Webdillo's Other Dimension

Email Dialogue on God, Faith, the Nature of Evil, and Love

[Excerpted and compiled from email communications
during the Summer of 2000 with my old college friend,
who was living in London at the time.
Neil had recently returned from a few years living in Ghana,
where he had become fascinated with, among other things,
Dawkins' work on "selfish genes."
It inspired a lengthy dialogue on the subject of "god," "faith,"
and the nature of evil.]

-----

Koko writes:

I thought [the tapes I sent you] might inspire you to have some faith in the great plan of the universe! I cannot listen to that music without my heart soaring into the stratosphere and feeling a connection to all that has ever been (lofty stuff, I know!)

My heart sinks at the thought that you don't believe in the "weird shit" anymore. But then I have to think that maybe I am acting a bit like a missionary trying to get you to believe in it (trying to "save your soul" and "bring you out into the light" or something very repressive like that!). I guess that doesn't really work.

And who am I to say what's real and not? It's just that my personal experiences point to the great mystery (in a big way) and I can't imagine finding joy in life if I didn't have this faith. I guess this is the life raft that has spurred a thousand religions into being. And if you feel better for being free of all that, then who am I to say you'd be happier if you had "faith"?

It is an interesting dynamic/conflict that I am not sure how to handle. I'm sorry if maybe I have been too pushy with my world view. I will shut up, if you'd like, and we'll just let the universe speak for itself!

Neil writes:

I absolutely want you to keep me posted about all invisible forces. If nothing else we can have great debates about it now I'm free! My spirit still soars but I don't try to explain that with faded old philosophies. It's important to shake up your mental picture I think. I still believe in the power of love as I suppose it's the only thing that's ever worked for me. I didn't feel the impact of the planetary conjunction in Taurus... was I born at the wrong time? I don't feel any mystical presences at work in my life. And in fact it occurred to me that, on the eve of my birthday, there's nothing worth celebrating...

In a later email, Neil responds to a personal "tragedy" unfolding in Koko's life, and then asks, "does a belief in destiny or a wider plan help you here?"

Koko writes:

You asked if believing in destiny/fate, etc. helps -- absolutely. It is probably the thing that helps the most! Although I would probably call it more like believing in the purpose of the universe or just call it "god" (for lack of a better word for the concept). My experience of a purposeful (loving, even) universe has been what has saved me from ruin on many occasions, and I guess my faith gets stronger every day (as the weight of the weird shit adds up). The whole thing with [my personal "tragedy"] feels like just more of the grand adventure that is this "one precious life". Also, the process of surrendering to the universal plan allows "god" to shoulder some of the pain associated with the experience (and my burden feels lighter). I guess this is faith/trust -- whatever happens is what happens -- ultimately it is not for me to decide. What a relief, on many levels, to just accept what is! So much energy is wasted fighting for something other than what IS - and it may not even be the thing that makes us happy. This is also called "going with the flow;" not that I am an expert in this department, I just think it has its place, especially when dealing with forces much bigger than human/ego will.

Throughout the experience... I was somehow able to recognize what I was going through without getting lost in it. This is something I have been practicing a lot (being present to my feelings rather than being lost in my reactions). So while I was feeling great sadness/anxiety/anger, I was not making that my identity. (I did not need to be any angrier than I actually was so that somehow the universe would get the point, or [the other person] would get the point, or something would change -- the equivalent of a psychic temper tantrum. Again, it is about acceptance of how you feel rather than trying to make yourself something you think you should be in order to get what you (think you) want. This is a pretty subtle but powerful shift.

[Koko then describes a lengthy series of coincidences and synchronicities associated with her current personal "tragedy" and then offers her interpretations of their significance as guideposts]

Neil writes:

I love what you say. I need this kind of spiritual guidance for I have been chucked out of the palace. Cannot find a single patterned thread or symbol in my life, no major themes, some chancy coincidences maybe. Do I have a difficulty with surrender?

[Back onto astrology] I just can't see how the movement of astral bodies could conceivably affect anything in our little part of the Universe. I know that all is one, but I don't see how you get from here to there. Even when I believed most things, I thought astrology was one of the worst possible systems. You can talk about divination reflecting inner symbols and reverberating with your own psyche etc, but that makes the actual divination dispensable and you can just say: "Sit and reflect about the future."

I also have a problem with "going with the flow" as a lot of people I admire patently didn't. I'd prefer not to conform. Whatever the flow is, it has never helped me find success in music or in love. Every small triumph has been won by effort alone. There is no cosmic mind who gives a fuck about my dreams. I've had to take my dreams in hand and try and make something of them. ... There was no flow to go with after a while... All arose out of the blue and from my power and my will.

I was nearly killed in a road accident the other day after having been knocked off my bike but ended up OK. I was ecstatic. It was great to be alive. But I call that chance. Why should I be spared when some poor kid in Africa dies of malaria? it's the most willful vanity to think the cosmic mind cares about what happens to you.

I like what you say about being present to your feelings without being lost in them. It's a nice way to put it. It sounds like a lot of meditation technique. What a lovely thing to work with. I have noticed that my feelings are more controlled than they used to be, something I'm grateful for even if it does betoken some loss of passion.

...These forces are not on my side so I've toughened myself up against them. If the flow might engulf your town, you put up some sea defenses, right? That's reading the runes if not going with the flow exactly.

Koko writes:

Just wanted to let you know that the universe is infinitely more intelligent than we (as egos) are. After all, it is EVERYTHING. Just because something doesn't make sense to people's minds does not mean it doesn't make any sense at all. That's the way I look at it. A lot of human motivation is towards trying to understand the great mystery, but really it's an act of immense hubris to think we might somehow "get it" -- although a great deal of fun to try (sometimes a waste of time/energy, too). I can't really explain my feelings or my experiences or why I believe them. On some level, I don't really want to.

