August 25, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Category: Biology, Unconscious

The relationship of theorists with their god is perhaps too subtle and complicated for clear patterns to emerge. I experience biology and biology’s manifestation as society, as spirituality, and I wonder that this reaction is not a common experience for a theorist.

I recognize that an early fear of death and a life characterized by frequent experiences of anxiety drove me to explore a place where I could feel embraced by interconnection and could become intimate with grace. Clearly, my theorizing designs an intricate metaphor for the world I choose to live in rather than the world I was intimate with when young. I suspect much theory for the creator represents a personal integration, a metaphor for what they seek to achieve in life. Perhaps theory for others is a vindication for an embraced world view. How theory reflects these nuances of personal journey and personality is fascinating to me.

Marian Annett, the British researcher who has done ground-breaking research on the relationship of handedness to disorders characterized by maturational delay, wrote me that my work seemed a “Just So” story or interesting conjecture with no evidence or proof. Indeed, except I would suggest that theorists are always only writing stories. Some of the stories are more useful than others.

That being said, a person’s relationship with her or his god has a lot to say about a person’s relationship with herself or himself and her or his unconscious. How much of what we project upon our deity has to do with the nature of how we relate to our unconscious? How do theorists’ relationship with their unconscious and their deity inform the power of the theories they create to model a reality characterized by, from my perspective, profound interconnection?

The late Stephen J. Gould was an agnostic. Jane Goodall is a spiritual Christian. These are the contemporary theorists/scientists I most respect. I find it astonishing that Gould, a genius pluralist and deep appreciator of almost anything he’d investigate, did not experience the presence of spirit. This suggests to me that the idea of spirit might be a useless concept. If an agnostic can live so rich a life and discover principles of life so deep as to reveal integral underlying processes to our existence, then maybe we can do without the idea of god. As long as one looks, sounds and behaves like someone embraced by spirit, why don’t we just drop the concept and just concentrate on experience and behavior?

I experience god. Gould experiences a glorious, profound interconnection. I don’t perceive a difference.

Darwin was also an agnostic. It seems that Darwin was not very forthcoming on the details of his spiritual journey, so many people have written about what they thought occurred. He was wracked by chronic illness, lost a child and was terrified of being vilified or misunderstood. Darwin evidently did not die a happy man. Yet Darwin opened doors to understandings we’ve hardly begun to integrate. From his writings, you cannot but perceive his deep appreciation, perhaps gratitude, for the world around him he so keenly grasped.

And so I wonder about those scientific productions invested with a beauty and symmetry words cannot describe. I wonder about the creators of those productions and the relationship between them and their science, what I would call their art, and their own life.


Name (required)

Email (required)


Share your wisdom