Betwixt and Between

In my last but one post, ‘Mr. James’ Best Friend’, I commented on the convoluted lengths that materialists, i.e. those who believe in physical existence only , are prepared to go to in order to ‘explain away’ certain phenomena.

This leads me onto another personal gripe. I sometimes get very frustrated with the media for acting as if there are only two camps to choose from e.g. science OR religion; evolution OR creationism etc. etc. Furthermore there is often an assumption that if you ‘believe’ in evolution, you don’t believe in anything but scientific materialism.

Like many people, I think the evidence for the evolution of species is overwhelming. I do however have some questions around the mechanisms by which evolution happens, or the circumstances in which evolution of particular types takes place, (which are all to do with ‘What came first, the chicken or the egg?’ type questions.) For scientists like Richard Dawkins, who wrote ‘The God Delusion’, I am committing the heresy of wondering if the laws of nature are as fixed, and if the universe and evolution are as accidental or as mechanistic as he claims. Of course, if you’ve read my other posts you will know that I don’t think they are. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in evolution.

And I also ‘believe in’ the first chapter of Genesis, but as ‘mythos’ not ‘logos’. Nowadays if we refer to something as a ‘myth’ we are usually saying that it isn’t true, but in fact myths are designed to represent truths which are too deep for individual words, via images and stories. Music can do the same, especially when it comes to demonstrating and representing emotions that are hard to put into words.

As a student of Kabbalah, I take the ‘seven days of creation’ story to represent the creation of the spiritual universe out of the Divine. There is a second creation story in Genesis chapter 2 (starting about half way through verse 4 - the New Jerusalem Bible sets this out very clearly) which represents the creation of the psychological universe (the universe of mind) out of the spiritual. Finally the physical universe comes about in Chapter 3 v.21 when Adam and Eve leave Eden (yet another name for the universe of mind), putting on suits of skin;-  I wrote about this process of universes emerging from one another in ‘A Spiritual Cosmology'.

Only a few hundred years ago, many religious people would have been amazed to learn that vast swathes of Christians in the future would be interpreting Genesis literally, and believe the world was created in 7 days. For a start they would point out that there are, in fact, two creation stories in Genesis, as I have pointed out above. I sometimes wonder if this is why a lot of learned people thought that it would be dangerous to translate the bible into everyday languages that everybody would be able to read for themselves….and start to take literally!

But basically it comes down to the big question which is completely outside of science’s remit (though try telling that to Dawkins or even Stephen Hawking) why is there something, rather than nothing?

Oh,- one last thing... I do tend to grind my teeth when scientists (Freud and Hawking included) announce, as if they know, that there is no life after death, but that some of us are too weak, too afraid of dying to face up to that. I think the possibility that there IS something after death also takes real courage to face.

Which Tribe is Yours?

I’ve written before about three different kinds of people – vegetable, animal, and human, - see 'Vegetable, Animal and Human People' and 'Are you Potentially Human?'

All three are present in most cultures (or collective value systems,) that is, you’ll find examples of vegetable, animal, and human people wherever you are or whenever you are.

There are however some interesting theories about how cultures evolve. It would appear that, over time, if a culture is going to change, it will do so in a certain and predictable way.

The idea of cultures evolving is heavily influenced by the work of Clare Graves, and his successors, such as Don Beck and Chris Cowan(Cowan and Todorovic 2005, Beck and Cowan 1996). Now better known as ‘Spiral Dynamics’, these theories are concerned with the innate values of any collective, and how they develop.  Applying Graves and similar theories, Wilber (2001) suggests the following stages  of development, or evolution:

• Cultures, as we understand them, begin as survivalistic, and are preoccupied all day everyday with the practicalities of staying alive. If these evolve, they will evolve into
• Cultures which have developed magical thinking. These cultures are animistic, and very concerned with ‘kin spirits’. Such cultures ‘have a name for every bend in the river, but not for the river itself’. These tribal cultures develop in turn into  
•  Exploitative power seeking cultures, sometimes known as warrior cultures, as represented in the Iliad and the Odyssey, (but also represented today in street gangs, and several City organisations) in which strength takes priority over justice. These eventually become
•  Law ruled cultures, usually referred to as ‘traditional’, or ‘people of the book’ (the Torah, the Ten Commandments, the Koran for example). In organisations these tend to be bureaucracies which emphasise formal procedures. In turn, these evolve into
• Materialistic and rational cultures, usually referred to as ‘modern’, and ‘achievement orientated’. Empirical science takes pride of place, and there is talk of ‘conquering nature’. These evolve into
• Pluralistic cultures, which are often referred to as ‘postmodern’ and relativistic. Nature is cared for, rather than there to be ‘conquered’. All people are equal and all values are relative.
• Flex-flow cultures, the first stage at which a society or community can appreciate all the stages that it has been through, and what it has gained from each of them, rather than denigrating them as ‘inferior’. This level or stage, and the stages above which will not be referred to here (as being beyond most collectives’ experience at the moment,) are also often referred to as ‘Integral’ or post-post-modern.

Each stage is necessary to the stages that follow, and none can ever be ‘skipped’. A society or community successfully moving from traditional to modern will not abandon the rule of law, but will subject that law to rational analysis before legitimising it.  All stages, even the highest we know of at present, have their weaknesses, dangers and paradoxes, the resolution of which is what usually forces a culture or community on to the next stage (Beck and Cowan 1996, McIntosh 2007).

Research undertaken independently to the work of Graves, Beck or Cowan, and apparently with no knowledge of it, by Ray (Ray and Anderson2000) identified three cultural sub groups within the USA, which Ray called the Traditionals, the Moderns and the Cultural Creatives, with the latter being the last to emerge to a significant degree (in the 1970s.) These three groups correspond with Spiral Dynamics’ traditional, modern and postmodern/pluralist stages.

As I mentioned earlier, vegetable, animal and human people exist at all stages, though a number of human people have come to a sticky end in tribal, warrior and traditional cultures; think crucifixion, shot to death, burned alive etc.

How lucky are those of us who live now and in liberal, democratic regimes??

So, having established if you’re a vegetable, animal or human person, which of these cultures would you most feel at home in? And what culture, overall, do you think you’re actually living in?

There is a really good application of these stages by Paul Smith to religion, specifically the organised Christian Church on the Integral Life site here. I think you could easily apply the same sort of analysis to any organised religion.

Your opinions and thoughts, as always, would be welcome.