Out of the One, Many

“from the many to the One; from the diversity so obvious to the senses, to the unity which is the fruit of inward realization: such is the general trend in religious thought.” — Phirozshah Dorabji Mehta, Indian-born writer and lecturer on religious topics

Wlight-split-into-spectrum-by-prismhen we work our way backwards to first principles, we arrive at the One, the ground of our being. This source might be conceived spiritually or scientifically, depending upon whether the nature of this ground is assumed to be subject or object, animate or inanimate. These different metaphysical perspectives divide us and impact the assumptions we make about how life and consciousness may be connected.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

Regardless of unifying first principles, existentially we experience a world of many pieces. Mind functions like a prism and separates the rudimentary singularity into legion.

“The forming of wholes, or categories, is what the brain does best, and the effect is powerful. A real world and a constant self depend on it.”  — Jason W. Brown, M.D,. neurologist

At a fundamental level, creating categories is what mind does. Its organizing process tags the created categories with feelings, leading to a subjective experience where all knowledge is both categorical and emotional. We experience a world split into objects that differ in their value for satisfying our needs. Feelings provide us feedback about the world we perceive and vary in the extent to which our needs are anticipated or met. They are part of a complex system that values what we encounter in terms of its worth or threat.

The precision and complexity of our evaluations can be measured in part by the extensiveness of our categories and the extent to which we can see their dimensional nature. Dimensional thinking allows us to see the metaphorical “gray” between the black and white and points to the unifying connection at the ground of our being. Simple black and white judgments reflect fundamental emotionally based categories, such as good or bad, right or wrong, approach or avoid, fight or flight. These intuitive judgments are often necessary for the quick decisions needed to ensure our survival and to reduce the cognitive load and time required for complex thinking. Often referred to as heuristic techniques, these quick approaches to problem solving are shortcuts which can aid rapid decision making.

While mental shortcuts hard-wired by natural selection are necessary for quick decisions, over-reliance on them at the macro-level (of a complex, inter-connected, and overpopulated world) and micro-level (of a more intimate interpersonal relationships) easily leads to conflict. Even though we have evolved the capacity for more intricate and complex thought it is not instinctive for us. Shifting from reflexive judgments to a more contextual and dimensional approach is demanding and takes intention; however, conflict resolution usually requires it. Accessing this more evolved level of thinking requires expanding our accessible categories and managing the intensity of our emotions.

“In emotional turmoil, the upward influence of subcortical emotional circuits on the higher reaches of the brain are stronger than the top-down controls. Although humans can strengthen and empower the downward controls through emotional education and self-mastery, few can ride the whirlwind of unbridled emotions with great skill.” — Jaak Panksepp, Estonian-born American psychologist, psychobiologist, and neuroscientist

Given that nothing stings like being misjudged, criticized, and rejected and nothing soothes like empathy, understanding, and acceptance, practicing a style of discernment that is rooted in an intricate and more compassionate evaluation seems well advised. Unresolved conflict divides us and often results in feelings of disconnection. If we are connected at a fundamental level, especially if that connection is at the level of our consciousness or essential being, then one would expect feelings of disconnection to be painful and feelings of connection to be pleasurable. Achieving harmony is a process of connecting through discovering and experiencing our unity. All the king’s horses and men were unable to put Humpty Dumpty together again, but could they still see Humpty Dumpty in the pieces?

Brown, J. (2000). Mind and Nature: Essays on Time and Subjectivity. London: Whurr Publishers, p. 7

Mehta, P. (1956). Early Indian Religious Thought. London: Luzac and Co., p. 347

Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., p. 301

John R. Lucy, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice at Decatur Psychology, LLC.

No Matter


Who made God?

This perceptive question asked by many precocious children deserves an answer…though a definitive answer is unlikely. This question challenges the “first cause” argument, an ontological position which asserts that there must be an initial cause of all that exists by following a chain of causality to the “first cause,” or as Aristotle termed it, the unmoved mover. Those who are theologically inclined believe this first cause to be God, while those who are secular, theorize naturalistic explanations such as the big bang, cyclic models, multiverses, or other scientifically based theoretical attempts to explain this mystery.

