What's the Matter with Energy? On which side of the equation (E=mc2) am "I"?

What’s the Matter with Energy?
On which side of the equation (E=mc2) am “I” ?

As is my wont, when I’m trying to understand what I’m reading, I often take up my pen and write to see if I can say it straight for myself. In his books, Mind Into Matter, and Matter Into Feeling, the author, Fred Wolf, a physicist, suggests a model based on physics that can explain spiritual reality. His model may be so odd as to be of small interest to some, but I find it intriguing and helpful, so I thought I’d pass it on.

Take to mind Einstein’s equation, E=mc2, where “e” (energy) and “m” (matter) are interchangeable--”c” meaning velocity. Don’t think of velocity as speed, but rather as a movement either of spreading out or as bunching up. Energy is spread out and matter is bunched up. Nothing is lost or gained in stepping across the centerline of the equation--(the conservation of energy principle).

So just as we say matter is frozen or confined energy, Wolf defines ego as the contraction or reduction of the soul or spirit. As energy is spirit, matter is ego. They are interchangeable. Spirit or soul is spread out, relaxed, a flowing wave pattern. Ego is bunched up, tense, diminished, observable and identifiable by name. As the mystics say it, the duality is illusion. As the physicists say it, looking at Doug’s body from the outside it is matter-energy confined to a boundary (skin membrane). From the inside looking out, my make-up is a jiggling dance of energy seemingly unbounded against the backdrop of a universe of energy waves. The proof of this is that at death, my confinement is released and the illusion of duality is dispersed.
Meanwhile I struggle to understand the equated relationship. My ego says “I” am on the inside with the “m” boundaries of my body; my soul says I am on the “e” side. My ego argues the loudest because it is all tensed up. Without confinement its identity becomes transparent, see-through, so it fights to grasp itself, to tighten hold on its fate. It gets down and dirty to create its illusion of free will. It grasps in order to dominate and live. To it, life is all on one side of the equation. Survival depends on not slipping over into the spirit realm which it sees as its own demise.

As physicists put it, you can not “see” (observe) motion and location simultaneously. As one clarifies, the other gets fuzzy, and vice versa (Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty). In spiritual matters our observers, our egos, can’t see motion (soul matters) and location (physical matters) simultaneously either. So on the pre-Einstein notion that as the photon (energy of light entering the material world) is a particle, so also, ego operates on the basis that, known by sight as Doug’s body, I am material. If I don’t take care of myself, I’ll die. So I spend my time from birth on, finding myself, grasping myself, building and protecting my fortune and fighting off signs of physical deterioration, hoping to live long and happily. Not quite convincing myself, I live with tension, suffering and fear.

You know what I’m talking about. Don’t we all. If I look around me, I see everyone following the pattern (Wolf’s model). Some few among us see the endgame and move to embrace the other side of the equation, and seek to throw light (the photon of spiritual enlightenment) on the mess the supremely-striving egos (the typical political leaders) are making of our world.

My next statement is a bold attempt to apply both science and spirituality to practical politics. As I read Wolf’s book, which is anything but political, I couldn’t help but think of politics in America in the last few years as we face the terrorist issue. I think we can judge our politicians’ wisdom by using Wolf’s model of spirituality. He is a scientist and not a theologian, but I can easily see how the basic notions of the major religions are a good fit with his model. Maybe his insights can help us decide whether to vote neoconservative or progressive. For example, is the Bush doctrine and its implications, or the Baker-Hamilton Study Report and its recommendations the most truly spiritual. I’ll side with those who acknowledge the flow and interchange in the matter-energy equation (diplomacy) rather than with those who confine themselves to the side of (military) self-protection and fear. I want a politics that is energized by spiritual principles and guided by an understanding of the human psyche.

Doug Good

Spinning Dogs: On Understanding Freedom

Spinning Dogs:
On Understanding Freedom

Are you ready for some theological discussion? Do not proceed to read unless you are relaxed and in a mood to put all worldly cares aside.