(Attempt at explaining anyway...) here's an analogy for you about "god": it's almost like one of those "magic eye" pictures (remember those from the 80s?) where you look at the picture normally (analytically), with your eyes straining to pick out what the whole thing is about, staring at all the colorful details, but you don't see it...until you relax from trying to see it (and look through it rather than at it). Then it sort of lifts itself out of the chaos and is right there in front of you (although it can look a little patchy and vague, it is nonetheless obvious). While asking all sorts of questions with your head and looking at it in the usual way, you just can't get to it. Like the "magic eye" picture, if you try to hold onto it or look at it straight, it moves away, vanishes. A lot of the "Big Stuff" is that way. And there is nowhere I can point to and say, look there it is! It's everywhere and nowhere.

We are living in a culture which has spent at least the last century developing watertight arguments against it [god/magic], and these are good barriers against the experience of "weird shit" (although you'd probably say with good reason, since it's crap). (Scientifically verifiable) psychological conditioning shows that if we are trained not to see something, we won't (e.g.. actual experiment in the 50s or 60s in which people were shown pictures, some of which were lewd; when later asked to describe the pictures they had seen, none of the "conservative" people remembered seeing any lewd pictures!). That's just the way it is.

If you want to untrain/retrain yourself, it takes quite a bit of effort and faith that it's not a completely crazy (or dangerous) thing to do in the first place. Usually there is no reason to question the training; for the most part, your life goes as planned and reality does not beg to be questioned. However, when you get into a place where nothing in your life is working the way you thought it should (based on the logic of the training), the fabric starts to rip. A side effect of psychological crisis (for me anyway), was that once I got into a psychological place where everything was dangerous (and therefore, on some deep level, nothing was dangerous) I was in a position to be opened up, and to allow myself to see outside of my normal reality.

At the deepest level of being (the state of being in which you give up on ego self-protection mechanisms -- which rarely work the way we intend anyway), the most profound and amazing things can be experienced. A couple years ago, in the midst of my acute fear of death and immersion in complete emotional turmoil, something more powerful than me (but possibly "just" the most wise parts of myself) was able to convey unequivocally in a mind-shattering moment (or series of moments) to me that "I am loved, that everything is as it should be in my life, that there is nothing to fear, and that no matter what happens these things are true and will be true." That's all I can say; it was the truest thing I have ever felt.

Most of my life, there have been endless serendipities/coincidences that make my hair stand on end, I just have to trust that this is all part of the story -- breadcrumbs on a path of destiny. If "god" /"angels"/"my higher self"/"the universe" (whatever it is) is leaving clues, it doesn't really matter to me what the "explanation" is (it would all just be a guess, anyway). I could dismiss it all as just making pictures in the sand for my own entertainment, but when I think about doing that (or remember times I have lived as though that were true), I feel the beauty and "life" begin to drain out of my life. What a drag -- just an empty gray landscape with effort-filled toil ahead. If the jury's still out and it's something to question, I'd rather trip the light fantastic. I guess that could just come down to a personal choice. But I believe there is a larger (unseen) hand at work which is making things "live" (breathes life into everything). One can recognize this or not. One can live "as if" it were true, or not. Sometimes personal experience leaves no room for doubt.

On a finer point, you question the value of "going with the flow." I have to say that this is probably a semantic difficulty. "Going with the flow" does not mean taking the "easiest" path. It is not that simple. What it means to me is taking the path which is your destiny rather than fighting this (destiny meaning "what the universe is asking of you"). Your destiny may be to do a very hard thing.

Have you seen the movie "The Insider"? It's the true story of a tobacco executive who snitches on the industry by telling "60 Minutes" News that the industry knew all along that tobacco was carcinogenic and addictive, and that cigarettes were marketed to maximize addiction and profits. Anyway, in the movie, the exec must decide whether to tell all (and probably lose his family, his home, his money, and maybe his life) or not. All the circumstances (and coincidences) keep putting him in a position in which he is hard pressed to avoid telling, without being henceforth unable to live with himself. He "goes with the flow" by telling all (and loses everything except his self-respect). But he, of course, perhaps saved millions of lives, and led to a government crack-down in this country against the tobacco industry -- all pretty good stuff.

This is what it means to me. Two of my favorite heroes, Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., were both real experts in going with the flow, both heeding the call of their destiny (despite great personal hardship). They both kept finding themselves in positions of leadership or circumstance in which they had influence to do things for the betterment of humanity. They could have said "oh, this is a pain, let someone else do it" or "I think I should stop doing this and try to make a lot of money instead" (or some other well-respected goal), but they didn't. It is a fine line between knowing when to step aside and when to push on. Only your heart can tell you if you're pushing against the flow or if you're going with the flow, and there are necessary obstacles, even when you're on the right path.

In my life, I suspect that when there are a lot of obstacles, and I am no longer learning something new, it's time to do something else. If there are a lot of obstacles, and I am learning something new even as I struggle, I figure it is part of the plan, and I should keep on in the same direction (obviously adjusting my methodology in order to be more effective at overcoming/dodging the obstacles). There is a difference between being stubborn and being persistent comingled with flexibility (one takes a lot of energy -- goes against the internal grain, and the other doesn't -- goes with the internal grain). Save your energy for the times you need to be persistent. Stubbornness is often what lands people with things they thought they wanted, but when they get them, they just feel empty (how did I get here? Mid-life crises and all that).

Another good question you raise is the problem of "pointless suffering." I think it is truly a sad thing when (African) children die, too, especially for want of cheap medicines that are withheld (by capitalist interests) from them (or from other humanly preventable causes). We can all think of a million tragic and terrible things in the world, some of which beg us to drop what we're doing and go out there and make them right. I have no easy answers here, but I don't think it helps the suffering people for you (in a possibly better position) to be miserable, because you don't "deserve" it. The truth is everyone deserves to be happy/healthy. Every single one of us will be born, suffer, die. Some may have a moment of joy, some 10 years, some a month. No-one (except suicides) gets to choose when or how they die. We also don't (in any easily discernible way) get to choose when or how we suffer losses of any kind. Part of the bargain of life is that we do not get to choose (we are not in control to the extent we would like to be). Lives take a million forms.