It is as impossible for our minds to grasp a nothingness from which something was born, as it is to grasp a something that was never born. What word we use for this ground of being, source of existence, pre-existing condition, or infinite state says something about the metaphysical paradigm we are reasoning from. Whether theological or secular, the ultimate existential question remains for all of us — why is there something rather than nothing? Why do I exist? Where did I come from? Hidden in these questions is the assumption that I do exist. Not only do I exist, but I am aware of my existence. While we can imagine that existence could be without awareness, that is not what we experience; our conscious experiencing is not seriously questioned. In actuality, our raw experience or consciousness is all any of us can be certain of.

Our minds automatically think in terms of causation, which leads us to explain our experiences by finding causes of those experiences. When this is lacking, we feel confused and out of sorts. Causal thinking works well for our day-to-day whodunits, but when it comes to finding the ultimate cause, it leads us to an infinite regress which either never ends or ends at the “first cause” — to which our causal minded minds ask, what caused the first cause or, who made God? Materialists face an additional but similar challenge as they try to solve the “hard problem of consciousness,” which involves figuring out how mindless matter thinks? This problem is similar to determining how something comes from nothing.

The most parsimonious solution is to flip the problem around by starting with the one thing most of us can agree upon, that we are conscious. Consciousness is the one thing which we all directly experience without an intermediary. This is a very satisfactory beginning point; let this be the unmoved mover from which all else stems. Given that our own personal consciousness seems endlessly creative, capable of constructing worlds and beings, what might a universal consciousness be capable of? Why do we need something else to explain where consciousness came from?

escherThat something else is usually some form of matter, but matter is not a required link in the chain. Matter is becoming increasingly squirrely, perplexing, and a lot more like consciousness anyway. Letting go of matter’s preeminence is the solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Mindless matter did not become conscious, consciousness became “matter.” Matter just happens to be what consciousness looks like. I still do not know who made consciousness — maybe it is infinite, or maybe it developed ex nihilo, but I do know it exists.

Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as a creator and governor of the realm of matter…

— Sir James Hopwood Jeans


John R. Lucy, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice at Decatur Psychology, LLC.


Two Worlds

Rodin-The-ThinkerI seem to live in two worlds. One that might be called my “inner world” consists of my private thoughts, emotions, images, and sensations. The other which appears to me as an “outer world” is a shared world that consists of other beings (those who seem to possess an inner world) and objects (things that do not seem to possess an inner world). These two worlds make up my universe; nothing else exists…for me.

The interplay between these two worlds is complex. Much of what could be said to exist in my outer world, exists only in my inner world. For example, I have never been to Africa, so I have never experienced it in my outer world, I have never touched it, seen it, heard it, tasted it, or smelled it. The continent of Africa is an outer world shared by over one billion people that for me, exists only in my inner world through second hand experiences.

neo-wakes-upMy office, where I sit now, exists in my outer and inner world. My inner world, ostensibly fed by the “actual” outer world through my senses, makes my office appear to me as a part of my outer world. It seems real, but how do I know for certain what is real? The philosophical position of solipsism holds that the “outer world” cannot be known. Extreme forms of solipsism deny any outer world, which includes all the other inner worlds. The plot of the science fiction film “The Matrix,” plays with the concept that the outer world is constructed by the mind. The Matrix, a designed outer world, is a complex computer program which humans directly interface with through ports connected to their brains. The humans in the Matrix experience an outer world that does not really exist “out there.”

