Let's return to the distinction made earlier between encounters in which there is no differentiation between cause and an effect, such as occurs in mutual encounters facilitated by the fundamental physical forces, and encounters in which some objects can clearly be distinguished to be causes and others effects.

Consider that the line-up of objects going into, and those coming out of, an architective event will not be the same. Some objects will have been disrupted and/or some will have been created. This distinct before-and-after difference allows the definite identification of the objects that went into the event but did not come out and those that came out but did not go in, as being either causes or effects of the event. The definite before versus after distinction may also allow a specific direction to the event.

Contrarily, consider that the line-up of objects going into and those coming out of a connective event, such as a meeting of waves or an integration of connectives, does not change. Sure their arrangement and visages may have changed but there are no new objects created and no old ones have disappeared. No identities have changed. No object can definitively be said to be the cause of the event and none can be said to be the effect - all the participating objects, visages or waves, are both causes and effects - that is, the event is causally mutual. As well, depending on how the play of visages works out, it may not even be possible to pin-point what has been changed by the event so it may not even have a direction.

Upward and Downward Causation

Many physicists and chemists assert that everything can ultimately be described in terms of the four fundamental forces of physics, in the sense that understanding the fundamental forces of physics allows us to understand the behaviour of atoms which then allows us to understand the behaviour of molecules which then allows us to understand the behaviour of biological cells which then allows us to understand the behaviour of people, and so on. This line of thinking is known as 'upward causation'. Upward causation can be described in terms of this discussion as architective constraints on the fundamental forces giving rise to sub-atomic objects, the architective interactions between these giving rise to atoms from which molecules emerge and so on. The physicists' and chemists' assertion can be understood in terms of rising levels in an architective hierarchy.

But many biologists say that we cannot understand animal intelligence and free will in this way. They argue that upward causation must be complemented by a downward causation, one in which an animal's mind or brain can control its own organs such as its hands and feet. In terms of this discussion, the downward causation that biologists propose can be seen in the control and organization that higher level objects in an architective hierarchy impose on their lower levels.

Both upward and downward causation are relevant only within architective contexts. Connective contexts are causally mutual.

I mentioned earlier that architective deities act on us through the constraints they impose on us. Now we see that they utilize causation, both upward and downward, to effect those constraints, while connective deities act on us solely through constellations arising from connective apprehension.

Justice

Questions of justice require that someone or something can be identified as the perpetrator or cause of a crime. In a purely connective context identifying a cause is not possible. The concepts of justice, guilt and punishment are relevant only in architective contexts.

Morality

What about crime? What about good and evil? Certainly moral values can be architectively codified in a system of justice or social convention, but what about in the vagueness of purely connective situations? I personally believe in a Cosmic Deity that has a preference for harmony but does that mean turbulence is morally wrong? Is there an absolute morality of what is right and what is wrong? Unless one is an adherent of a religion, its morals would appear to be arbitrary. For 17th century Europe, the realization that the morality of the Judeo-Christian complex was dogmatically defined rather than an absolute tenet of reality was traumatic for that society. Since then the prevailing opinion of Western philosophy has been that there is no absolute morality.

Of course there are moral consequences for us in our choices of action, for example we may act with regard to charity and propriety rather than self-interest and deceit, but these are morals of our own making rather than morals imposed by reality itself.

The connective and architective modes of meaning, on the other hand, are imposed by reality itself, and these modes can constitute absolute moralities in that we may be required, as an absolute condition of reality, to act either with regard to architective serial meanings such as stasis, precision, and control, or to act with regard to connective serial meanings such as flexibility, indefiniteness and interference.

For unimodal deities there is no such moral choice, for connectively unimodal deities would necessarily follow the connective morality while architectively unimodal deities would necessarily follow the architective morality. But humans are sometimes faced with having to choose between an action whose serial meaning is architective and one whose serial meaning is connective, and when their outcomes are contradictory there is a moral significance in that choice. Every time we choose between an action whose serial meaning is architective and one whose serial meaning is connective, we actualize only one serial meaning and are then personally responsible for having chosen the narrative - and absolute morality - associated with the serial meaning that manifests in our locality. If, in addition, these meanings are significant to a deity, our choices have spiritual consequences as well.

