While sitting in JFK last month reading Green Hermeticism, a book inspired by the eponymous conferences held by the Suluk Academy on alchemy and ecology, I was struck by a quote from the German Romantic philosopher Novalis, translated "the sciences must all be made poetic." I sympathize. Despite the generally laughable efforts of creation "scientists," we (not to be too West-normative) seem to frame faith and science not as complements but as combatants. Rationalists and nonbelievers feel like Romans watching barbarians approach intent on sacking our institutions and libraries; the religious feel that their concerns are ignored in favor of the sweeping indoctrination necessary for our liberal, humanistic society. This image of Christ and Darwin fighting bareknuckled in a steel cage is, of course, oversimplified and polarized in a way to appeal to the idiots on either side. The complex relationship between Faith and Science isn't inherently a conflict, and its substance isn't all evolution and fluff.

There are a great many areas of fascinating and unusual intersections between the natural sciences and spiritual belief; the "Law of Attraction" popularized in The Secret claims provenance in quantum mechanics, specifically the (heavily disputed) interpretation that the observer's consciousness causes wave function collapse. ("What the hell are you talking about, Fluxy?"). Does human (or other) consciousness affect the universe in a demonstrable physical way or is it just pseudoscientific rubbish? Beats me, but all my attempts to materialize a ziti pizza whilst writing this article have failed. I call bullshit!

The Bah�'�, Faith teaches that science and faith are harmonious, with 'Abdu'l-Bah� writing that

Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.

Philosopher Karl Popper rejected classical empiricism, the idea that theories can be "proven" through observations of the natural world, in favor of a standard of falsifiability. A scientific theory can't be confirmed, only proven false or found to "correspond with the facts." I tend to view the world in a manner similar to this: a collection of plausible explanations and non-falsifiable theories rather than a world ordered by Cartesian rationality or by the hand of deity. As such, I have a hard time grokking the die-hard atheists or the true believers; I apply Fluxy's Razor to everything.

So, back to Green Hermeticism. The authors argue that the beginnings of the Enlightenment occurred as a battle between non-dualist Rosicrucians and dualist Cartesians. Isaac Newton wrote more about alchemy than about physics, but eventually the worldview we've come to associate with him won out. Later, Romanticism and its affection for the natural world were crushed by Industry and the inevitable clash between capitalist and Marxist ideologies. So homeboys suggest that we revive our sleeping hermetic tradition and take the Gaia hypothesis to the next level; that we create a joyous spiritual ecology that recognizes that we are part of, not separate from, "Nature."

Nature: It's not just national parks anymore!

This isn't really new. The movement called "deep ecology" has argued essentially the same thing for years, albeit from a less alchemical angle. But consider this:

A healthy society would have no need for Environmentalism_and Environmentalism itself is a symptom of sickness, not of health. Reification of nature as something separable from human consciousness--whether in order to exploit it or fetishize it--always tends toward false consciousness, and a bad conscience. (p. 78)

Not to be too much of a frou-frou new age hippie ("too late!" you say), but to me, there's something worthwhile to such a worldview, and not just in the Fluxy's Razor sense. We are part of the vast biological system that is this planet. Some people wonder if we're the cancer afflicting Gaia, but being the happy-go-lucky optimist that y'all have come to know and love and loathe, I suspect that perhaps we are her brain. If we can accept that spirituality has a healing effect when used judiciously and graciously, then why not act as the soul of that which has come to be called creation? I'm not talking about communing with your crystal dolphin inner child in the name of the great mother goddess (although if that blows your skirt up, by all means, go for it.) No gods necessary, but perhaps a little faith in ourselves and our ability to change and to heal our world. Without that, we're stuck in fatalism and in death.

In 1982, stood before the Nobel assembly and spoke of the soul of Latin America:

In spite of this, to oppression, plundering and abandonment, we respond with life. Neither floods nor plagues, famines nor cataclysms, nor even the eternal wars of century upon century, have been able to subdue the persistent advantage of life over death.

Garc�a M�rquez was speaking of the ability of humanity to triumph over tyranny and disaster, but this optimism applies just as powerfully to the world in which we live, so long as we use all the tools available to us, be they "Religion" or "Science." Science informs us, and spirit (whatever that may mean to you) inspires us.

Nothing is written. Everything is permissible, possible, and alive. So now, my chilluns, go out and change the world.

