out for you? That shift in your view to your current one?
I guess you’ll see if you read just a sample of my posts that I don’t seem to have the same world view as you. I’d say I find something amazing and wonderful pretty much every day. This life delights me and everything from the universe story of the evolution of ever more complex phenomena to the emergence if life on this planet fills me with awe. The embryology of a human being fills me with wonder and awe. How that fertilised egg cell differentiates and grows into a human being! Amazing! Day after day patients who came to see me amazed me and made me feel privileged to share a little of their lives.
Human achievements and creations in art, science, philosophy astonish and thrill me.
Yep, the older I get the more I realise I don’t know but, boy, this is some experience, this living on this planet.
With the view I have arrived at by steady progression life has its darker side, but then I believe that is nearer to the truth about the world.
That does not mean I cannot enjoy a sunset or the waves on the shore or any other activity it simply puts them in perspective. The patterns and beauties we see in the living world are a result of natural selection and those in the inorganic world the laws of physics. These two blind forces are not moral and have no conscience.
Mankind has a conscience which should have been enhanced and trained by religion.
We were too smart for religion and we used it to benefit our selfish ambition.
‘ Ah Love ! could thou and I with fate
conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of things
entire!
Would we not shatter it to bits—and
then
Remould it nearer to the hearts
Desire!
Thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. The original reason I wrote this post was to say something about the connections which exist in the Universe but you’ve raised other interesting issues like world views, the place of random-ness in the universe, and even conscience and morals! Wow!
So, a couple of things came up for me after reading your last comment…..conscience – just what is that? Not something I’ve given a lot of thought to actually. I suspect we wouldn’t have conscience without consciousness, but is that true? If it is, then I’m still struggling to understand how consciousness emerges and at what stage in evolution it did so, and how it relates to our physical bodies, our brains and our minds.
As best I know nobody has been able to locate consciousness, or even found what the neurological correlates of consciousness are….just like we haven’t identified how the brain handles functions like memory and imagination. Conscience is something else again, isn’t it, and I wonder how that function (if you could call conscience a function) operates in as apparently diverse people as Jihadists who go off to Iraq or Syria to fight and kill, and doctors who work for Medecins Sans Frontiers and go off to Africa to treat people who are suffering from Ebola.
I’m aware of Richard Dawkins’ ideas about blind watchmakers and selfish genes and so on, but there are other works I’ve read which I think challenge those views and, at least, bring other issues to the table. Mary Midgley argues a really interesting case against the Dawkins views. Her “Are you an Illusion?” is a great read. I recommend it.
Have you read Harold Bloom’s “Global Brain”, or “The God Problem”? I think you might like them. He writes so clearly about evolution and the roles of both competition AND co-operation in development.
I suppose if I’d choose one book to recommend it would be Iain McGilchrist’s “Master and His Emissary”. I still think it’s one of THE best books I’ve ever read, and gives great insight into how the different parts of our brains function differently and help us to make sense of our lives by creating very distinct world views.
Thanks for some names of experts it gives me something to probe and think about.
I have read some Mary Midgley but the others were new to me.
It seems to me we have to explain the behaviour of man thoughout history. The good thing is we have plenty of evidence and if our explanation does not fit the evidence we can adjust or reject it.
We have up to date technology and evolution to help.
I believe man has an inner conflict that does not exist to any degree in animals.
This is because man left the animal world long ago somewhere in the old stone- age. He no longer fitted into natural selection and survival of the fittest. He became self- aware and then self judging. It was as if an inner voice arose and questioned his actions. The conscience was born he was capable of moral behaviour sorrow and compassion entered his world. Some call these the id and the ego words don’t matter the inner conflict is the thing.
His instincts did not disappear and we have them still as our evolutionary heritage. I do not know how or why but my guess is it maybe connected to intelligence — thats a difficult problem.
The result of conscience was religion and philosophy.
My contention looking at the world now is that man is still largely driven by selfish ambition (id) and conscience comes far behind. Mary Midgley argues that evil arises from aspects of human nature not from an external source.
‘ Human evil is a natural phenomenon , and some level of predatory violence is innate in us’
Sam Harris neuroscientist.
Steven Pinker does not believe in a clean slate. At the risk of raucous laughter I whisper original sin.