Not understanding that we have such a choice, and actualizing the architective morality by default of the architective dominion is also, for me, a moral failing (but in this case a human moral rather than an absolute one). I am not implying that choosing the architective rather than the connective morality is a moral failing, only that doing so habitually or unthinkingly is, for we have the intelligence to discern between them.

The human moral pickle is thus far more piquant than that of any unimodal deity, for while they may have choices within their absolute moralities, say between construction and destruction for an architective deity, they only have choices within their own moralities. We on the other hand may have similar choices within each absolute morality, but we may also be able to choose between absolute moralities. Choosing between them requires a moral balancing act of which our gods have no inkling.

I spoke earlier of the human privilege, that we can make music and make love for example, but above all, we alone, possibly with other animals capable of organic consciousness, have the privilege of being able to mindfully choose between these absolute moralities.

Questions of absolute morality only arise for humans and other organisms inhabiting the architective window of scale. Beyond that window, in the absence of architectivity, questions of absolute morality do not arise.

Regarding bodily pain and pleasure as vibratory phenomena in our brains means that human morals can be relevant to the Cosmic Deity. Bodily pain may be a connective experience but it doesn't sing. It drones or throbs, enclosed in the parameters of an architective bodily malfunction. Our bodily pain constricts the cosmic connective profundity which the Cosmic Deity so values, while our pleasure can enhance it. So there is a possible spiritual morality in our avoidance of bodily pain and our pursuit of bodily pleasure. However, though our pleasurely vibrations may be harmonious within themselves, they may not be in concert in a wider cosmic context or in accord with our social environment, and this may lead to consequences that are neither spiritually nor humanly desirable. Seeking bodily pleasure is not always appropriate. Divining the appropriateness of pleasure is a delicate act. The avoidance of bodily pain, on the other hand, is always appropriate for both humans and the Cosmic Deity.

Addressing the Architective Dominion

Though not an absolute moral necessity, we have a need to relieve the architective dominion of our lives. Our preoccupation with architectivity condemns connectivity to a subconscious background while we have a natural ability to consciously negotiate both modes. Directing the bulk of our conscious attention to architectivity results in an imbalance in our psyches which we are subconsciously motivated to redress.

Even when we recognize our overwhelming architective preoccupation, attempts to consciously explore connectivity have to be mounted in the face of an enormous social inclination to repress them. Nor does an exploration of connectivity bring any architective benefit, while explorers have little substance to show for their effort, making social recognition very difficult. Religions often attempt to offer a haven from architective pressures where connectivity can be addressed, but their havens are limited by the confines of their dogmas. These limitations may be far more severe than the havens they offer, so while initiates may be drawn to a religion by a promise of unconditional love, for example, they may then be shackled to its exclusivity, its dogma and its authority.

Where then can we turn to broaden our connective participation? The quietude of meditation is a tried and trusted technique for tuning one's attention to the connective subtleties of one's own breath and blood flow. Nature outdoors offers a wealth of connective entertainments in the play of wind and leaves, the dissolution of clouds and the interlacing of waves on a beach. Human interactions like song and dance offer opportunities for connective play. Music offers a cavalcade of connective patterning, while our sense of touch, especially when reciprocated with a loving partner, can invite orgasms of connective sensation.

Many people turn to drugs as a means of overcoming the architective dominion. This is justifiable in terms of the suggested need to bring connective experience into consciousness and is a reason why drugs can be so attractive. Interpreting the drug experience in this way suggests that compulsive drug use can be alleviated by accepting it as a valid means of connective exploration when accompanied by an awareness of the necessity of maintaining one's architective capacity as well. Drug use that cannot be appropriately moderated can then be seen to be self-defeating. Enforced prohibition leads to a rebellious rejection of all architective behaviour by many drug users, including a rejection of the risks of cleanliness, dosage or even survival. Perhaps more can be achieved by assisting the re-habituation of a drug abuser to an architective sociality that permits careful drug use, rather than to one dominated by prohibition.

The question of architective compliance is a complex one for us. We are usually so behaviourally conditioned that our own choices only echo those of our architective organizers. Even when we are rebellious, the choices we usually discern are between one architective motivation and another - such as a switch from one hierarchy to another or between construction and destruction (as good vs evil). No matter which we choose, the result is likely to be architective. It is only when we choose a connective activity over an architective possibility and thereby terminate the architectivity of our narratives that we are seriously rebellious.