Flux got really drunk and started writing a leftist spiritual manifesto that revolves around hilarious, tongue-in-cheek pantheism a few weeks ago. She promises that this article isn't an attempt to fish for prospective book deals. She swears.

sitar

Philadelphia, PA

June 2004

JAN 14, 2008 09:40 AM

this is important work.
thanks for putting it out there.

eXaraxe

Littleton, CO

January 2008

JAN 14, 2008 09:51 AM

I think once you get into the details like this, that it becomes more about perspective.

Some people wonder if we're the cancer afflicting Gaia, but being the happy-go-lucky optimist that y'all have come to know and love and loathe, I suspect that perhaps we are her brain. If we can accept that spirituality has a healing effect when used judiciously and graciously, then why not act as the soul of that which has come to be called creation? I'm not talking about communing with your crystal dolphin inner child in the name of the great mother goddess (although if that blows your skirt up, by all means, go for it). No gods necessary, but perhaps a little faith in ourselves and our ability to change and to heal our world. Without that, we're stuck in fatalism and in death.

I know you make all attempts to be the hopeless optimist, but there are certain factors that have little chance of change. Regardless of the possibilities of what people could become, there will always be a part that makes peoples incapable of such acts on a normal basis. You could really oppose your argument and have just as valid of a statement.

What is life without mistakes or lessons? Fatality and death may not be ideal, but they do give reason to make decisions or changes. Perhaps it is the human need to have something wrong before we actually choose to fix it. To know that we are setting ourselves up for disaster but choose to do nothing until the time has already passed.

By no means am I saying that humans can not achieve what it is you say. I believe that we as a race can do whatever we so choose, but our ignorance blinds us from reality until we have no choice but to address it. Maybe it makes life easier for us to quickly dismiss that which is not of direct concern. Have we become so systematically machined that our daily chores of work are more important than impending disaster? That's what it seems like to me...

Then again... I'm just another face in the crowd, and this is just another opinion.

redmess

Vanuatu

August 2004

JAN 14, 2008 10:10 AM

^^^^^oh jeeeeze...

and in the Rebirth, when the reefs have died off, the glaciers melted, when the plagues have decimated, a leader will arise. ahead of her time and ever the fearless renegade. hail, Flux; knower of truths, disputer of realities, purveyor of high-brow sex appeal.

eXaraxe

Littleton, CO

January 2008

JAN 14, 2008 10:17 AM

Haha...
I'll just go with what you said.. It's definitely the easier route.

ohash

Columbus, OH

May 2007

JAN 14, 2008 10:31 AM

Very interesting and thought-provoking. Nice work Flux.

demoivre

Santa Barbara, CA

January 2003

JAN 14, 2008 10:51 AM

I just put Green Hermeticism on my Want to Read list over the weekend. Gonna have to see about moving it up a bit! Great article, Flux!

KikiBH

Washington, DC

December 2004

JAN 14, 2008 10:54 AM

Ooo, girl, you're makin' my head spin! I'll have to come back to this one...

_Margot_

Santa Monica, CA

December 2007

JAN 14, 2008 11:01 AM

Green Hermeticism was a great read.

Wonderful piece Flux, thank you for this.

Toku666

Columbus, OH

May 2004

JAN 14, 2008 11:01 AM

Flux is rad. This is a rock-solid truth. No proof necessary.

Volkov

Austin, TX

OLD SKOOL

JAN 14, 2008 11:03 AM

very well done.

conflict and dichotomy...dualism drawn from opposition is the reigning paradigm. I don't know if it's because it's more convienent and easy for people to deal with. Pluralism or any kind of layered understanding as to where things overlap takes much more effort than seeing things as either "this" or "that". It goes back to that idea of what is man(kind)'s most pervaisive trait...fear or laziness?

Religion is often set up with a spiritual philosophy clad in a rational structure. Just about every single one chains itself thru either a risk/reward scenario or a hierarchy of control. but then I guess the case was made for a more abstract, spiritualist, version.

gonna go wiki up some more info on the Rosicrucians and Cartesians now k thanx.

utgardsloki087

Charlottesville, VA

May 2007

JAN 14, 2008 12:49 PM

Hear, hear!

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN

July 2003

JAN 14, 2008 01:15 PM

Um...I'm assuming it was Gabriel Garcia Marquez in this bit?

In 1982, stood before the Nobel assembly and spoke of the soul of Latin America:

NickiLove

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

JAN 14, 2008 01:16 PM

Excellent thought provoking article! Thanks for that!