Philip Pullman - A Process Of Evolution

Reading an interview with author Philip Pullman in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, I was reminded of a post I wrote a few months ago, in which I argued that a wholesale change in human consciousness will be needed if we are to survive the approaching environmental crisis. Here's what I wrote at that time:

"Only when we come to think of ourselves as first and foremost an integral part of the human race and the universe at large, rather than as separate entities in competition with each other, will we have the perspective needed to sit down as one and work together to find a way out of this mess."

To some extent, Pullman appears to echo this in his Daily Telegraph interview:

"I think we've evolved in such a way that suited conditions on the savannah 500,000 years ago, a way of life that was acquisitive, territorial and combative. The degree to which the processes of civilisation, or socialisation, can overcome that depends on the timescale. In the long term, I back evolution - if we can survive this crisis that we're in...

"It's like going down a river, and about mid-century we're going to go through the rapids, and it's going to be terribly difficult for all of us. But we can survive and if we can get through this... it's going to be wonderful."

How exactly Pullman thinks that this necessary process of evolution is going to happen isn't entirely clear - but then with evolution it rarely is. Don't get me wrong - I'm no creationist - but the small print of evolution has always puzzled me. How did those fish come out of the water exactly? Gary Larson's explanation (in one of his Far Side cartoons) that the fish were playing baseball and evolved legs in order to get their ball back when it landed on dry land seems about as convincing as any other.

All Pullman seems to suggest is that the environmentalists' storytelling skills need to evolve so that they can better communicate the message about what people can do to help the planet. He says:

"People feel helpless when they see pictures of devastated forests cut down and the glaciers melting and the poor polar bear sweating on its bare rock in the sea. 'What can we do, what can we do?' People need to be told what it is that they can do."

I wish I shared his optimism that this will be enough to make a difference.

Pullman, of course, is widely known for the anti-religion stance of his fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, an ancient, authoritarian 'God' being unceremoniously killed in the final volume. Personally, I kind of like these books, such misgivings as I have about them having a lot more to do with the shambolic plotting than with any underlying agenda. I doubt that Pullman would view this blog in such a kindly light however. He has been quoted as saying "I don't think it's possible that there is a God: I have the greatest difficulty understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality'".

So I assume that Pullman would be fairly horrified - or at best bemused - by my belief that the necessary evolution is going to be a spiritual one, a process of evolution in which we come to realize that all of us are One, that all of us - including our planet and all the life forms upon it - are part of something which some might describe as 'God'.

Yet Pullman goes on to say in the interview:

"I suppose the real story, the basic story, the story I would like to hear, see, read, is the story about how connected we are, not only with one another but also with the place we live in. And how it's almost infinitely rich, but it's in some danger; and that despite the danger, we can do something to overcome it."

Are we really so far apart, I wonder, the 'spiritual' me and the 'secular' Pullman?

I hope not, because it seems to me that it is a gap which is going to have to be bridged in our forthcoming process of evolution...

(You can read the Telegraph interview with Philip Pullman here. This in turn is an edited extract from the forthcoming book Do Good Lives Have To Cost The Earth? by Andrew Simms and Joe Smith.)

 

These may also be of interest:

Earth Doomed (see page 53)

Unity is Powerful

Global Financial Crisis - A Blueprint for Transformation?

Comments

[Sue Ann Edwards]

I'd like to see more encouragement for our abilities to adapt and change. If things get wet, we'll move. It really is limiting being attached to particular places.

There's a big difference between being "down to earth" and being "stuck in the mud".

We'll adapt or die, same thing as we've always done, biologically speaking. I have Faith in us. I know we're afraid of change but we need to get over it...emotionally grow up...develop. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

We're inventive. We're competent. We're imaginative. We're creative. We will meet any and all changes and challenges, with confidence and courage.

[Chase March]

I always think of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe when these discussions come up. I love the storyline about the Earth being a giant computer and that every single living thing on it is part of a program. It is a metaphor to show the connectedness of every living thing. I believe this to be true and I have yet to see a better metaphor about it.

[Mark]

I agree with you, this will take a spiritual evolution which I believe will happen one way or another. Great post!

[Secret Simon]

Sue Ann - Thanks for pointing out so eloquently the broader implications of spiritual transformation. I've been focusing on the attendant awareness of Oneness, the realization that we're all in this together, as an incentive for us all to get down and get things fixed, instead of focusing on our own individual interests. But of course such transformation would also involve both acceptance of what is and loss of attachment to what we possess, which will give us the courage we need to adapt to our changing circumstances.

[Secret Simon]

Hi Chase - It's interesting that you point this out because Hitchhikers author Douglas Adams was a noted 'unbeliever', like Philip Pullman. It's intriguing that both men should be drawn to the idea of connectedness and oneness and I find myself wondering if they would have turned their backs on religion if they'd been brought up in a Buddhist or Hindu culture instead. I often feel with atheists and agnostics that they have rebelled against the Christian concept of God and haven't really considered the other alternatives. When I first started blogging, I used to contribute to a few atheist sites and it seemed to kind of confuse them. They were only used to arguing with Christians.

Not that I particularly wish to distinguish between the religions, I should add. I am much more interested in the similarities between them, which is something I'd like to blog about in the future...

[Secret Simon]

Thanks Mark - If fish could come out of the water, it can happen for us!

[Pam]

For what it's worth, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether one is a "believer" or not. Does it really matter whether we call a phenomenon "connectedness" or "God"? I prefer not to use the G word, because that word tends to travel with a lot of excess baggage. Truth is truth, no matter what name we give it, and no matter what we as individuals believe. And whatever we do believe, that may or may not be the truth. I prefer to use yardsticks such as "useful" and "helpful", myself. I share your interest in the similarities between religions, Simon, and look forward to you blogging about them.

[Secret Simon]

I totally agree, Pam. Thanks for your comment! All these concepts we have, whether religious, scientific or whatever, are models of the truth: approximations only. But there is only *one* truth, so we are misguided if we place our focus on the differences between the models. The truth is more likely to lie in the points of similarity. It is like having road maps produced by two different publishers, one with the highways marked in blue and the other with them marked in yellow. Adherents of one map think only in terms of blue roads and are unable to communicate with those who believe that the roads are yellow. The roads look so different, the two groups cannot conceive that they they are talking about the same thing.