I’ve been reading again, so I will tip my brimming cup and poor a little theological stew out on the table. I had a sudden insight this morning while tasting from Meister Eckhart. For some time I have been brewing thoughts on the concept of freedom. I have always found it befuddling how we can have individual freedom (God does not pressure us) but are said not to be truly free until we give up our freedom. If we have to give it up to have it, how could we have had it to begin with?

Well, one of Eckhart's themes as a mystic Christian is that we humans are separate from God only in our fallen relationship. That in our creation we are part of, a manifestation of, God. Indeed, Christ sought specifically to bring us back into "union" with God as he was one with God. In other words, we are not only meant to be one with God in spirit, but in our createdness we are one with God. Some express this as, we share in God's divinity. The idea that we are divine, when I first was exposed to it (in Matthew Fox's writing) was rather jarring. It seemed like heresy. But the more I read, and as I understand what the mystics are saying, the more I am attracted to the idea and the more I see of it in the actual texts of the New Testament.

Yet it is at strong odds with the whole theological environment of my upbringing--namely the dualism of God and humans; that God is up there and we are down here; that Jesus bridges the gap but only as our pleader; that we are small and God is big; that we can have eternal solace in God's presence only because He (not she) stooped down and graciously overlooks how weak and fallen we truly are. That I am always to be in utter awe of God in a manner that forever keeps a certain distance between us.

This morning I read where Eckhart brought up the basic freedom problem of how we can be free if freedom is only found in wanting what God wants. And it struck me that the mystics resolve the whole problem by the very fundamental angle of their thought. They say that we are divine and are part of God, just as my children are (bodily) an extension of the real me because they grew from an actual biological part of me (and my wife).

When God created me I was not a separation but an extension. Therefore, my freedom is not a separate freedom that has to be given up--it has no existence of its own--it is none other than God's freedom to begin with, expressed by me. If I try to express it without reference to God, it is a sham expression, a misrepresentation. What I have to give up is not my freedom but my mis-expression of God's freedom found in me. There is no freedom other than God's freedom, so there is nothing to give up. There is only something to realize (though this realization can be spoken of as a giving up, wherein lies the confusion).

A misconstrued view of freedom is like watching a dog forever chasing its tail. You have to give up freedom to gain freedom, but to gain real freedom is to deny you had freedom, and if you didn't have it you couldn't have given it up, and on around you go. In a dualistic theology the dog can not catch its tail. If God had to qualify our freedom in order to retain His/Her freedom, then God's freedom itself is qualified by needing to restrict ours.

Dualism means that our freedom remains outside God's freedom and we aren't free to include it or embrace it or enjoy it without our own freedom being siphoned off. Under dualism we either have our freedom from God, which throws doubt on God's freedom (the freedom to not restrain us), or God has freedom without us, which suggests fraud, arrogance, tyranny and other nasty things.

Some answer this niftily by denying God exists, which uncomplicates the matter quite quickly. In which case we are left with just freedom--our freedom. There is no tail, just a dog; or, if you prefer, no dog, just a tail. But this has its own problems. What kind of freedom is this? A flat-ended dog looks funny and a wagging rump begs for some conclusion. A tail with no head or legs is an even more ridiculous image. A God-truncated freedom is similarly ludicrous, for when divided up among all humans it becomes a wild and ultimately useless thing.

Eckhart's unity theology hit me roundly as an answer to the freedom issue. Instead of denying that God exists, let's say that the division between humans and God is an illusion. This just as quickly dissolves the problem. To want what God wants then is not a betrayal of our own freedom, and God is not irresponsible for letting us sin freely (and we won't if we see ourselves in union with God and in the divine flow of life). If we are part of God our freedom is God's freedom. We don't give anything up and God doesn't withhold anything. The dog does not find the tail curious and the tail fears no chase. This kind of freedom is satisfying--no one loses.

