Art Meets Science and Spirituality in a Changing Economy

A summary of:

Wijers, L. (1996). Art Meets Science and Spirituality In A Changing Economy: From Competition to Compassion. Wiley-Academy: London.

In 1990, leaders in art, science, spirituality and economics met to discuss how in the world these various disciplines might come together to make a) a more unified sense, and b) a positive change for our culture. Physicist David Bohm summed up the conference’s mission: “I think, as is implicit in this conference, that there are three basic components of culture, which are art, science and spirituality. These are the centre of culture and culture, which I say, is shared meaning. Now, if we separate art, science and spirituality, as they are today, we have a tremendous incoherenece in our culture. Of course, as I said, the purpose of this conference is to start something that might make our culture more coherent” (25). This is not unlike the mission of HighWire, and my project in particular. I suppose like them I see the separating of these disciplines, and the separating out of spirituality, as a major source of confusion for us. How can we understand the bigger pictures in the world? Mother Tessa Bielecki says, “What interests me most is the spiritual welfare of the world; that is spirituality as the foundation for every other way in which we might talk about the welfare of the planet. Part of our problem is that we are compartmentalised and we relegate spirituality to a department that can easily be dismissed as irrelevant. We need to re-awaken to the fact that we are fundamentally spiritual beings and that art flows out of our spirituality, science flows out of our spirituality, economies flow out of our spirituality. Everything has its foundation in spirituality” (120). And F. W. Christians argues that it is the imbalance between these elements of culture that is dangerous: “It is a fact that there is already a huge discrepancy between what science and technology are offering and what the human soul or spirituality is digesting. This imbalanced situation might produce an increasing potential for conflict. Therefore we have to find the appropriate balance to make beneficial use of the products of technology and science. Regarding what you just explained to us about spirituality; in my opinion we have to cultivate those sensitivities and foster spirituality” (104).

The other problem with relegating the spiritual to the fringes is that we have to wonder what we are rooted to. If we were rooted to values like those of all spiritual traditions – compassion, being one of them – then our society would be more compassionate, and we’d all be better off: “If we were truly compassionate individuals, we would have a compassionate society and vice versa. Compassion, in the dictionary definition, is ‘a fellow feeling’. The real meaning of the word compassion is ‘to feel together’. If people have the same feeling together, and are responsible for one another, then there is compassion” (David Bohm, 58). So this would suggest the value of working on technology that can foster compassion in individuals – because it will in turn lead to a compassionate society, which is to say a change in our selfish worldview. The point I’m trying to make is that the key to helping to shift a worldview is to begin with individuals; perhaps by changing the nature of the technology they engage with on a daily basis that encourages the formation of this worldview.

So what is compassion? We have a definition from David Bohm already. The Dalai Lama has much to say on this as well: “Community, friendships, harmony, these are the basic factors. That you have compassion, affection, respect for the other’s view, a concern about the other’s right. That is the basis of harmony and friendship. And in family and married life, one should also not only think of oneself, but also be concerned about the partner’s rights, feelings, and opinions – again, mutual respect. That is also the basis of a longlasting marriage. All these things have very much to do with human compassion, human affection and gentleness. Therefore these are the basics of moral ethics” (45). For the Dalai Lama, compassion requires us to be responsible for each other: “I always feel that compassion is not just a mere warm heart, but in genuine compassion there is some sense of responsibility. With that kind of compassion you try to lead and serve, as much as you can” (58). A major question discussed at the conference was what this means for a capitalistic society, which is competitive by nature. The Dalai Lama says, “there may be some kind of competition, but that, I don’t think, causes opposition” (58). He suggests that it is possible to have an Economy of Compassion, a subject taken up in earnest by economist Stanislav Menshikov, who believes that the key to achieving this is that, “People have to understand each other’s motives” (49). This would suggest that people have to foster their empathy skills. And I do wonder how easy this is done with our current technology, which separates us and shields socially relevant information that we might use to understand each others’ subtler signals.

