Frankly, I was enamored with the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin along with my wife-to-be while in seminary. He was a French philosopher, a Jesuit priest, trained as a paleontologist and highly regarded but then he was eventually branded a heretic and buried on unholy ground. Wait a minute can any kind of heresy lead to one’s demise these days? Can a light-weight dissenter be burned at the stake by messing with dogma and tradition as I have? I really don’t want to go out that way. I figured I’ve endured several decades of living in Arizona, arguably one of the hottest places on the planet, so it just wouldn’t be fair to have to be set on fire. But I digress.
When I asked Paolo Soleri, the noted architect and futurist, if he based his work on Teilhard’s theology he replied testily and a tad nervously “No, definitely not, I rely upon his philosophy.” Ah, he’s no dummy; he too has spent decades living on a torched desert floor. What struck me as fascinating was the fact the naughty priest kept alluding to ‘primordial particles’ of the universe that mature over time. He advocated that human development is influenced by the same universal laws as material development. That must have been what ticked-off the Vatican.
In a recent NY Times op-ed piece Brian Greene, a physics professor, gives a report on the Higgs particles (I assumed there had to be mortals in the mix) that move, along with other forms of life, through a cosmic force-field comprised of a molasses-like substance that allows for bonding with unfamiliar particles. I nearly flunked a physics course in college so I had a hard time grasping his observations. But I managed to imagine world citizens – individuals risking leaving their safe communal bonds and getting fused together – once – with as many strangers as humanly possible during their earth journeys.
As crazy as the vast scheme seems we are likely designed to navigate through the cosmos as individuals as much as possible and spend less time clinging to collective bonds. We may not fully mature as a species by remaining too long within friendships, families, congregations, nation/states or any communal entities for that matter. We’re apt to go against the grain of nature and stunt our growth by sticking too much to our clannish ties.
Loren Eiseley, a philosopher, anthropologist and natural science writer was heard to state “Like the herd animals we are, we sniff warily at the strange one among us.” We might do well to do a lot less sniffing and whole lot more gluing. OK, what’s the makeup of the cosmic bonding material, the ‘molasses,’ the sticky substance that will likely enable us to link up unconditionally with total strangers or particles, if you will? I’ve referred to it as compassion, love or intimacy. Steven Pinker in his new blockbuster publication The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined holds out for empathy. I’m sticking with intimacy. Unfortunately many if not most people assume, or perhaps want to imagine, the term smacks of erotic tendencies, pursuits that will only lead to trouble. Could be, but not if we’re careful unless of course one is addicted to such quests. What if intimacy is the primary goal and not coitus when we dare to run deep with strangers? And what if those who associate the term intimacy with sex in their minds are charged with a bit more raging hormones than others?
Empathy works mostly as the first step toward experiencing compassion when we begin to care for others from a distance. We may be using some of our reasoning powers in that mode of relating. I imagine empathy emerging over a degree of time. If we sense we are about to have a one-and-only chance to engage deeply with a stranger it’s possible we can bypass the empathetic part and risk plunging into unconditional compassion in minutes. Empathy may be relied upon to feel the other person out while intimacy can be acted upon rather quickly without the promise of the other reciprocating. That’s a daring impulse. Empathy may be essential for potential long-term relationships but maybe not for abrupt encounters with strangers.
Let’s get back to the sex part. Readers might argue that the following definition of the term intimacy in Webster’s dictionary runs counter to my views. “1. the state or fact of being intimate; intimate association. 2. an intimate act; especially, illicit sexual intercourse.” I know, I know, but I’m recommending classification # 2 be expunged.
Dr. Huston Smith, revered scholar of world religions, in alluding to Ian Suttie’s publication, The Origins of Love and Hate, concurs with the iconic pioneering psychoanalyst who was persuaded through his investigations that “our major repression is not of sexual or aggressive impulses, but of affection and openness. These repressions in individuals add up to a collective taboo against tenderness in our culture.” If those findings prove to be credible then risking running deep with strangers to experience affection and tenderness is a more pressing innate urge than that of pursuing illicit sexual intercourse as Webster and company seem to be warning against.
So imagine if you will that you’re a mere but classy sticky particle, sexless or otherwise, floating in the universe and there are gobs of other gooey particles out there that can’t wait to glom onto you affectionately and tenderly; you lucky creatures.
“Life is either a daring venture, or nothing….Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.” Helen Keller The Open Door.
{ 0 comments }
