Well, what was on my mind as I wrote the ‘Opinion-Editorial’ on ‘Global Warming’ was not ‘global warming’ per se, but the different psychologies that are ‘operative’ in the discussion.  I see three in operation which were first ‘categorized’ for me by ‘Missy and Larry Hein’ of Metairie Louisiana (Larry has since rejoined the cosmic flow, as he might have put it).

Larry Hein S.J. Ret. and his 'Angel-dog' Missy

Larry Hein S.J. Ret. and his 'Angel-dog' Missy

Larry Hein S.J. Ret. is a retired Jesuit priest who claimed (tongue-in-cheek) that his ‘angel dog’ Missy (his pure intuitive aspect) was teaching him and that he was merely her mouthpiece and a slow learner who was meanwhile trying to assimilate Missy’s teachings.  Larry was tuned to the ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and pointed me to some of his ‘forbidden’  letters which suggested to me that his ‘curious’ manner of sharing his ideas on religion was probably prudent;

“I do not know that you have ever had the opportunity to read the Letters of Teilhard to his friend Pierre Leroy. They were published in 1976. They are some of his letter written between 1948 and his death on April10 in 1955. Just four days before he died he mentioned that the General of the Jesuits would not allow some of his work to be translated into German. The reason given was that such idea should not be allowed to continue – or words to that effect.”

That is, my guess is that ‘missy’ was a ‘cover’ for what Larry wanted to say that was a bit, er, ‘heretical’.   Anyhow, Larry’s, …that is, … Missy and Larry’s,…  labels for the three ‘models of self’ were ‘The Chieftain’, ‘The Parents of the Prodigal Son’ and ‘The Autistic Teacher’.  In the following discussion, since I am not religious nor bound by the protocols of any religious hierarchy in such matters, I will call them ‘Moses’, ‘Jesus’ and ‘Mach’.

Now, while I did write the Opinion-Editorial prior to the following, all the while I had in mind this split between the three ‘models of the self’ and what better place to go to find the first two brought out in living colour than the American Thinker website, so, basically, what I was thinking about was how these three models of self, the Moses model, the Jesus model and the Mach model, tie correspondingly to three different approaches to scientific inquiry.

The comment as posted to American Thinker, is as follows, and it shall serve to give the ‘author’s subtext to the Opinion-Editorial on ‘Global Warming’;

Posted by emile

December 13 06:03PM

The clash of pro global warming advocates and contra global warming advocates is a clash of ‘psychologies’ that ties to one’s view of self -and-other and to how the two relate, much in the manner of Biblical models. Geometrically, the concepts of ‘dynamic figure’ and ‘dynamic ground’ can be invoked to explain these two psychological outlooks. A physical example would be storm-cell (dynamic figure) and ‘flow of atmosphere’ (dynamic ground). In the Bible, we have two very different models that we can style ourselves after;

1. Moses: the model of self as one that judges and then punishes or rewards. This is one way to manage the social dynamic; i.e. by way of ‘dynamic figures’ (i.e. let the social dynamic be shaped by strong-and-good dynamic figures)

2. Jesus: the model of self as one that suspends judgement and seeks to bring about transformation in the dynamics of others; i.e. to work the problem from the side of the dynamic ground (let the dynamic figure be transformed by loving dynamic ground).

Science similarly splits the world into two views -the dynamic figure and the dynamic ground, and affords us the choice of ‘working it’ (explaining it) from either direction. The fear of ‘global warming’ is the fear that we, our selves, will be transformed by changes in the dynamic ground that we are included in. This corresponds, with the ‘twist’, to the Jesus model in that the dynamic ground can transform the dynamic figures in undesirable ways. The lack of fear of ‘global warming’ manifests by a strength of self that comes from the chieftain or warrior persona (like Moses) that is going to make his judgement calls and do his thing up to his last breath, regardless of what transpires in the dynamic ground he finds himself situationally included in.