We can do what we can do and move to help where we are moved to help. If we are able, we can look inside ourselves, and find a way to help ease the suffering of others. Some folks may barely have the energy to help themselves. Each to his own path. My friend (who works as a nurse in the intensive care unit of Oakland Children's Hospital, and sees kids die every week) said she thought that maybe kids who seem to come onto this earth just long enough to get a taste for life and then die young are here to teach others (like their parents, friends, caregivers, etc.) about love. It seems like a cruel way for the universe to teach, but on some level we love things most purely that we can't hold on to; in learning to let go, we truly love with all our hearts. I think you can spend a long time being angry, being sad, not letting things be, but ultimately, in order to be happy (by which I mean be truly alive), part of you has to let go, to love in fullness without holding on.

A lot of suffering can be looked at as a means to learn about letting go. Life can hurt a lot, and much of the suffering doesn't appear to have a reason (or we wonder at a universal plan that would allow these things to happen). But looked at from a perspective beyond the life/death/pain/joy dualities, it can all be part of the journey of learning to love, learning to let go, learning to live. That's the way I look at it, anyway, and trying to have gratitude for the pain and lessons contained within that pain (for it has informed my character).

It's also worth noting that, maybe when we die, we get to join the BIG PARTY (so who's to say that it's not the lucky ones that die -- and the sooner the better), though no one (in their right mind) would put all their eggs in this basket. Essentially, we have no place outside of the experience from which to have perspective (and be in a position to judge with any finality or certainty).

Oh, and astrology, of course...well I wonder at the forces that make the moon slosh the oceans back and forth every day, and the sun storms that black out electricity grids. What else can they do to our water-filled electromagnetic physical selves? That's just two big celestial bodies. The other planets, well...I don't know. I find astrology often uncanny, but then, maybe it's because of the ability of the human mind to locate patterns in a chaotic field. That is a psychological phenomenon that applies to a lot of things. I'm not so sure astrology is any better for divination than a lot of other divination practices. Most forms of divination are interesting (and even sometimes useful) at clarifying or making visible hidden patterns. Perhaps they are signs from the universe, perhaps they are our higher powers tapping into the already known (but forgotten/veiled), perhaps they are nonsense but they help us think more clearly. It may not ultimately matter. As far as astrological birth charts go, I think they are excellent tools for exploring personal psychology. I find my own chart extremely illuminating (and many of the charts of people I know well, also enlightening). But maybe we're all essentially the same, only with tendencies and potentialities which vary, and any other chart would be equally applicable, and more so, the longer one communed with it...

Neil writes:

Thanks for your latest polemic. I seriously love them because maybe the regular dose of your ideas can get me to my retraining point. It's keeping very cosmic ideas alive in my mind because someone as intelligent and perceptive as you is a believer. I want to trip the light fantastic as much as you, believe me. Your Magic Eye metaphor was really great. Your thoughts about human suffering and letting go are worth printing to a wider audience than me, and I'm gonna print and ponder a lot of what you said.

You have indicated that it's more fun to believe than not to, that the mere act of placing your faith in the Big Stuff adds some kind of sheen to your life. To feel sure of vast impersonal forces is somehow comforting. I get my version from the sea, stars and thinking about aeons of geological time, the process of atoms, etc. It is calming.

But you want to go a step further and say that it's "intelligent", that "I am loved and everything is as it should be." Now there's the rub. My point about malaria victims was not that we should feel guilty, but what loving intelligence could have malaria as part of its plan? And aren't we just sacrificing intellectual honesty for comfort when we say from our soft sofas that it's all as it's meant to be? It's only that old chestnut, the Problem of Evil. It does allow the possibility that cosmic forces are malevolent if you look at all the darkness stalking the Earth. Or at best impersonal. And if so, what is there to get excited about? If there's no One to talk to, to commune with, to love us from a cosmic height, then it is precisely the same kind of "worship" as gazing at the stars or the sea with awe and nothing more!

Suffering may have a point, as you say, but so much suffering? Bubonic Plague in the 1300s? I don't need to list all the examples. I know mothers would love their children just as much if they hadn't been made blind by ringworm. In "Brothers Karamazov", one of the characters puts together an example like this about a suffering child and asks "where is God?" in the scenario. His brother, the believer replies something like "God is the child." It's irreconcilable and perhaps just a matter of perception? How happy can you be with a Plan that includes Auschwitz?

I have to mention the pop psychology point of view that we should kind of choose from a menu of beliefs those which work for us and make us happy. I think this is the same as the gas guzzling head of a "monsternational" (in Ruary's great phrase) who says there is no environmental crisis looming. After all, it makes him feel bad and threatens to upset his world view. So he goes for the good feeling. We all have cherished world views but part of the way to revitalise is to always have them up for scrutiny and revision by the best light that's available for us. That's not hubris, by the way, but a certain childlike curiosity crossed with the need to explore and to understand. The point is that blind faith can be precisely that, closing your eyes to a reality that can be grey at times.

I see what you mean about "going with the flow". It's only a semantic confusion. I prefer to see Ghandi and (to be different) the original Martin Luther and all the movers and shakers as going against the flow, a bit like the narrow way, while the multitudes flow along oblivious, moving to the most popular tune of the day. All of these people had to stand up and say "No." Which is the only freedom we've got.

Koko writes:

I think this is so fun having an ongoing debate (what else was learning all that philosophy department rhetoric at St. Andrews for, anyway?). I appreciate the opportunity to be challenged in my belief system. After all, if it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny, what is it good for? And when you need it the most (in times of crisis), it will be subjected to extreme scrutiny, so it would be nice if it could hold up... Which is to say, it's all good stuff having you challenge it.