The general consensus at the conference is summed up by scientist Francisco Varela: “‘Our world needs a different understanding if we are to survive’, Francisco Varela says. ‘Instead of self-interest, other-interest would change our world.’ In his view a basic principle in evolution is cooperation and the acceptance of the groundlessness of our existence” (114). He bases his thinking on Mayahana tradition, which is centrally concerned with groundlessness/emptiness and compassion (115): “Thus sunyata, the loss of a fixed reference point, is said to be inseparable from compassion like the two wings of a bird. Our natural impulse is one of compassion, but it has been obscured by habits of ego-clinging like the sun is obscured by a passing cloud” (115). It does seem that technology is at least partially responsible for eroding just these compassionate impulses. The question is, how can we foster “an attitude of non-egocentric concern”?: “It obviously cannot be created merely through norms and rationalist injunctions. It must be developed through letting go of ego-centered habits. Individuals must personally discover and admit their own sense of ego in order to go beyond it” (115). This is the value of interacting with a technology that purposely designs for selflessness: through engagement, it reinforces different – more positive – behavior and modes of thinking.

(As a side-note: this groundlessness is an interesting way of justifying the spiritual potential of cyberspace. Varela says, “When the two planetary forces, science and Buddhism, come genuinely together, we might no longer need and desire foundations and so can take up the further tasks of building and dwelling in worlds without ground” (116).)

One of the issues discussed at the conference was how to define spirituality. Economist JM Pinheiro Neto says: “by spirituality I would mean, all the various forms of belief in something bigger than we are” (135). Spiritual leader Raimon Panikkar says, “…without some spirituality, which makes me aware of my infinite dignity, and of my intrinsic value, and of the importance of love, real joy and happiness, without all that I am but a machine. As the Taoists said, if you are good at handling a machine, it is because your heart has already become a machine” (197). Panikkar also suggests that spirituality is in direct tension with contemporary Western society: “‘The Contemplative Mood radically challenges some of the basic assumptions of modern Western society. Its stress on spontaneity, desirelessness, delight in the momentary, indifference to wealth, prestige, success, sets it at odds with the modern labour pathos. To be a contemplative in this day and age is to be à rebours, against the grain.’” (194). Artist Marina Abramovic echoes this sentiment: “Now to come back to ‘less is more’. What we need is to empty our house. We are polluted with information, with everything we get in all the time. Our concentration span is not more than five minutes on any subject. So I can imagine how difficult it is for us to be here. What we could do is simply to clean the body, so that it can finally receive something else” (208). And she also says later, “The sad story here is that we cover our houses with carpets and we cover our streets with concrete. We use telephones instead of telepathy. With all the progress, we exchange computers for our sensitivity. We don’t use our intuition or our creativity at all. Even if we have free time we switch on our television and will just be hypnotised by the programmes. …There is this incredible problem that we are completely disconnected from the flow of nature” (209).

Brian Redhead, the conference moderator, asks some interesting questions about spirituality: “is spirituality nostalgia for the past? Is it escapism for another world? (103) Will it be the reward when we get everything right? Or is it something far more important than all of those?” (104) Religious Studies expert Houton Smith provides an excellent response worth pasting here whole:

“Spirituality is one of these primitive concepts, perhaps like ‘matter’ or ‘mind’ that is not easy to define, but I’ll make an attempt. I think that human beings are in nature – the technical word is homo religiosos – religious animals. Anthropologists have found no society that doesn’t have religion. Beyond our finite selves, I think every man and woman senses what the mystics call ‘the ground of our being’, something that is greater within us than our finite selves. When this ultimate component in our being breeds through our intellect, it is genius. When it breeds through our will, it is virtue. And when it flows through our hearts, it is love. It is real. It is not nostalgia. If we have lost the power to sense it, that is a brutality that somehow modernity has inflicted on us. / …a fundamental feature of the wisdom traditions that one finds right across the board is that, in Christian terminology, he who seeketh his or her light in egotistic grasping loses it, and those who can step out of their won light and cease to identify themselves simply with their private interests, find light. One of the most beautiful, succinct descriptions comes from the mystic Angelos Celisios: ‘Oh God, whose boundless love and joy are present everywhere, he cannot come to visit you unless you are not there.’ That is what spirituality is – a tropism within us towards the one, the unity, the coherence that life seeks, the more which is greater in value and worth than we have ever yet experienced, and finally, the mystery. So yes, if we learn the lesson, the reward will be there.” (104).

