The Secret of Life

The Nature Of The Universe

(To see comments on recent posts, please click here for Vision, here for To Simply Be and here for Let's Pretend.)

In previous posts, I've mentioned Einstein's belief that our sense of separateness is "an optical delusion of consciousness" and the idea of unity, that all of us are essentially One. For the whole of this quotation from Einstein, please see this previous post. But what else do scientists have to say about all this? Does what we know of the natural world support the idea of Unity at all - or was Einstein just going off on a flight of fancy?

An interesting book to read in this respect is The Tao Of Physics by Fritjof Capra, first published in 1975, which draws parallels between modern science and Eastern religious & philosophical thought. In the words of one of the reviewers I've just come across on Amazon, Capra "demonstrates that both modern Western science and traditional Eastern spirituality share the same core truth: that the universe is one interconnected whole, a ceaseless flux of living energy of which we are all part". Does that sound familiar?

Many books making similar comparisons have followed, including The Self-Aware Universe by Amit Goswami and The Field by Lynne McTaggart. Such books tend to be treated with varying degrees of scepticism by scientists and it's very difficult for the lay reader to make an objective assessment of them. This is especially true if you're like me and too much quantum mechanics makes your head hurt. Where some of them fall short, perhaps, is in claiming that the science proves that the philosophical & spiritual ideas we're talking about are correct. What may be more accurate - yet surely still exciting - is that they hold out the tantalizing possibility that they may be right, that science and spirituality may indeed concur.

Certainly it is true to say that what we think of as solid matter is mainly empty space. The particles which comprise atoms are very tiny indeed, with a large proportion of empty space between them.  But even these particles are not solid matter as we experience it in everyday life. They appear to be more like waves and only assume a fixed position when someone tries to measure them. So are they waves or particles, a bit of both, or something else which we don't yet understand? These sub-atomic entities are the building blocks of our own bodies and the matter we see around us every day. So what is in dispute here is the very nature of the fabric of reality.

I've previously mentioned the web site spaceandmotion.com, a fascinating repository of quotations and information on science and philosophy, the (not so) hidden agenda of which is to promote The Wave Structure Of Matter, a theory which proposes that particles are not particles at all but standing waves, interacting with each other to produce the effect of a particle. This would mean that there is no matter at all in the way that we normally understand it. Everything That Is, including ourselves, are really a series of interacting waves.

The Theory of Loop Quantum Gravity takes things even further, proposing that the universe is merely information in a giant quantum computer, stored by a series of twists in space-time. This would mean that we and everything we see around us are all part of a vast network of space-time, and furthermore don't even really exist. Which might sound extremely surprising - except to Buddhists.

It is clear, then, that some very imaginative concepts are being proposed to explain the universe, and in this context the idea that we are all part of a continuous field of energy - as many people experience through meditation - does not seem at all ridiculous. This 'connectedness' seems to be further confirmed by 'non-local effects' or quantum entanglement, whereby 'particles' which are separated in space - sometimes by large distances - appear to influence each other.

The universe is a strange place - or perhaps it only appears to be strange because we don't understand it. And if the so-called solid matter we see around us is not only mainly empty space but not even matter at all, then perhaps we should be open to the possibility that the way we see the universe - and our place in it - is in need of substantial revision.

Vision

(For comments on previous posts, click here for 'To Simply Be' and here for 'Let's Pretend'.)

I read a newspaper report the other day that interpreted the motivations in office of George W Bush as an attempt to better his father: not raising taxes (as his father had done), serving a second term (where his father had failed) and - crucially - going all the way in Iraq (where his father had stopped short of ousting Saddam). This brought to mind an observation by the late Robin Cook (the former British foreign secretary who resigned from Tony Blair's government over the Iraq war). Cook believed that Tony Blair's determination to go to war derived from an early experience in politics. Apparently Blair had first stood - unsuccessfully - in opposition to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative party at the time of the Falklands war. He had been acutely aware that Thatcher's popularity in the wake of the war had been instrumental in his defeat and had taken to heart what he saw as the lesson in this: that a war can help to boost a prime minister's image.

And so, twenty years later...

We can easily lose sight of the fact that world events are often dictated by the egos and ambitions of solitary politicians. We tend to interpret things in terms of factions and hidden agendas and forget about the all too simplistic importance of an individual's thirst for power.

We accept that this was the case in olden times. Few would doubt, for instance, that Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun had an eye for the main chance. These days, however, we tend to think that we, the ordinary people, have some influence over what happens and that events are determined to some extent by the ballot box - and failing that at least by government consensus. It's easy to forget that - at least while his shelf life lasts - it's the leader himself who really has the power.

I met Tony Blair once.

It was during the 2001 election campaign. My wife Chris and I just happened to be walking along the street when his cavalcade pulled up. A stranger next to us shouted "Hi Tony!" or something like that, and the next thing we knew, Blair was striding towards us, handshake and grin at the ready.

It was a very strange moment. I know I've written about this in the blog but it's very weird when it comes upon you spontaneously. As he stood before me, arm outstretched, it seemed as though I was looking at myself.