When I first get your e-mails I nearly always feel a bit disappointed (I guess I want you to just go "oh, of course you're right, I've changed my mind"), but then I start to ponder what you're saying over the next few days ("what does that entail? how does that fit into it all? how can that make sense?" etc.), and then as the week goes on, I find myself reading magazine articles, hearing radio snippets, engaged in conversations with other people -- which are directly synchronistically relevant to the questions you raise. The answers form out of the void, and then I know what I have to tell you next.

So, here goes with the next installment of thoughts:

I had a long talk with K [who has been deemed "schizophrenic" by scientists] the other night. He is definitely wacked but at the same time strangely tuned in (exhibiting total psychic episodes on several occasions). To make a long story short -- he is currently convinced that he is Jesus. He also thinks he is Lord Brahma. And Satan. And Lord Shiva. And also Christ (who is emphatically different from Jesus). As I was trying to understand where he was coming from, we discussed the nature of god ("gods" in this case), and since he believes he is many of the "gods", I was trying to get his perspective on what the differences were between them (or find out if they were the many faces of the same being) or something else entirely. Well, since he is mostly non-linear in his head, it took a good hour to get a handle on the situation, during which time it occurred to me that, the way in which The Problem of Evil can be reconciled depends on from what perspective you are seeing god (and everything): as a unity, a duality, a trinity, something else (a multitude), or totally non-purposeful. As this is an intuitive concept rather than a "fact," it probably isn't all that obvious what I mean by that. So, here's my best attempt at explaining (and also a collection of other thoughts which attached themselves along the way):

(A)

The universe as a "non purposeful multitude" theory (i.e. "something funny is definitely not going on; there is some "rational" explanation for anything strange that does happen; and the universe is made up of interacting parts -- a multitude). This is pretty much the scientific world view. In this theory, evil is just the way some people/situations/things are, and there is nothing of a higher order operating in the equation which has any control over the evil or good which occurs.

Well I think weird shit (as in non-explainable, non-rational, often a cosmic joke-like process) has been happening for too long to too many people for that to be the case. In order to believe that everything has a (possible) rational explanation, one would have to discount all contrary evidence of what continuously arises. While for a long time "science" has attempted to dismiss everything that it didn't like (or didn't fit with its theories) as "noise" or "inconclusive" or "warrants further study" the evidence in many areas of scientific study is starting to point towards weirder and weirder shit. And science is starting to notice realms beyond rational understanding, it is as yet unable to truly embrace these areas. Take theoretical physics, or probability theory, or medicine and the nature of healing, etc. and all around is all this strange and amazing "evidence" creeping into things -- making many loftily held viewpoints start to look shaky.

Now what are we going to do with a universe in which particles that were once joined and then split and moved far apart change their direction to match the spin of their partner -- no matter how far apart they are? What about a world in which placebos are extremely effective medicines (if not more effective than chemicals)? Microwaves that travel faster than the speed of light? Spontaneous overnight remissions of highly progressed terminal illnesses? Shamans who are told by plants what their medicinal properties are and how to prepare them (and they work!)? A universe in which watches stop ticking at the moment their wearer dies? And a million other strange happenings. I think we can say "anecdotal" or "the jury's still out (and in the mean time we're going to go on to something completely different)" till the cows come home, but science needs to be able to explain these things, rather than just brushing them aside.

Science is the religion of our time. I think there's something a bit funny about scientific views which perpetuate the notion that human beings are innately evil (this sounds suspiciously like original sin). And the persecution in academia of anyone who questions the scientific method (considered "quacks" or "idiots" (blasphemers/heathens?).

It worries me that many present day scientists are doing experiments which rest on the theories of earlier scientists, and their experiments were based on someone else's work before them, ad infinitum, and then, well - let's hope "Mr. Joe Scientist" really got it right back in 1794, because now you'd have to go back and start from scratch just to test all the theories and "proofs" that got us up to 2000 in order to really know yourself if what you'd demonstrated was really true (rather than taking it on blind faith that the high school science textbook was right). Well no one has enough time to check that stuff out in one lifetime, especially when they're busy trying to win a prize as Most Clever Of All, or get a research grant, or make a million on a patent. I have some difficulty trusting a lot of conventional science, mainly because it is outside my own realm of experience (I mean chemistry formulas don't just pop into my head). I know people make mistakes, or draw the wrong conclusions all the time -- it's observable on a daily basis. You really do have to have a lot of faith that what They are saying is true. I am not qualified to learn whether carbon dating or the red shift really works the way they say it does -- it seems very non-intuitive, even after a lot of science education.

Again it's humans trying to make sense of things much bigger than they are (3 blind men and an elephant parable). It's a really important psychological process which is so hard to look at objectively -- how can you be objective about how you are objective? Is it even possible?. Well, this isn't to say that nature in all its evolutionary based splendor isn't an absolute wonder to behold -- truly amazing things going on, that's for sure. I just think there's more to it than a lot of reductionist, mechanistic, predictable processes. You can "see" the trunk (or the foot) (or the tail) and really think you know how it is. But the universe is larger than each of those, even each of those taken together -- it is "the whole thing" (more than the sum of its parts) -- systems theory tell us so, after all.

And maybe there is a more objective way of knowing things than picking the universe apart and laying it all out 'til we lose track of what we're doing. I love the human genome project (now we know how many holes -- base pairs -- it takes to fill the Albert Hall), but we still can't find it in our HEARTS to make medicines available at a cost sick people can afford (or even give them away) -- just because it sucks to let people die for no good reason (now they're patenting parts of the human genetic code -- how arrogant, really). There's something a bit flawed in this whole impersonal world view.

I don't doubt that there are many individual scientists actually working honestly on truth for the betterment of humanity, I just have a deep mistrust of the science machine as a whole. Another point is that I think a lot of processes (which are real) cannot be reproduced and tested artificially, and a lot of processes which we think we ARE able to measure scientifically are actually being measured in poorly controlled experiments (there are more variables than the human mind can fathom, as chaos theory attests); we use statistics to get around these infinite variables -- but, as I know from doing basic statistical data analysis in psychological research -- statistics can be used very creatively as a tool to promote your preferred point of view. There is a great little book called "How to Lie with Statistics" -- it's a real eye opener!