Chaplin.mirrorDebates about the nature of the outer world are not only happening in philosophy and science fiction, but increasingly in the scientific community. Thinking about the “realness” of my outer world can twist my mind in a Gordian Knot if I am not careful. Yet, I must also take heed of the other extreme, namely over-belief in the outer world. Questioning the outer worlds’ existence generally comes from an intellectual position, not an experiential one. Experientially, the outer world feels certain. Much of my inner world does too. I tend to believe my thoughts and interpretations. Certainty feels good, and these feelings are often necessary for survival — doubting the realness of the world is not a trait that will likely contribute to many descendants.

We crave certainty in both of our worlds; so much that we fight for it when someone challenges our sense of it. While we like suspense, surprise, and mystery, we do not like to sit with these feelings indefinitely. We ultimately want resolution; we want certainty. This can drive us in positive ways to understand our experience, and to use that understanding to improve our existence. But, this craving for certainty has the potential to destroy us. We see evidence of this in political, religious and other interpersonal clashes. What happens when two sides both feel certain of incompatible positions? Certainty can block mutual understanding, empathy, giving others the benefit of the doubt, or meeting in the middle. These are essential diplomatic and interpersonal relationship skills.

I am trying to learn how to question my own certainty, and to live a life that can embrace uncertainty. The scientific method, an approach based on confirming or disconfirming hypotheses based on empirical evidence, may be the closest that we can get to certainty in a subjective world. It provides a structured way to dialogue and find consensus about our shared outer world. Yet, consensus is still lacking, even science is subject to biases and current paradigms. Humans are naturally stubborn and resistant to evidence that works against their beliefs, even when it might provide a better explanation.

population-2014There are over seven billion people in our consensual outer world, each possessing a different inner world; each providing a unique perspective on the outer world; each potentially at odds with many of the others; each feels their “truth” deeply, craves understanding, and desires some sense of connection. The interplay of these many worlds might not be survivable, but if we are going to make it, then we must learn how to live together between the inner and outer worlds. Science alone is not enough, we must also find ways to understand, abide, and share our bewildering inner worlds.

“I like the scientific spirit—the holding off, the being sure but not too sure, the willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is against them: this is ultimately fine—it always keeps the way beyond open—always gives life, thought, affection, the whole man, a chance to try over again after a mistake—after a wrong guess.”

Walt Whitman

John R. Lucy, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice at Decatur Psychology, LLC.

Being / Seeking

The baby, assailed by eyes, ears, nose, skin, and entrails at once, feels it all as one great blooming, buzzing confusion; and to the very end of life, our location of all things in one space is due to the fact that the original extents or bignesses of all the sensations which came to our notice at once, coalesced together into one and the same space. — William James (1890)

120892My existence is mysterious to me, yet that I exist is my core reality. My existence integrates an experiencer with that which is experienced. My experiencer divides my experience into “external” and “internal” perceptual categories, which by convention I label as either objective (external) or subjective (internal).  Orienting towards my experience further divides the objective and subjective into seemingly inexhaustible perceptual phenomena. If I move toward the subjective, through my “inner world,” in the direction of the experiencer, I ultimately arrive at simple awareness. This seems to be the starting point of my existence, for here all my perceptions are subsumed since without awareness there is no experiencer. Without my experiencer, I have no experience, no existence. Awareness is my immediately available, experiential foundation, my existence. It is my source, the ground of my being.

When I maneuver away from my foundation of pure awareness, toward the “great blooming, buzzing confusion,” I feel unsettled because my source feels diluted in this mysterious array of experience. Making sense of this mystery is the impetus of science, religion, philosophy and speculation. In my own sense-making endeavor, I will inevitably diverge from all the other efforts to do the same. Nevertheless, I feel driven to make sense of this mystery to achieve a sense of coherence and to reconnect with the simplicity of my existence. I am ever seeking a state of connection, unity and oneness.

Do I continue seeking, dividing, sorting and rearranging? Or, is what I seek, right here, at one with me, inseparable and immediately available?

Could it be that simple?

What if?

