On Human Interaction- part III

I hesitate to write this post. It’s taken me awhile to write partially due to lack of time (I mean, it takes me longer to write them than it takes you to read them!) but also because when I stated my ‘main idea’ to myself, it seemed horribly self-evident. It sounded like many other ideas I have heard. On the surface it didn’t seem to be anything new. With regards to it’s self-evidence, the artist Robert Irwin has something to say: "If all of this seems a bit familiar, it should. This process...something we already do at every moment in simply coming to know the nature of our presence, and we almost always do so without giving the wonder of it a second thought... this 'oversight' speaks not of its insignificance; on the contrary, it speaks of its extraordinary sophistication." Sometimes, when things are so familiar, we don't give them a second thought- but it can be striking when we finally realize how sneaky they have been, sneaking under the radar and affecting everything we do, say, or think without us even being aware of it.

So here it goes: It’s all about relationship.

Actually, it’s all about GOD, and that is borne out solely through relationship. But we’re going to start with it being all about relationship and try to carry it to its logical end, and then we’ll see that it’s all about GOD.

I feel I’ve heard this before. So why do I get that ‘tingly’ sensation when I start to picture this in my mind? After much thinking and reading, I think I’m beginning to put my finger on it. Remember when I said that often ideas themselves don’t seem like a big deal, but rather it’s their implications? I get a shiver up my spine because now when I say ‘it’s all about relationship’ I have a whole new set of implications that comes to mind. With regard to the above statement- that it doesn’t seem like anything new- it’s true... as far as surface appearances go.

But you have to watch out with regard to surface appearances. I’ve long considered the conundrum posed by surface appearances. I think of people who are "rebels." In my own upbringing in the Church of Christ, I grew up in the context of my parents becoming progressively more 'liberal' than the generation before them. There were often arguments made by the ‘old guard’ that certain new behaviors in church ‘looked like’ what the Baptists, or the Evangelicals, or more charismatic movements did. So it got me thinking: what happens, or how do you deal with, the possibility that after spiritual growth and seeking and studying you arrive at the conclusion that your behavior should look like the very behaviors you’ve been fighting against? I think some people would have a serious problem with that. Some people are hooked on the externals. So even though there may be vast differences in theology and understanding, the resulting behaviors may appear remarkably similar and thus presumed to be from the same motives.

But again, there’s a lesson for this from Einstein. One of the ‘dangerous implications’ of E=mc2 is that everything we see around us is closer to a surface appearance than it is to cold, hard, unyielding physical matter. Mass changes- which doesn’t seem to jive with our day to day experience. For example, when you are exercising, technically you are heavier because there is more energy being utilized and energy has mass, or weight*. (Now if that isn’t a reason not to exercise, I don’t know what is! ha ha.) But the ‘weight’ gained is so infinitesimally small that we can’t detect it by normal means. It’s only when one approaches the speed of light that you really start to see a difference. Also, when I spoke earlier about light, I talked about the effect gravity had on it, curving it around a planet so that it appears to be coming from one direction, when in fact its source is someplace different. That’s another visualization of the surface appearance differing drastically from underlying reality.

But it just goes to show that things can be drastically different underneath the surface- and that’s what I’m experiencing here. As an artist I’ve been trained to look beneath the surface of things- and it seems like it is all starting to sink in. Do not be deceived by appearances. What I’m advocating regarding relationships has a different underlying ‘structure.’ One is the 'Self' (with its attendant platform) behaving toward someone as if their ‘platform' was Jesus. This is what I think most people envision with regards to relationship. That it is all about relationship but it is still taken for granted that it is our SELVES relating. What I’m seeing now is a 'behaving entity'- pure behavior, if you will- devoid of any identity other than that behavior. Just like in E=mc2- 'light's' 'identity' is 'movement'- which is why it's speed is constant- it is not an object that is moving and can move faster or slower, it is 'pure movement' of 187,000 miles per second. What happens to our identity when we get rid of our ‘platforms’? We don’t fall off the edge into the abyss, which I implied with my illustration in my last post. Rather, we occupy the ‘space between’- we become characterized in the same way light is- as something that illumines, that is movement (relationship), that is not inherent in any particular object (not tied to an identity crutch). It may help to remember, God created light before any objects (sun, moon, stars, etc.).

I still have left undone postings on some of my favorite artists that I began with my look at Chris Burden. And I’ve had in mind to write some thoughts on Freedom and Christianity that I’ve gained from listening to and examining some songs by R.E.M. That will tie in pretty soon with my soundtrack blog. But regardless, pretty much every post I write from now on will have something to do with the implications of my thoughts stated here. (I think part of the ‘twinge’ I’ve been feeling is resulting from the fact that my ‘new’ idea is providing an over-arching context that connects several things I’ve been thinking about in different areas of my life) Here’s to the journey!

* If you really want to get technical about it, there is a difference between ‘mass’ and ‘weight’- but we’re probably more attuned to the term ‘weight’ so it will suffice.