And lastly, the reality science reveals is preconditioned by the questions that scientists ask, as selected from the infinite number of possible questions by the minds that cultivate scientific reality. The mind is a filter. Most events in nature are non-linear. Science (except chaos theory), evaluates linear events.

End of "science doesn't explain it very well" thoughts for now.

(B)

The universe as a Multitude with purpose - In this scenario there is a god for everything (the god of war, the god of love, the goddess of the hunt, the god of fruit baskets, etc.). Theoretically there would be good gods and bad gods, some working for love, some working for destructive ends (ensuring evil in the world), some working to ensure that fruit baskets were placed on every altar, etc.)

I think this is unlikely due to the fact that it is too complicated. I think that whatever the truth is, it is simple (this is my personal bias) although not necessarily comprehensible in its simplicity. I also feel that this theory can be further reduced to a unity, duality, or trinity theory (see below) without losing much meaning, so I don't particularly go for it, although I know lots of religions do.

And what would gods be but values and forms of consciousness?

(C)

The universe as a Trinity with purpose - this scenario is one in which you have god (good, loving), you have a dark force (to simplify, I'll call it "Lucifer"), and then a third force I'll call "annihilation" or "chaos." The difference between Lucifer and annihilation is that Lucifer-like evil can be redeemed and annihilation cannot. Annihilation is impersonal (such as illness, natural disaster -- kind of a random, out-of-control force which strikes without rhyme or reason). In contrast, the dark force idea is based on the Lucifer archetype in which God's favorite archangel has a moment of hubris and is tossed out of Heaven (forsaken by God) for all eternity and then gets all sick and twisted, enacting all sorts of evil stuff (but basically just needing a whole lotta love).

In this scenario, the Lucifer dark force is involved in most human-induced or intentional/non-random evil. The idea is that every person enters the world innocently -- and then through experiences or as a result of mistreatment from others, somehow learns to be evil (as a defense mechanism or just a general messed-upness). People do evil things because they feel (at a spiritual level) abandoned by god (sinned against/not protected from harm), and although they frequently have no knowledge of this process, give themselves over to the dark force. This is the force operating in such evils as war (righting perceived wrongs by destructive means), abuse (making yourself feel big when you feel small), greed (taking and keeping your share because you believe "no one ever helped you and they never will").

That people learn immoral or otherwise "evil behavior" (rather than being born evil) is a theory which is supported by much psychological research, but it doesn't need to be true for this idea to be supported. People could just be corrupted at any time by the dark force. In the trinity scenario, evil happens either randomly/impersonally (from the force of annihilation) or under the influence of an archetypal spiritual woundedness.

I'm intrigued by the trinity idea (as the two types of "evil"/"darkness" do seem to operate in different ways), but I think the main problem is that it seems to invite further division and fragmentation into further categorizations (and more forces/gods, etc.) and then we'd be back at the purposeful multitude theory.

Another trinity theory is the pagan goddess as virgin/mother/crone idea. Here "evil" is the crone aspect. All a necessary part of life, according to that idea -- all a cycling of coming into being, producing, and dying/being fed upon by things coming into being or power. I agree with it being reflective of the life cycle, but find the division (into these particular three) a human conception (and it invites division along other lines depending on your ideas), so just one of many possible truths, but not essentially "The Truth" (if one exists).

For any of the trinity scenarios to function, God cannot be omnipotent (or he'd easily eliminate the darker forces as being antithetical to a loving universe) -- he is just one of three powerful forces. It is a false assertion that, in order to be god, you must be all-powerful; that's just a story human's came up with -- and is not a logical requirement -- God can be extremely powerful without being all-powerful.

(D)

The universe as a Duality of Mutual Arising - this is one in which there is a loving (good) god and there is just one (large) separate dark force (call it evil, entropy, annihilation, etc.). So while god may be good/loving/etc., his/its power is limited (and balanced by) equally strong forces of bad/evil -- and theirs is a cosmic power struggle. In some ways this is very interesting -- life would not be palpable (nor could it be perceived) without its contrasts. The existence of dualities creates relief (as in 3-dimensionality).

In this scenario, existence is inspired by contrasts (life is more beautiful for its pain, peace is more peaceful because of war, light is lighter for the darkness, life is more precious for death, etc.). Evil arises as a background on which good is perceived (and vice versa). Again you'd have to accept the premise that god is not omnipotent and/or all-loving (and able to wipe evil right off the map in a second if he so chose...or create a universe in which all beings just really got off on good stuff without needing any contrasts -- like Heaven, but for everyone all the time).

I don't know if I subscribe to this view - as I have experienced my own personal involvement with the "dark forces" as a "turning away from god" rather than a movement towards something else equally tangible. It felt to me more like living in a wasteland empty of god rather than living in "Satan's playground."

I'm sure you remember my thing with the obelisk (I still have your painting [of the witchy woman pursued by the obelisk], by the way -- which in and of itself was some weird shit, as I'm sure you recall). While the obelisk felt like a dark annihilating force at the time, I now think it's existence depended entirely on the strength of my fears and dark thoughts (and my failure at the time to just stare it in the face or surrender to "is-ness"). I tend to look at it as a test from the universe (to make me stronger) rather than a force in the universe trying to destroy me or use me for its own dark ends. But that's just my perception.

Now, if I were to have a personal experience in which I encountered Satan (or his representative on earth...) I'd be in a better position to appreciate the universe as a duality.

(E)

The universe as a Unity -- I won't even go into the possibility of a loving god who is punishing us for our (original) sin and will stop doing it in the end times. It just doesn't fit with a loving god (and if god isn't loving, why call it god -- let's just call it a big crap in the sky, and stop making all this fuss!). What I think of as the universe as unity is -- all is one; evil is at best an illusion, at worst, a necessary part of existence. Time as we know it is an illusion. Space as we know it is an illusion. Separateness as we know it is an illusion. This stuff resonates with me (a lot). I imagine we are all part of (or wholly) god playing with him/its Self. A great cosmic textural exploration of self-ness.