This split, call it ‘right’ versus ‘left’ or ‘Moses’ versus ‘Jesus’ has pervaded Western society for two millenia though political leaders on the national level have generally followed the Moses model, however, the Jesus model has been growing via ‘global movements’ such as by NGOs etc. which have wriggled out of the controls imposed by the local Moses in their sovereign states and are making an ‘end-run’ on the way that the global social dynamic is managed. This ‘end run’ is arriving in the form of advocacy for a ‘global government’ that orients FIRST to the quality of the dynamic ground and leaves the quality of the ‘dynamic figures’ flapping in the breeze.

Of course, these two models, the Moses (pro-dynamic form FIRST) and the Jesus model (pro-dynamic ground FIRST), are not the only models. There is a third ‘Machian’ model that rejects both the Moses and the Jesus models as ‘illusions’ since it accepts that the dynamic ground and the dynamic figure are two aspects on a single dynamic. This is the model implicit in relativity that Ernst Mach formulated that can be expressed as follows; “The dynamics of the habitat (dynamic ground) condition the dynamics of the inhabitants (dynamic figures) at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are being conditioned by the dynamics of the habitat”. One can visualize this in terms of the relationship between storm-cells (dynamic figures) in the flow of the atmosphere (dynamic ground).

So, while the Moses model advocates do battle with the Jesus model advocates, the Machian model is waiting in the wings. For more details on how these models arise in the science of ‘climate change’ one can read the Op-Ed in the Aboriginal Physics Newsletter.

Now, how would Larry map this into religious belief?

The first thing to mention is that I connected with Larry the way one connects on the internet, by doing a search and then being taken to websites that seem totally out of whack with what you are looking for. Well, I was amused by landing on a website of a Priest who claimed his angel dog was bringing him important teachings. But after reading it, I thought that I could see in the dialogues the same sort of ‘geometry’ as the stuff I was working on (non-religious per se, but to do with the relationship of man to space).

Well, to make a long story short, Larry and I began a dialogue, and indeed the connection seemed to be there, and for Larry it was couched in religious terms and in partcular, the religious views that linked to science of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

To give a sense of where Larry was coming from, in a letter to me mailed August 5, 1999 (Larry died Dec. 22, 2001 in New Orleans at the age of 80), he begins;

Dear Ted, I think you may enjoy the following exchange and brief dialogue between Missy and her friend Eliza.

Larry is a student of Missy and Eliza
Larry is a student of Missy and Eliza

Missy: “Quite honestly I did not have the courage to choose to be a rational animal. Rationality is indeed a blessing but it is also a curse. It is a curse because it is so intriguing that rational animals individually and collectively frequently think they can analyze, understand and then control the whole of Cosmogenesis. I chose as an intuitive angel to be an instinctive, sensate non-rational animal. What I intuit in the Universe I communicate directly to your intuition, thus by-passing as much as possible all the labyrinthine ways of the rational intellect.”

Larry: “Now, Missy, you know as well as I that the rational intellect of humans is what sets them above the non-rational animal kindgom.”

Missy: “Why, of course, that is what you humans say – that you, and by implication, only you are made in the likeness of God.”

Larry: “That is what we have been taught.”

Missy: “Don’t you think the whole of Cosmogenesis images God Who is the Source of Cosmogenesis?”

The paradox of 'dynamic ground' and 'dynamic figure'

The paradox of 'dynamic ground' and 'dynamic figure'

Larry: So we humans are invited to allow the modus quo to continually change with the evolutionary process of the species while holding on to and trusting the Incomprehensible Mystery – the id quod?