You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing. 
― Alan Watts

UniversalMindThe existence of consciousness remains the greatest of mysteries. What if consciousness is not a byproduct of matter but the source of matter? What if a universal mind is the field that holds together our world of matter? … each speck of life, a unique portal through which this mind pours forth its creative impulses. A creativity that further blossoms as “matter” awakens to consciousness. “Awakened matter” ultimately notices itself as an object, and a sense of self is galvanized. Self grows cognizant of its awareness, and an unshared subjectivity is conceived. This individualized perspective can neither be replicated nor fully understood by another.

What if that perspective in us — which is aware, which notices and is our observing self — is universal mind seeing through the filter that is us with all our idiosyncratic characteristics? What if the world we notice “out there” is actually inside rather than outside — a dreamworld contained within universal mind? I, like many other seekers, desperately want to reify this mind of which I am comprised. Even naming it is a movement in this direction, but whatever is observing and experiencing through us, if it is singular, cannot be mentally captured any more than I can see my eyes with my eyes. We know this universal mind, this source of awareness, only through living and experiencing our unique perspective. Our life is this larger life, but embodied and limited in space and time.

If we believe a universal mind experiences through us, might it change the way we see ourselves and one another? Could we feel connected and unified rather than isolated and divided? Is it possible we would value ourselves and others in a more treasured way? Maybe we would be curious and open to others’ perspectives and less judgmental and intolerant. Perhaps compassion and love could flourish.

While it often seems that we dwell in separateness and look out at a world full of objects perhaps it is quite the opposite, and a knowing, experiencing and creative mind is “looking” within — seeing itself through myriad perspectives … a dynamic self with so many ways to experience, to interact … to be. Perhaps this self becomes so enamored and entangled in these multiple perspectives that in the midst of embodied experience it believes these dreams of separateness and loses a sense of unity.

Do we want “it” to wake up?

You are actually—if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning— you’re not something that’s a result of the big bang. You’re not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. When I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as—Mr so-and- so, Ms so-and-so, Mrs so-and-so—I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I’m that, too. But we’ve learned to define ourselves as separate from it. ― Alan Watts

John R. Lucy, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice at Decatur Psychology, LLC.


God Talk


The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” — Mark Twain, a Biography

Since most of us may not be as comfortable questioning our own beliefs as Mark Twain, we are likely to benefit from the etiquette rule which warns us of discussing religion. Unfortunately this rule inhibits us from sharing some of our deepest and most intense experiences, thoughts and feelings as well as our foundational values; this rule may indeed prevent conflict but it does so at the expense of intimacy.

You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.  — Anne Lamott

I think the basis of the difficulty we have with these conversations lies in our failure to realize how trapped we are by our subjectivity. The source of our conflict is when we forget that our God talk isn’t really about God but our “God-image” – could it be otherwise? How does one describe what is ineffable? Given the many warnings of creating false gods and graven images, you might think we would be more cautious. But how can we throw caution to the wind and talk about God? Perhaps we start by recognizing that “God” is a three letter word that has a whole lot attached to it. What I have attached to it is deeply and inextricably tied to my subjective experience. If you can agree that you are in the same boat, we may have a chance at some “God talk.” This is true whether you consider yourself an atheist, an agnostic or a religious person of any flavor.

We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are. — Anais Nin

Now when we talk we aren’t talking about God, we are talking about ourselves and sharing our experiences and our interpretations of those experiences. We are talking about what we’ve been taught, what we have believed and what we have doubted. Now, we are connecting rather than conflicting. Now, maybe we are open to new possibilities. I like to think that this approach can help bring science and religion together; perhaps both are seeking some of the same things. We are all trying to comprehend the mystery of our existence. It seems that the meaning of the Hebrew name, YHWH, points to existence itself. Perhaps the essence of the spiritual/religious perspective is emotionally experienced mystery, and the essence of science is analytically experienced mystery … either way, we get back to our mysterious experience.

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. — Max Planck


John R. Lucy, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice at Decatur Psychology, LLC.