In such a conception, where does evil enter the picture? Well, there are at least four (probably a lot more) plausible scenarios to explain evil with the unity viewpoint:

(1) The Self-Improvement God: god with a personality/mood disorder -- god is made up of all sorts of different forces and internal conflicts, in need of some therapy, but basically loving (but working on getting to The Big Love). He's playing out all his/its "issues" throughout the universe, with evil being the necessary result of expressing those cosmic conflicted parts, love being the high states of being. The idea being that god is working on itself through its creation and is learning to love more and more (through participating in life as a multitude of beings in the world). It is learning about love/transcendence/surrender by being exposed to suffering, loss, infinite learning experiences, and getting to know love in all its manifestations. In this scenario, evil is the teaching god gives itself, and therefore essential to the Plan to get to The Big Love. The universe is on a mission to be ever more loving, but it's not all the way there yet. Hence -- we are all here as part of the big plan to learn something important about love (and discover our own true nature).

(2) The much more intelligent God: the second plausible explanation of evil in the unity universe is that god is omnipotent and all loving but his Plan is too long and vast for us (small pin-headed Earthlings) to ever really grasp the point (it's just beyond our understanding) -- although we can see parts of the plan in action, other things (like Auschwitz) will just leave us completely baffled. We have no external perspective from which to judge whether something is good or evil.

This brings to mind the Taoist principle of "neither good nor bad" which goes something like: "the farmer has to plow his field by hand, because he is too poor to afford an ox (bad), one day his neighbor gives him an ox (good), he is plowing his field with his son and the son gets trampled by the ox and loses a leg (bad), a war breaks out and the army comes to take all able bodied men to war, but the man's son does not have to go because he is lame (good), while the war rages on, an epidemic comes to the town, and the son dies of cholera (bad), and on and on..." All of this illustrates the point that there is no way to judge. It's the "blessing in disguise" idea. A silver lining behind every gray cloud -- just keep looking for it and you'll find it. While I think I can look at something terribly tragic and say I don't see anything good in it, it's really fundamentally impossible for me to know what the higher purpose is (because I am not god).

Also, because I am outside of the experience, I am not in a position to judge. I think a lot of times we think we know how it must feel to experience the pain someone else is going through, but another parable comes to mind -- I think it was a Greek myth -- something to do with after death everybody goes to have their heart weighed and no one wants to exchange his suffering for the suffering of another person. I think this has something to do with somehow everyone's pain is his own, and therefore comfortable on SOME level. That perhaps everyone suffers in his own way, and we should not be so quick to think we've gotten off light, or had it hard. This takes a higher post-death perspective, of course, but it may say something useful about suffering (even if it's just a mythic concept).

(3) The Hole in the Hairy Ball Theorem: the third plausible explanation of evil comes straight from one of the postulates of the great tripping metaphor and states "no matter how you try to comb the hairs on a hairy ball parallel, there will always be a point where they are not parallel." What this means is that imperfection is necessary for everything to be perfect. It's a hard concept to get intellectually, but can be sensed intuitively.

The Hopi Indians always left an imperfection in everything they created, both to humble themselves before god, the master creator, and as a portal to allow spirit to enter into the creation. Consciousness makes itself "solid" by entering into being through the imperfections, and there you have the universe -- perfect as it can be (and still BE)!

Evil then is all the holes in every big and little hairy ball which makes up this extremely fractal universe and allow it to actually come "alive" into being.

(4) The fourth plausible answer is that evil does not exist. It is simply a human construct based on our own wishes and fears, and the dualistic thought processes which allow us to have thoughts about, speak about, and otherwise interact with the universe as "other." If the universe is "us" and not "other", then who is to say what is good/bad? When you see a starving cheetah hunt down an young gazelle -- who are you rooting for? The cheetah needs to eat in order to live, the young gazelle needs to not be eaten in order to live. Well if we're both the cheetah and the gazelle -- it's all fine. This view looks at the universe as involved in a game in love with itself. Everything is all just another story in the grand adventure. Almost Life is But a Dream...everybody knows when you have a nightmare -- it's just a dream -- and eventually you wake up again or have another dream -- sometimes it's even pretty thrilling to have nightmares -- despite being full of evils and fears! Scary in its implications, but possibly the way it is.

Recently I was reading some writing by a Native American guy, Vine Deloria, talking about the Great Mystery and the Native American viewpoint. His take was that there was no particular "god" per say, but that everything was alive with "spirit" (even down to the most "inanimate" rock or speck of dirt). Everything in the universe was participating in a great dance. And the universe was constantly creating itself -- it is no particular way at any given time -- it's always at the edge of happening. The purpose of our lives as participating beings was to listen to the other participants, in order to learn our part -- then to play our part by being in the right place at the right time. Who can say -- what will your part be today?

While I don't have an exact answer on what it's all about, I definitely disagree that it's not about anything. I would accept the alternate premise that we (as conscious beings) are amazingly more powerful/wise than "conventional" wisdom holds, and WE are actually doing all the things that we are attributing to god. It is possible that our consciousness is influencing the universe directly. And that maybe we're the big trip, and not god. But then this is such a fine semantic point. God in man's image or man in god's image -- after all who's reflecting who? And does it really matter if they are so connected as to be indistinguishable? I guess this would be the theory of a "Higher Self" -- one that knows a lot more than we think we know, and is more capable than we think we are. When I think about my own experiences, it doesn't really matter whether it's me being really trippy or god being really trippy -- because it just IS really trippy. Who's doing what seems virtually irrelevant.

