Who are we? We are Thou and each other, even as Thou are we. (Despite the word 'thou' being just an archaic version of 'you', I like capitalizing it to refer to that place-holder we've also utilized to our benefit and detriment with the word 'God.') I have to think long and hard about what science says about the author of science. That's a good question. It seems science, on the whole, may be too busy chasing after its own tail to bother; I don't know. In my experience of our penchant for asking the wrong questions, perhaps were science to ponder over the authorship, it would consider the possibility of their being no author. Which doesn't mean there's no authority to being, of course. Generative powers within our psyche do appear to remain in collusion to create each one of us individually. That is to say, our individuality itself may be the real illusion; for are we not comprised, as Thich Nhat Hanh has pointed out, of non-human elements?
I love the idea that we live in a world not of science, but of science fiction. And that's because I've believed for a long time now that imagination remains at the center of creation. And magic lies within the heart of imagination. Because the word 'impossible' does not mean what we think it means. The prefix "im-" means "before," so the real definition of the word impossible should be "before possible," which precisely explains how such miraculous things as airplanes achieving flight, and streets of asphalt and concrete skyscrapers, were formerly impossible, until someone (such as the Wright brothers, for example) dreamed those things into concrete reality, and made them possible via their imaginations. How else could we have arrived here, if not due to an understanding that 'we' may not have 'arrived' at all, but rather, have been 'here' all along as an ever-evolving manifestation of what science has yet to define as the 'author' of our existence; that is, our authentic being.
No comments:
Post a Comment