Another way the panelists understand spiritiuality is in terms of human wellbeing. Physicist Fritjof Capra says, “Human wellbeing is a very vital term here. The purpose of development is to increase human wellbeing” (217). He also conceded that human wellbeing is defined differently in different places – perhaps it has to do with what Hick was talking about in terms of the levels of meaning that are appropriate to one’s situation – but it does seem that ‘happiness’, although a bit wooly, is getting close to the definition. On the Moral Maze program (19/1/11), Professor Layard defined happiness this way: “Happiness is feeling good and wanting to go on feeling that way; the opposite, unhappiness, would be feeling bad and not wanting to go on feeling that way.” Notice the similarities in what the Dalai Lama suggests we aim for (i.e. happiness, even though he doesn’t use that word here): “Those materials which bring us suffering, and which we consider poisonous, we try to get rid of. Similarly, the different thoughts or the different minds are equally important for our joys and pains. Therefore it is worthwhile studying closely and analyzing the different kinds of mental states. We should then make an effort to increase the mental states which help us and do us good; and we should minimize the mental states that bring us fear or suffering” (23). At the same time, he states, “This is not a religious concern; it is our daily life’s requirement” (23). Later, he suggests that this is the key concern of secular ethics: “Moral ethics means: refrain from all activities which are harmful to humanity or the environment. This, I feel, is the explanation of secular moral ethics” (45). But the Dalai Lama complicates this picture by offering different kinds of morality: “I think, first, we have to make clear: what is the meaning of morality? I think there are two types of morality. There is one type which is related with religion; which is something different. Then I think there should be another kind of morality, which I usually call ‘spiritual development’. And also, whether one is a believer or non-believer, a very important thing in the day-to-day life of the community and the family, which I call ‘the basic human quality’ – that is, human affection. Regarding morality in that sense, I think the best teacher is our mother. Every human being knows motherly affection; a mother’s milk is a symbol of compassion. Affection is the fundamental point for the survival of humanity” (66).

Redhead also asks the panel why the conference participants are using the term ‘spiritual’ and not ‘religious’. Smith’s response is a familiar one for many: “Oh good, this takes me back home, to California, where spirituality is a good word and religion is a bad word. Religion is spirituality institutionalised; and every institution is a flawed reality” (104). Consider this study reported recently by the BBC (see chart towards the bottom).

It is easy to stop there, to just be freaked out by the word religion. But Smith makes the very important point that religion “is the only way spirit can get traction into history. Otherwise lovely ideas die with the people who have them.” (104). The message for this project, then, is that we ought to keep the gifts that religion have given us and continue to be inspired by what’s good about them.

Finally, I shall end this long post with some of the more inspiring points from the panelists. Fritjof Capra says, “What you are changing is people’s perception. That is where you can help. Because this crisis is a crisis of perception. We need to perceive the world differently to act differently. That is where art can be of tremendous help” (211). This is about designing real alternatives that embody different worldviews. My mission doesn’t need to be helping people practice meditation, for example (though many participants thought this was the job of the education system); but rather it is to cause a shift in attitude. As spiritual leader Sogyal Rinpoche explains, “Often people think that meditation is technique, but it’s not, it is attitude” (169).

This book also suggests that art is perhaps the most powerful way of facilitating fundamental change. But art and artist should be defined loosely, and could and should include technology developers. As Wijers writes in the book’s introduction, “[Henning Christiansen’s] sentence was: Everyone is an Artist. One can understand this only if one replaces artist with creator” (12). Marina Abramovic defines the good artist, the ideal to strive for: “It is important that we have this openness and see art as a possibility of transforming. Who are the good artists? In every century you have one or two, you are lucky if you have three good artists. The ones who can through their work change the way society thinks and have in their work a prediction of the new developments of humankind, these are the good artists and they inspire you and everyone to be good artists as well” (208). In other words, applied to my research, my goal should be to inspire others to be good creators of technology.

And this is my favorite quote from the whole book, again by Abramovic: “We need people to put their money in dreams, in concepts which have a prediction that may change society” (211).