About "pop psychology" and "choosing from a menu of ideas which make you happy" - I'd have to say that this is what people do all the time; whatever they think they're doing otherwise is most definitely illusory. Every moment of every day we are making choices to see what we want to see -- weeding from our experiences those things which we don't want to carry with us. This is how you operate in a world of a trillion stimuli per second. People have never been particularly advanced in their abilities to see their blind spots, therefore blind faith is just a HUGE issue, not just about god or the universe, but about everything we consider to be the truth. When you look at what you believe to be solid matter up close (with an electron microscope), there's nothing there -- just absolutely minuscule particles very far apart -- well we wholeheartedly believe that stuff is solid -- why? Perhaps merely blind faith.

Basically we are all discarding the information which threatens to shatter our cherished world views (whatever they may be). While this does not always prevent contrary evidence from seeping in (when our guard is down or when it's just extraordinarily obvious and in our faces), mostly we're pretty good at keeping most of the world-rocking threatening stuff out (how much tolerance you have for threatening stuff can be increased with practice at staying open, but it's rarely a completely open floodgate to reality).

While I think it's important to make the hard decisions, be self-sacrificing as required, try to be as ethical as you can, I think it's important to consider the possibility that people who do this are doing it because it makes them happy (is part of a cherished world view in which this is appropriate or desirable behavior)!

I think that the basic human drive (or the drive of all life forms for that matter) is towards "happiness" (choose life!), whatever a person's definition of that is. Being a suburban housewife or third world dictator makes some people happy (or as happy as they yet know how to be); being an environmental activist or new age traveler makes other people happy; even being a heroin addict makes some people happy (or is their attempt at choosing "life") -- and if they knew a better way to be happy, or could get to a better way, then, by god, they'd do it! I think most people really believe that they are doing the best they can in the situations they are in -- and just cannot see their way to something else (until they DO see it). And no matter how obvious I think their "problem" is and its solution -- they truly may be unable to see it (innocent). Maybe everyone really is trying their best, given what they've got (inside and out), and people are facing up to reality just as much as they are able, given the fragility of their psyches and the enormity of their deepest and darkest fears. Evil as merely ignorance of a better way is something to consider.

Another point is that, in this Post Modern age, it is extremely difficult to not operate in a manner which tries to integrate (pick and choose). Because of the ease of world travel, the internet, and TV, for the first time in human history, the average person truly has at least a hope of access to the beliefs, world views, theories, and ideas of most cultural and societal systems that are currently in existence and those recorded and preserved from the past. The days of isolation and ignorance about the existence of very diverse viewpoints are definitely numbered. Which viewpoints get attention is still up for grabs, but there's no denying the existence of other viewpoints.

People are now starting to see more and more that, no matter what they believe, some other cultural group believes wholeheartedly something entirely different. People naturally veer towards trying to make sense of conflicting evidence, by integrating things that make sense to them, and throwing away things that don't. They will do this at a level which is (to the best of their ability) non-threatening to them, but they will do this nonetheless. Holding tight to the one theory that has held your society together for eons, can't work in the face of the invasion of new ideas and perspectives (for better or worse). I generally think it is a healthy thing (for the individual and for the world) that a lot of people are trying to be open to the ideas of other world views (rather than veering towards the traditional path of colonialism -- civilize those savages -- "if they don't believe what we do, they must be wrong").

And you never know -- maybe each cultural group (or each one of us) actually has one piece of the big puzzle -- and the universe is waiting for us to get the whole team together and put the pieces together (who knows what might then be possible)!

Well... I can't continue to devote every week to presenting my thesis on the existence of strange forces in the universe. All I'm saying is just keep yourself open to that little something strange and well... you just never know, it might just sneak out from deep inside you (or from wherever it is at the time)!

Neil writes:

Er, I'll need some time to digest all this. I'll check it out a lot over the weekend. I'm enjoying the conferencing/arguing/communing too... I'm going to India for a month and taking my book on Hinduism with me. Would love to be part of a really spiritual Universe obviously, and maybe can rediscover something.

A lot of what you say seems wonderful after a first reading, ...and a lot more convincing than astrology! Sorry to single that out, but it's by far the weakest candidate and I'm convinced it's a sentimental attachment or "crutch" for you! Theism and pantheism, by contrast, could hold water and I hope so!

[After a month in India, Neil writes again]

Apart from having a wonderful time in India, I saw it as a God-given (sic?) opportunity to think about spiritual things again. I took your last long e-mail and read it through many times. I like your idea of one Being who hasn't sorted His/Her/Its shit out yet! I can't exactly visualise it as anything I'd recognise as a "being" because it has no analogous counterpart in experience, but I have thought a lot about the unity (or triadicity) of all things and the chaos, probably fractal, which I prefer to the idea of a Plan. (But it's all just ideas, isn't it?) I just don't see any Plan at all no matter how hard I try or how hard I still my mind and just look. Particles spinning in sync is something weird about them, just the way they behave.

There's no logical way to leap from there to a Plan rather than to a chaotic weather-like system. The Universe or the Power that Is clearly operates without any regard to human intentions or even evolutionary progress (witness the periodic catastrophes when meteors hit the Earth or supervolcanoes/fissures go off, the best evidence for randomness.) But I think there's a spiritual response to this process, and I think that Buddhism is a good one. I've been reading a lot about it and have started meditating just to clear my mind for 20 minutes every day when I get up. I've also made a little "shrine" with Buddha and Shiva artifacts from India and my Minoan double axe with the Goddess on a seal. I want to use these ideas as symbols, but I have no illusions that they are anything other than that. But the main thing is that I want to create sacred space in my life just to see what happens.

I don't think the central questions are abstract, metaphysical ones but rather everyday and immediate viz how to deal with the suffering caused by the action of (beautiful, fractal at best, ugly and cruel at worst, but these are just conditioned responses) CHAOS. But please bear with me; I've been doing so much reading along Buddhist lines that at the moment I fear I'm suffering from indoctrination and may just be repeating what I've read! My ideas (for what they're worth) will crystallise in time. I like Joseph Campbell's idea (in The Power of Myth) that God cannot be conceived or described by human language. Krishnamurti also echoes this. Whenever he refers to it, he always says "God, love, Spirit or whatever it is" or something along those lines. Of course he's only being dismissive of the powers of human language and has plenty of reverence for, well, whatever it is. Even chaos can inspire awe and reverence.

