Spirit is an infinite dispersion across infinite time and space, the vibrations of nothingness.
Soul is the reflection of spirit at nodes of time.
Matter is the reflection of Spirit at nodes of space.
Self is the reflection of the one Soul in Matter.
These are the four definitions that are the focus of "The Spiritual Universe" by Fred Alan Wolf. Wolf explores concepts from ancient Western philosophy to Eastern religious thought. These explorations are viewed through a framework of modern physics to produce connections and support for his particular brand of Idealistic Realism. Idealistic in the sense that the Universe is fundamentally Spirit, but Realistic in the sense that this underlying Spirit reveals itself in the physical laws, particles and relationships we have only begun to understand with the dawn of modern physics.
From Wolf's perspective, Spirit inhabits the underlying void or nothingness. It is infinitely potential. It knows no bounds. However, this infinite nothingness reflects itself into the one Soul and into Matter. The dual reflection into time and space is instantiated most specifically into the Self of a living being.
Some of his more interesting insights are in the area of communication between Soul and Self. He explicitly rejects the notion of multiple Souls. There is only one Soul. This one Soul reflects into an infinite number of Selves. It is Self that is multiple, not Soul. The duality of Universal Soul and Individual Self are in constant dialog. This dialog can be enhanced or suppressed.
The reflection of the Soul into Self (hence, also Matter) can result indirectly into addictive behavior. The Soul has an infinite, all-encompassing perspective. The Self is very local in perspective. The yearning of the Soul for infinity expressed through its reflection into the Self can be distorted into addiction to Matter. The Self must listen to the Soul (which speaks through intuition and feeling rather than concrete logic) in order to avoid this addition to Matter.
The Soul's persuasions have the best interests of the Self in focus. The Soul knows where the ship should be going. The Self is locked in the inner hull of the ship. The Self can feel around in the dark, learn to navigate the ship from experience, but never know in a totally clear sense where the ship is going. The Soul sits on deck, yelling to the Self instructions for sending the ship in the right direction. The Self can not hear this clearly because of the thickness of the hull of the ship, but sometimes gets tidbits of information that help the Self steer the ship toward the right direction.
The Soul is experienced when the Self communicates with a child, sees a newborn, talks intently to an old person about their life, hears beautiful music and many other life experiences. The Soul can be shut out entirely and replaced with the addiction to Matter that makes the Soul's influence diminish and eventually stop.
The Soul is expanded when the Self is conscious of the world surrounding it and expands the Self's boundaries outward under influence of the Soul. The Soul is continually trying to further reflect itself into the locality of the Self. This continuous inner dialog, and the relative quality of it, determines what actualities are produced in the Universe.
Wolf diligently ties everything here that is summarized and more to the quantum physics framework that is the underlying thread throughout the book. The concepts of Quantum Physics have taught us that there is not a lot of solid foundation to the physical Universe as we think we experience it. Wolf argues that the underlying Quantum world that gives rise to the macro-Universe that we experience is in fact the underlying Spiritual Reality of everything.
Personally, I did not have the background or attention span to be a good critic of his Quantum-Spirit analogies. However, the poetic insights mentioned here as well as many other gems in the book make it worth a read even if you gloss over much of the more detailed Quantum passages.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Super Bowl Sunday at the DSO
The DSO concert Sunday afternoon was great. Hungarian dances by Brahms and a Bartok classic were the orchestral pieces while the featured Liszt piano concerto was awesome.
I had never heard most of the Dances by Brahms. I am very familiar with many other Brahms works including the symphonies and a piano concerto or two. These works are cornerstones of abstract Romantic literature and exemplary works of all of music history. The Hungarian Dances are billed as light orchestrations, which they are. However, Brahms, being the master composer he was, found a way to weave profundity with levity in the right proportions to avoid any hint of triteness.
Historically, I have been negative toward hearing live concertos. Generally I prefer more balanced orchestral works where instrumental lead is shared across many orchestral sections, dictated by the abstract needs alone. Concertos seemed to artificially put the spotlight on one instrument and favor virtuosity over pure truth and beauty.
However, Sunday's performance of the Liszt concerto may have changed my mind. Maybe it was the excitement of seeing a 21 year old Russian pianist perform masterfully. Perhaps the concerto itself was more integrated with the orchestra than typical classical concertos. Whatever the reason, the piano was blended as a perfect complement to the orchestra and the solo sections were virtuosic, yet musical. Maybe I will retain my discrimination toward violin or other concertos, but bend a bit for piano concertos, since the piano is like a mini-orchestra itself.