Elsewhere Larry expands a bit on the id quod and the modus quo; in the same Missy-Larry dialogue format

Larry: Let’s go back to the writings of Chardin about Cosmogenesis and imaging God as the Energy Source of Cosmogenesis. Are you inviting me and other humans who care to listen into a great big paradigmatic shift in our way of thinking of God and Religion? [ted’s emphasis]

Missy: Yes. Remember God remains the incomprehensible Transcendent Mystery as always. What is changing is the way in which you humans are invited to image God. I know you slept through most of the course in logic but you may remember the distinction between id quod and modus quo. The id quod is the that which. The id quod in our discussion is the Incomprehensible Mystery of the Transcendent and Human’s experience of this Mystery. The modus quo is the manner in which that experience is experienced and then expressed, namely, the Creed, Code and Cult. These three constitute religion.

Larry: So we humans are invited to allow the modus quo to continually change with the evolutionary process of the species while holding on to and trusting the Incomprehensible Mystery – the id quod.

Missy: That is correct. And there are times when the changes into which you are invited are more noticeable.

Larry: We humans don’t like to do that.

Missy: That is true. From my vantage point as an angel intuitively perceiving the Universe, you humans are like the disciples of Jesus. The disciples marvelled at the beauty of the Temple. And Jesus said, “You see all these? I tell you solemnly, not a single stone will be left on another. Everything will be destroyed.” (Matthew 24:2). The same can be said of any religion. Its houses of worship may all be destroyed; its Creed, Code and Cult may all cease. What remains is human in human’s evolutionary process, human’s relationship to all the other species on planet Earth and indeed to the Universe and the immanent presence of the Transcendent Mystery – the Energy Source of Cosmogenesis. As snake sheds its skin and lives on, so human is continually invited to shed the time-space constructs of religion and move into the new, the not yet, with trust.

Why Such Resistance to Change

Larry: OK Miss, can you tell me now exactly why it is that we humans are resistant to the on-going changes in religion that are demanded by Cosmogenesis?

Missy: (She is laughing) Larry, you didn’t even want to change the manuscript – to rewrite the expressions of your own ideas! (She is referring to the fact that the Advisors to my religious superior suggested changes in the first writing of the manuscript. When I was invited to change it I wanted to hold on to some of the expressions simply because they were mine and had become sacred to me.)

Larry: OK OK Now please tell me more.

… for more, go to ‘cosmic dance’ part three

* * *

Well, it seems pretty clear from Larry’s projections on ‘religion’ (aka ‘the Church’) why Larry had to let Missy do the talking for him; e.g.

“Everything will be destroyed.” (Matthew 24:2). The same can be said of any religion. Its houses of worship may all be destroyed; its Creed, Code and Cult may all cease. What remains is human in human’s evolutionary process, human’s relationship to all the other species on planet Earth and indeed to the Universe”

Meanwhile, its clear that this was a happy, love-filled theme for Larry, and that his humility as compared the ‘great doctors of the Church’ was infused with very deep and very harmonious understanding.  Click on Larry’s photograph to read a memoriam to him;

Larry Hein in his priest garb (before he 'met' Missy?)

Larry Hein in his priest garb (before he 'met' Missy?)

I must admit that my abbreviated models of Moses, Jesus and Mach, … illustrating the different ways in which we might relate ‘dynamic figure’ to ‘dynamic’ form or ‘storm-cell’ to atmospheric flow seem to lack the spirituality that is infused into Larry’s.    But, I am a bit consoled by the following piece of dialogue between Missy and Larry;

Missy: Considering the limitations of language and your own limitations you are doing rather well. And I might add, what you have said is true of the Bible, the Koran, the Tao te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, and any other Sacred Scriptures of the various religions of the planet. No written word exhausts the Transcendent Mystery. Joseph Campbell says that even the Kena Upanishad, written in the 7th Century, B.C. says very clearly that the Transcendent is that which words and thoughts do not reach.

Larry: Thank you, Missy.

So, my thanks to Larry Hein and Missy for what seems to me to be a ‘mapping’ between science and religion (by way of three different models of self), or at least to what Larry calls a “great big paradigmatic shift in our way of thinking of God and Religion” which maps into a “great big paradigmatic shift in our way of thinking of the Universe and Science”

* * *