Certainly only one of us was present in that moment. I was standing there in shocked surprise, feeling as though someone had swiped me across the face with a wet fish, while Tony Blair was kind of gazing past me. All he could see, I presume, was one more voter with a hand to be shaken: one more punter in a very long row which would eventually lead to election.

I'm not sure how long we stood in that impasse: me gaping stupidly and him with his hand held out. But then he did what had to be done. A glimmer of life appeared in his eyes and he smiled at me beseechingly. "Please like me," he seemed to be saying. "Please shake my hand!" It was hard to resist - like being pleaded with by a teddy bear - and I realised then how he'd got to be prime minster.

Even then, pre-Iraq, I had no liking for Tony Blair or his policies, and would just as soon have told him where to go as to shake his hand. But it was as though I didn't have any choice. Now our roles had reversed. He was fully there in the moment and I was the automaton. I reached out and shook his hand. How could I not?

Mission accomplished, Blair moved on, his eyes focussed once again not on the crowd before him but upon History.

So why had I felt I was looking at myself?

There were things I had wanted to say to Blair, things I should have said: political issues I won't go into here. Was I given a glimpse of oneness, then, to encourage me to do so, to show me I'd only be talking to myself? If so, then it didn't work. The shock of it just stunned me into silence.

These days, I find it hard not to reach over and switch off when Blair is on the radio or the TV. I feel that the decision to invade Iraq was the most tragic and misguided political decision of my lifetime, but what annoys me most is that Robin Cook, in my opinion, was right. Blair decided to join the invasion because he thought it would improve his own political standing, his own place in history, and I find that unforgiveable.

But you know what they say, don't you? What we hate most in others is what we really hate in ourselves. And as long as we all go on acting as though our standing in the eyes of ourselves and the world is all that's important, the world's going to stay in the state it is.

Keep reading this blog though. I need the boost.

(One of my readers who shall remain nameless - though she does share this house with me - was wondering how to leave a comment when you recieve one of my posts by email subscription. The easiest way is to click on the title at the top of the email (in this case 'Vision'). If you're reading this on the site, of course, just click on 'Comments' at the foot of the post. But then you knew that already, didn't you?)

To Simply Be

Do take a look at the comments on the previous post, Let's Pretend (please click here), as some very interesting ideas came up. Please also click here to see further comments on Unity Is Powerful, as Dr Rob Yeung emerged out of the network of gossamer threads which comprise the internet to protest that I hadn't been very fair about his book on office politics. I have duly apologised and I have to say that it comes as a relief to discover that the book wasn't - apparently - as horrid as I thought it was. This makes me realise how new I am to this blogging business, though. It's like you're taking part in a discussion one night in the pub only to find that, say, George Bush is suddenly sitting beside you, complaining that you've got it all wrong about his foreign policy.

Come to think of it, I did have a go at Bush and Blair in a previous post. I wonder...? No, it's OK. They'll have a lot of other blogs to get round first.

It's interesting in terms of what we've been discussing here, though. I found that I was very eager to correct any misrepresentation I'd made about Dr Rob's book, so at least I wasn't hung up on "the need to be right". As far as I was aware, I was simply keen to make a correction in the interests of truth - but was there something else going on as well? Was my main concern really to prove to the world what a fair-minded and generally admirable human being I am?

Which leads us on quite neatly to what I wanted to say in this post...

Did you try what I suggested last time? The idea was to imagine that what Einstein said is right: that we are, in essence, an integral part of the universe rather than separate entities. If we take this idea to its logical conclusion it would mean that we are all essentially one: that when we look into someone else's eyes, we see ourselves staring back; that when we smile at someone else, we are smiling at ourselves.

Some people might view this idea as a precursor to mental instability, but others may find that it taps into something inside them, something they like. The important thing is: how does it make you feel? You don't have to believe it, but if it makes you feel good, then why not go on pretending? And is it really, after all, such a ridiculous idea?

It is no more ridiculous, surely, than this all-powerful construct we carry around in our heads: this Thing which is our Image, this 'My Space' of the mind. We all have this image of ourselves - and which we imagine others share - which we preen and polish with everything we do. We judge our every word and action to see if they make us look better or worse in the eyes of the world, before slotting them into the fabric of this Monster, which we feel we have to rebuild and repair every moment of our lives.

But what if we don't have to bother with any of this? What if we aren't in competition at all? If we're really all one, as we've been discussing, then the various sources of stress I've mentioned in recent posts - with the possible exception of Trick Or Treat - lose their power to affect us. Why should we bother what others think, or care if we win an argument, if we're only really competing with ourselves?

At this realization, a great weight can suddenly fall from our shoulders. Suddenly, there's nothing we have to prove any more. All the years of ceaseless striving can finally come to an end. There's no shiny image of ourselves by which we will be judged. It doesn't matter. At last we can simply be.

Let's Pretend

(To see the continuing comments on previous posts, click here for Unity is Powerful, here for The Need To Be Right and here for Disorientation. You may also be interested in a very good article on dealing with failure over at Maurits' Blog.)