I hope that this will convince you that all your efforts have brought a positive response! I don't think I will ever, ever believe in a cosmic Plan.

Koko writes:

I've been feeling some dread at receiving your next email, mostly because I keep feeling responsible for explaining the motivations and manifestations of "god" (for example, somehow explain [mutual friend] J's tragedy); this thing should really be between you and "god" and I'm not feeling so good about being in the middle of it. Although I am glad if you are feeling like you're getting somewhere with it, I'm not sure I feel good about my role in it.

I have my own truth, but that's just it ("my" truth). All I have to go on is my sense of it, based on my own experiences, and I can only share this with you (not give you the faith/conviction). All I know is that despite difficult things in my life (in fact, most acutely during the lowest points), I have felt a strong presence which words and rationality are mostly meaningless to describe. This presence, in fact, has saved my life in many different ways, for which I am grateful. This presence communicates in some very odd ways (using symbols, coincidence, synchronicity, voices, other people as messengers, etc.) which makes me think that something truly extraordinary is going on (miracles). Now just WHERE this is coming from is beyond me to explain. The fact that it occurs, is "The Truth" to me. While an external observer could probably rationalize/analyze it and reduce it all to something insignificant (and reach a conclusion that it therefore didn't exist for them), there is nothing that would change the reality of these most important experiences (for me) -- except maybe amnesia. What one calls it, where it comes from, how it operates, how large it is (and what it encompasses), while intriguing to try to discover, are essentially just human language and concepts dancing around it anyway (as many have said).

I don't really understand what you mean by a "Plan" (and not believing in it); I can only guess that a "Plan" has to do with something like "making sense" or "going somewhere." I don't know about this (no blueprints available on this computer terminal). Things often don't make sense to me in other people's lives -- for example J's tragedies seem unfairly frequent and catastrophic, as have the many tragedies in M's life, and a thousand stories on the evening news). However, I feel very strongly that my own life is operating on a plan (and for many many years during the depths of crisis I was truly lost about this). But as I have had to struggle for my self/life/health, it has become more and more obvious to me that the pain in my life (yes, most especially the pain) has always been there to teach me about love, freedom, peace, truth and beauty (the old faves). And I don't say this lightly (as some great past pains are still around, and I have fear about suffering future pains, which I know are inevitable); it's just that on some level (where "god" is moving), this pain is acceptable and honored as part of a higher (spiritual) process.

Which is NOT to say that telling other people this (in the midst of blindingly painful experiences) is at all helpful to them. It is the sort of thing you come to yourself on no particular time table (and god knows, people come to a million OTHER conclusions as well). And many do NOT conclude that god loves them and that their life's pain helps them in any way. And I do not pretend that if something truly awful (the full and total realization of my worst nightmares -- such as apocalypse) came to pass, I would somehow know/remember or care about this at the time. I know sometimes it all just slips out of view, like the Grateful Dead said: "sometimes the light's all shining on you; other times you can barely see." I just hope I remember, or something eventually happens to remind me of the light when I'm in the dark.

I strongly doubt the "Plan" (if it exists) regards humans as somehow superior to anything else or that it values physical life above death, or emotional joy above pain -- my sense is that, if there is a "Plan," everything in the universe is involved in it ALL (people's lives are just one texture in the big trip). Volcanoes and meteorites, too.

I'm thinking that maybe it's best not to try to rationalize/debate, etc. with you too much because (1) it makes me feel bad on a certain level and (2) it will be obvious when you most need it anyway and (3) if it's not obvious when you most need it, something else will be obvious ("whatever gets you through the night"), and I believe that's just "god" working in whatever form that you understand, recognize, and can appreciate at the time.

I have been a little caught up in the idea that somehow I can just give other people an "answer," and their suffering will end. But this doesn't really give enough space for other people's "process" and sets me up (falsely) as some sort of authority on matters which are not mine to explain. Everyone seems to be on a different road (perhaps going to the same place, perhaps not), and the landmarks and pace are different for everyone. I guess my true intention was just to tell you to keep your eyes (and heart) as open as possible, but I ended up getting really tripped out on explaining my own trip. I remember you tripping (ha! ha!) and I won't let you forget (even if you read Dawkins every day). Oh what a pain I am...please forgive me.

I'm glad to hear that your trip to India was amazing and that you are meditating daily. It's all good!

More god-awful advice for you: sometimes a sacred space can best be created with things that are truly meaningful in our own lives. I have many little "altar" places set up in the apartment, and the things on them are all imbued with precious memories (a stone collected on a walk which makes me think of a special moment), or the energies of people I care about (a glow-in-the-dark plastic frog from my friend). These are objects which have the power to transport me to something magical (let's here it for "power objects"). So in addition to (meaningful) religious icons (or instead of them, even), I'd suggest maybe adding some more personally symbolic things to your altar.

Neil writes:

Thanks for your great e-mail. (and all of them) All your advice has been really helpful, Koko, in getting my thought processes moving in the right kind of direction. When you're out of touch (as I've been feeling this year) it's wonderful to talk to someone who isn't. And you always pepper your words with great classic rock quotes which are really obscurist these days. "Whatever gets you through the night!" I love it.

Apart from everything, it's been a stimulating mental game and much more searching than any book or programme on religion. You express yourself so well! I've kept many of your mails for inspiration at later dates. I like what you said about the discovery process, and about unusual icons. Your latest one is your best.

Remember that the whole point of all this train of thought has been because I still have those spiritual feelings you talk about! I'm just so selfish, I periodically fail to deal with the pain of isolation... The pain I feel is equal in intensity to any spiritual comfort I can get from spiritual experiences. That's why I'm trying to find out more about Buddhist practice because it all revolves around dealing with suffering. "Get that blasted ego, get it off your back." So nothing new there then.