The Bartok composition was a great contrast to the Romantic orchestrations that came before. Nothing like a little early 20th century expressionism to sanitize any hint of schmaltz that might have been felt during the Romantic music portion (Romantic with a capital R as a classical period, not romantic with a little r that might resemble a soap opera :))
I had never heard most of the Dances by Brahms. I am very familiar with many other Brahms works including the symphonies and a piano concerto or two. These works are cornerstones of abstract Romantic literature and exemplary works of all of music history. The Hungarian Dances are billed as light orchestrations, which they are. However, Brahms, being the master composer he was, found a way to weave profundity with levity in the right proportions to avoid any hint of triteness.
Historically, I have been negative toward hearing live concertos. Generally I prefer more balanced orchestral works where instrumental lead is shared across many orchestral sections, dictated by the abstract needs alone. Concertos seemed to artificially put the spotlight on one instrument and favor virtuosity over pure truth and beauty.
However, Sunday's performance of the Liszt concerto may have changed my mind. Maybe it was the excitement of seeing a 21 year old Russian pianist perform masterfully. Perhaps the concerto itself was more integrated with the orchestra than typical classical concertos. Whatever the reason, the piano was blended as a perfect complement to the orchestra and the solo sections were virtuosic, yet musical. Maybe I will retain my discrimination toward violin or other concertos, but bend a bit for piano concertos, since the piano is like a mini-orchestra itself.
The Bartok composition was a great contrast to the Romantic orchestrations that came before. Nothing like a little early 20th century expressionism to sanitize any hint of schmaltz that might have been felt during the Romantic music portion (Romantic with a capital R as a classical period, not romantic with a little r that might resemble a soap opera :))
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Dallas Theatre Center "In the Beginning"
"In the Beginning" is a Dallas Theatre production whose subject matter is the first 10 chapters of the book of Genesis. Vignettes of selected stories are interspersed with commentary representing views of a variety of theological leaders in the Dallas area.
The program starts with a preview of what is to come with the entire cast. Spread across the width of the stage, each cast member speaks a line or two or three that explains the background and intent of the production. Throughout the show, cast members appear in various roles, with the role of God being shared across at least half a dozen actors including men and women.
Starting with the Garden of Eden, the presentation is that of literal biblical interpretation (with the addition of a couple of strategically placed g-strings) mixed with the commentary that expresses a variety of theological perspectives on the particular scene just enacted.
Some of the commentary is traditional and predictable, while some of it is credible questioning of the mainstream party line. Very little of it is particularly original or indicative of a broader cosmological perspective. However, this is acceptable, given the stated boundary of bible stories and Judeo-Christian perspective.
The second part of the show is intended to be an audience participation where members of the audience comment on questions asked by some of the actors. This seemed very shallow the night I was there. The Q&A only lasted about 10 minutes(instead of the planned 20) and seemed to die due to lack of original thought. Pat answers were offered by a few audience members who did not try to say anything provocative or hint at any scope beyond the level of a child Sunday school class.
All in all, the show was interesting and stimulated some individual introspection and questioning. However, given our current 21st century understanding of science, evolution, and world religions, the level of breadth and abstraction in the professional commentary and audience participation seemed to be timid and landlocked.
The program starts with a preview of what is to come with the entire cast. Spread across the width of the stage, each cast member speaks a line or two or three that explains the background and intent of the production. Throughout the show, cast members appear in various roles, with the role of God being shared across at least half a dozen actors including men and women.
Starting with the Garden of Eden, the presentation is that of literal biblical interpretation (with the addition of a couple of strategically placed g-strings) mixed with the commentary that expresses a variety of theological perspectives on the particular scene just enacted.
Some of the commentary is traditional and predictable, while some of it is credible questioning of the mainstream party line. Very little of it is particularly original or indicative of a broader cosmological perspective. However, this is acceptable, given the stated boundary of bible stories and Judeo-Christian perspective.
The second part of the show is intended to be an audience participation where members of the audience comment on questions asked by some of the actors. This seemed very shallow the night I was there. The Q&A only lasted about 10 minutes(instead of the planned 20) and seemed to die due to lack of original thought. Pat answers were offered by a few audience members who did not try to say anything provocative or hint at any scope beyond the level of a child Sunday school class.
All in all, the show was interesting and stimulated some individual introspection and questioning. However, given our current 21st century understanding of science, evolution, and world religions, the level of breadth and abstraction in the professional commentary and audience participation seemed to be timid and landlocked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)