A Play On Words:Critique of Bush's State of Mind

A Play on Words:
Critique of Bush's State of Mind

One half of George W. Bush’s 2007 State of the Union speech on Tuesday was about Iraq and the War on Terror, and it revealed more about the “state of the President’s mind” than the “state of the Union.” Though many folk say American military victory in Iraq is not possible, the President says a “surge“ of effort will do the trick. Let’s leave the “strategy” debate aside for a moment. There are still “conceptual” problems with the President’s attempt to explain his “new approach.”

An effective way to pick up on a speaker’s message is to note certain words he highlights. In his Address, George W. Bush’s favorite words were resolve, victory, and unity. These are common, useful words we all understand. But Bush’s use of them was specialized and off to one side. Here’s what I mean, one at a time.

Resolve seemed to be the keynote of the President’s address. He would have us know that resolve means unwavering support for his program. Resolve will release adrenalin; it is the banner for those who answer the decider’s call. Determination is not strong enough, for with determination part of ones energy is siphoned off by having to watch the sides and the rear. If you choose the winning course, you can count casualties and mourn after the fight is won. If your spirit flags, the enemy wins. So when you find yourself in a tough spot, do a gut check. Instead of counting casualties, proclaim them heroes. If you need numbers, enlist 92,000 more hopeful heroes. Too much measuring and adapting causes sluggishness in response and gives the enemy the wrong message. So put your head down and plow forward. Wrap your cloak about you and accept the risks. Take a deep breath and hold it. Determination is for individual reflection, but resolve will rally a fine looking fighting force. Determinations and findings are for quiet times, resolutions are for getting, by taking the fight to the enemy. Resolves are slogans that cheer and encourage as we march ahead. What we need in a crisis is pumping, not shoring.

Tied in with resolve is another favorite Bush term--victory. We all want victory, but to this President victory is unicolor--red. Victory must be won by military conquest. We have to make a statement, or we will be forever bullied around. What George Bush doesn’t understand is that army bugles have more than one tune. And even if we were to “win” on the Iraq battlefield, victory traditionally is sealed by an agreement between the two sides, a treaty. Treaties are signed by official bodies, representatives of the government, so as to cement the results.

Who is our enemy in Iraq to whom we shall dictate terms? Hussein can’t lift a pen any longer. Al Qaeda is not a nation and does not meet with dignitaries. And who are the insurgents? Besides terrorists from outside the country, they are Iraqi citizens with age old grievances who are at war with each other, with our soldiers caught in the crossfire. Does anyone expect we can dictate to the Shiites and Sunnis how to get along? Who is there to affirm our claim to “victory”? Officially we would only be cheering ourselves--a one-handed clap. It is no longer our fight.

Strategic retreat can be found in any military textbook, but this approach is for the military professionals to regard, or for the wounded and widowed to wish for. Bush is only auditing (by proxy) this war seminar, and he conspicuously declines to visit graveyards or welcome body bags.

So when his military acumen is questioned, even by his generals, he now substitutes , reluctantly, the word “success” for the word victory. Though after this lumbering word is spoken, with a tacit nod to the Congressional appointed Baker-Hamilton bipartisan group, he pushes his vocabulary default button, so we don’t forget that he is the Commander-in-Chief who knows how to save the situation, as if this were the same as saving the nation.

So back to the term victory.

But wait a minute. Before we forget that we are trying to understand the President’s message, we may note that even if success is what the President wants, he can’t just have it. Success is a judgment on a program. That may be why Bush is uncomfortable with the word. Success has staying power. That is why conquests are followed by treaties. In Iraq, according to our President, when we have fulfilled our mission there, we will turn matters over to the new Iraqi government and bow out. “Success” in Iraq will be judged by the Iraqis, not by invading outsiders, and will be defined by historians, not by the news media. Facing a political storm at home and abandonment by some of his own party, we are observing in the “sad state of the union” address, a President falling back on the realization that a military victory is the only thing his job gives him sole control over.

If you rewind the video and listen again to his talk, you may notice that, more than analyzing the state of the union, Bush is telling us what we need and interpreting for us how to look at things, and telling the Iraqis what they must do to fall in line. Father knows best. If you don’t clean your plate you will starve to death, probably before tomorrow. Because his words were not received well by some of his children, in his post-speech comments he has made it more clear. It is his way, or it is disaster.