A mindful pursuit of connectivity does not require an abandonment of architectivity or the termination of every architective narrative. Architective activity is absolutely necessary to our bodily existence. All that a mindful pursuit of connectivity requires is that the impulse to connectivity be recognized and accommodated when appropriate, and that the narrative continuity of our connective sentience (without it necessarily being conscious) be considered at all times, even under the severest architective pressures.

A mindful pursuit of connectivity, even when balanced by a healthy respect for architectivity, isn't going to make one wealthy. What can be expected from the effort, apart from the value of the experience itself, is a greater diversity to one's experience, a contribution to the profundity of connective spirituality and a greater awareness of one's participation in the cosmos.

A better understanding of our place in the cosmos can relieve some pressures of the architective dominion. Comparing the finite reach of architectivity to the universal reach of connectivity assures us that the dominion is not universal. Indeed we have only begun to physically conceive of these scales since the inventions of the telescope and microscope. Understanding the natural bias towards architectivity and its overwhelming strength enables us to be more conscious of our choices. We can understand that our architective acts are controlled or organized by architective spirits, while the influences of holistic deities are subtle in the extreme and likely only to become noticeable in the absence of architective controls. The architective contests between corporations and governments may put whole nations at war, but the relevance of holistic spirits lies in scales of subtlety and grandeur beyond our everyday contemplation.

The architective dominion of our lives is compounded over the course of our lives, becoming increasingly complex as our personal history progresses. But as very young children we were not so tightly constrained and many of the connective behaviours we acquired when the world was new to us continue into our adult lives. As adults we may still react with the same pleasure to an aroma that delighted us in childhood. No matter how architectively complex our lives become, there remain a myriad things we do subconsciously that are not architective, and through these things we participate in the cosmic connective system - sometimes even singing along with the cosmic song. Being aware of this, we may consciously seek to widen our connective repertoire.

I am not advocating a single-minded pursuit of connectivity. Our reality here in the figurate window is dominated by architectivity and there is nothing we can do or say to avoid it, no matter how much we may dislike some of its aspects. And many of its aspects are essential for our well-being if not downright enjoyable. It is our architective will to survive that motivates us to willfully constrain our behaviour, avoid danger and preserve ourselves. The architective structures of our societies provide channels and support for getting things done. We have developed architective institutions to constrain destructive architective behaviour and promote constructive behaviour. Remove these and our societies collapse, as is evident when the indigenous infrastructure of a colonized society disappears. Any attempts to suppress our architective natures would result in an equally unhealthy imbalance.

A Fitting Tale

I have just returned from a visit to a friend, having had an insight. She is in her late seventies and has been nursing an ankle she broke when jumping out of a window in order to escape from an orphanage as a child. On the run, her ankle was never repaired and she has been suffering repercussions to her hip and knee from accommodating the ankle for so long.

She has been waiting for surgery on her hip for some twenty months now and is in great pain - and she stubbornly refuses to take any but the mildest painkillers. Living in pain for that long has affected her mental state as much as the physical disability has affected her capacity to get things done.

But this morning she was smiling and laughing in spite of her surgery being postponed once again. Her son-in-law had given her a cheap mobility aid, a sort of chair come shopping trolley on wheels, and she was whizzing around her kitchen nimbly preparing coffee, chucking the odd twirl and bounce off the kitchen counter as she went. Even when she stopped, she was gently rocking herself to and fro on the smooth kitchen floor. What a difference this mobility had made to her demeanour!

It came to mind while watching her that she had been given an avenue to enjoy some connectivity, in which she could experience and express the subtleties of motion, and that this access had contributed to her positive state of mind.

As the day passed, other examples came to my mind - the pacifying effect of a baby being rocked in its mother's arms, or rolled around in a push chair or even taken for a drive in a car to get it to sleep. We probably have a similar response to dance or music generally. Even the appeal of a motor car - what makes driving a car sexy? What makes driving some cars more pleasurable than others? The variety, responsiveness and speed of their movement - their capacity to indulge in connectivity! In sport as well - some may enjoy the challenge of outwitting an opponent but there is always pleasure in the underlying motion and the opportunity it opens to express connective skill.

Previous Home NEXT