The concept mooted by Einstein that "we are all part of a single unified whole" is an appealing one to me. (See the previous post for the whole of this Einstein quotation.) My instinct tells me that his words are not some pretty, poetic idea but are rooted in the truth: that we are indeed, in essence, an integral part of the universe rather than separate entities.

I've been fortunate enough to have various experiences - some spontaneous, others through meditation - which have offered me glimpses of what it's like to experience this. The words to describe these glimpses are hard to find, but the overwhelming impression was one of tapping into a vibrant source of energy. There were also impressions of light and bliss, and of letting go of a heavy burden I've carried (without my conscious knowledge) the whole of my life.

It may be that such glimpses are due to some mental aberration (like deja vu for instance) caused by wonky synapses or too much rich food, but the way I look at it is this: what else do we have to go on if we can't rely on our senses? So I prefer to go out on a limb and believe what they tell me.

But what does this mean?  If I choose to listen, what are my senses telling me?

The message I get is that there's a different way of looking at things from the one we normally use - it's like taking off a pair of dark glasses and so transforming a gloomy landscape into one of light and beauty. The beautiful landscape has been here around us all the time, but we haven't been able to see it. And yet if only we could see it, and continue to see it, our lives - and with them the world - would be transformed.

As I say, I've been lucky enough to snatch glimpses of this for myself, but you may be asking what that has to do with you. What are you supposed to do if you haven't had such glimpses? How can I expect you to believe a word I'm saying? Why should you believe that what Einstein said is true?

One possibility would be for you to simply believe it because it sounds kind of nice, an option which has worked surprisingly well throughout human history. But belief without any evidence to support it has never seemed to me to be as admirable as some people seem to think. So what I suggest instead is to pretend.

What you can do is this: instead of thinking of yourself as an individual who has to battle against everyone else to survive - which, let's face it, tends to be how we view the world, even though 'survival' may really be nothing more important than being first across the line at the traffic lights or having a better-kept hedge than the guy next door - instead of thinking of yourself like that, try to imagine that you are part of a massive composite entity which embraces the whole world. It may be easier to do this if you think of one of those pictures of the earth taken from space: try to imagine the sphere that you see in your mind's eye as a living, breathing being, and that you are a part of that.

Now imagine that you are connected to everyone else in the world by a network of fine gossamer threads. Imagine energy flowing through those threads, flowing through you and flowing through everyone else. Imagine that this network extends to embrace all living things: all the creatures and all the plants and trees, everything connected together with that same energy pulsing through them. Now, finally, imagine that this network extends beyond the planet, out into the universe, connecting the whole of What Is in a single vibrant entity.

Now feel that same energy flowing inside you. Look into someone else's eyes and see it staring back at you. Smile at them - and know that you are smiling at yourself.

Unity Is Powerful

To see comments on recent posts, click here for Halloween, here for The Need To Be Right, and here for Disorientation.

I'd like to kick off this time with a quote from Einstein:

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

You can find the above on Geoff Haselhurst and Karene Howie's remarkable website spaceandmotion.com along with a wealth of other quotes and information on scientific and theological themes. If you have the time, it might be interesting to contrast this with a recent article on management from The Sunday Times entitled "A Fakers' Guide to Mastering Office Politics".  If you haven't time, don't worry - suffice it to say that it reviews a book called "The Rules of Office Politics" by Rob Yeung  which provides helpful advice on how to further one's career by making appropriate cooing noises round those colleagues who are considered important and either ignoring or evacuating the contents of one's bowels upon those who aren't. Working away to the best of one's ability for the benefit of society or even of one's own organisation don't get a look in here. "It's all about me..."

(Note: Rob Yeung wasn't too happy about the way I described his book! Please see this post's comments for clarification.)

Using this book to characterise the way in which our world presently functions may be looking a bit on the black side, but I suspect it applies more often than not. Most of us are brought up to further our own interests - or, at best, the interests of those who are close to us - rather than the interests of humanity or our society at large. This is because - as Einstein observes - "we experience ourselves... as something separate from the rest".

But try to imagine for a moment if it were different, if everyone acted according to Einstein's vision: for the benefit of the universe instead of just for ourselves. Then, during our working lives, we'd all focus on how to produce better widgets: sharing our knowledge instead of keeping it to ourselves, working like we're on the same team as our colleagues, instead of pretending we're all taking part in The Weakest Link. Or, if we felt that the widgets our firm produced were a nett drain on the universe, we'd go and work for another firm which produced a more wholesome product. That way, we might have cars that ran on clean fuel, shorter queues at call centres, and maybe even trains that ran on time. Everyone would pull together, and because everyone believed in what they were doing, they would do a better job.

Just imagine...

OK, so this all sounds like something out of a John Lennon song, but just pretend for a moment that the universe really is the way that Einstein suggests: that we are all part of a single unified whole, but we can't see it because of what he calls "an optical illusion of the mind". Pretend that a tiny shift in our mental perspective would be enough to change all that - and so to change the world.