Again, with his third key word--unity--the President’s lyrics don’t match the song. Including this fine word, unity, in a litany to the nation, would seem appropriate if only the President understood the concept. George Bush has a ”divider’s touch.” His speech was division in action. Congress and the public are at odds with him over Iraq. Bush’s “way forward,” outlined in his speech is staunchly one-sided. Recognizing this, Congress immediately began considering a statement of dissent.

We all want a return to unity--the kind of emotional and spiritual unity we felt as a family in the hours after 9/11. The power of unity is a dynamic; it is cooperative. Unity listens and shares, and becomes a force from within. Leaders don’t create unity, they represent it; they arise from it. George Bush’s Address shows that he doesn’t get it. His lead-in to announcing his “new” military plan was 15 minutes of fear mongering.

His play on fear began after 9/11, when it seemed that we welcomed his leadership from fright. But what actually united us was shared trauma. Fear was an overlay on the trauma. Fear is froth. By contrast, awareness, information, perspective, a grasp of complexities, a re-rooting dispels and moves us out of fear. With his ratings in the polls in the 20’s, Bush is playing the fear card again. He disses Congress’ months of study and investigation, does his own brief “consultations,” and announces his decision.

Leadership is lonely when you have to “wish” for unity. When unity eludes your leadership skills, you fall back on unanimity and mis-label your call, hoping no one will notice the slight-of-word. The trouble is that the decisions have to bring good results in order to be admired (unless, of course, you have agreed ahead of time to lock-step with your Chief.)

Bush’s dilemma is that he is employed as the Administrator in a democracy. Given Bush’s personality and convictions, no wonder we are watching a confrontation between Congress and the Presidency brewing. In a democratic pot, this dilemma is like salt in heating water The President is irritated and is actively making his personal dilemma a national dilemma. Congress and the public be damned.

Bush’s clarion call to the nation on Tuesday may remind us of another President’s famous phrase about “fear.“ Retooled for a different message, it runs, “We have everything to fear, so kick it in gear.”

We don’t need a kick in the pants. We need brains, not balls. Wisdom is not unavailable.

Instead of resolve, victory, and unanimity, we need determination, success, and “real” unity. George W. Bush doesn’t just use the wrong words; he actually says what he thinks. That’s what is scary.
Doug Good

Square Blocks in Round Holes:State of the Union Address, 2007

Square Blocks in Round Holes:
State of the Union Address, 2007

A few hours after listening to President Bush's "State of the Union" speech, an odd juxtaposition of thoughts occurred to me.

On September 11, 2001, the threat of international terrorism came home to us in tragic fashion. With impressive resolve, George W. Bush gathered the strands of fear, and promised the American people he would solve the problem with aggressive action. He sent our military into a "war on terror," to defeat the enemy the way Americans know how--but without success so far.

As I was trying to get to sleep after listening to the President‘s message, the image of my 13 month old grandson came to mind. Wyatt had been given a "learning" toy for Christmas--a plastic tray with different shaped holes cut in it. The challenge was to take similarly shaped inserts and push them through the matching holes. My walking-but-not-yet-talking grandson showed a determination and focus for the task that equals his President's. Wyatt choose a round hole to work on, picked up a square shape and proceeded to try to force the square block through the circle.

The difference between him and the President is that when the one-year-old's solution did not work, he quickly threw that shape aside and tried another one. Wyatt is no dummy. He has only had a few days to explore his options since his initial failure, but I expect he will master the problem within a week or two. George Bush was given his problem over five years ago and is still trying to push his square shape through a round hole. He announced on Tuesday that resolve will bring victory, and asked for additional months of more pushing.

I woke Wednesday morning anxious to see if our "other" leaders will come forward to help the President improve his learning curve. Wyatt, himself, may run for President one day. He already is a step-up on George W. Bush.