
Does the Dao of Complexity have anything to say about spirituality? This is a question I am often asked and to which I often return. I believe it does… but, of course, it depends on what is meant by spirituality.
Integration between the ‘real’ and the ‘mystical’
One aspect of the spiritual comes, I think, not from complexity theory per se but from quantum physics. This is what occupied mathematical physicist Chris Clarke.
Quantum physics is not a tidy theory, and there are many interpretations. I am most in tune with Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics, and Chris Clarke is pretty much in the same ballpark. The view expressed is that quantum physics does not support a view of the universe as a real, unambiguous ‘thing’. It cannot be built up from building blocks because, at its tiniest scales, there are no building blocks; ‘reality’ dissolves into contradiction and paradox. Rovelli explains that qualities manifest in relationship, in context; so, two or more incompatible qualities can be present. Schrodinger’s cat is, in some sense, both alive and dead. Chris Clarke describes it as like trying to put together a wardrobe from a kit with wrong or missing parts – no matter how hard you try you cannot get the bits to fit. He also says that quantum physics is like having a crack in your antique vase – it is the crack that creates the beauty in the whole. In Leonard Cohen’s words: “the crack is where the light gets in”.
I’ve written about this in the Appendix to the Dao of Complexity (my PhD was in quantum physics, which doesn’t make me an expert but is a help) and I am not going to try and explain it further here. But the point I am wanting to make is that the universe displays not just epistemological indeterminism (it is too complicated to know) but ontological indeterminism (its nature is not as a real, objective entity). And in that ontological indeterminism is where mystery lies. The separation of science and spirituality – or separation of the objective and the mystical, or the real and the numinous – disappears in the light of quantum physics.
Now not every physicist will agree with this – the many worlds theorists, for example. But it convinces me, and I hope it captures your imagination and seems worthy of further consideration.
So that is one aspect of the spiritual. What else can be said?
Uniqueness not unity: the path is made by walking
Another theme relevant to ‘things spiritual’ that I explore in the Dao of Complexity is the disavowal, or at least the downplaying, in both complexity thinking and Daoism, of the Universal. These perspectives take the position that what goes on here and now is shaped by the particularities of history and context. In the words of the poet Machado, “wanderer there is no path, you lay down a path in walking”.
This is not to say that previous ‘way-making’ has not already shaped the path we join. We encounter certain perspectives, norms of practice and patterns of power and control laid down by what has been before us. Nevertheless, these are ‘structurings’ that have emerged, are temporal and will become modified by what we, collectively, do.
This perspective places a strong emphasis on our own choices and actions. If we shape the future, then if we want a world that is just, resilient and fair to all life both now and in the future, the onus is on us. Our choices, over time, will both cultivate ourselves but also shift the flow in which we are a part in the direction of sharing, compassion and caring. So, these ‘spiritual’ values can be strengthened through the way, both individually and collectively, we reflect, act and engage.
This is different from views that consider the future to be unfolding according to an overarching plan, or views that suggest we are being nudged by something outside of ourselves towards a particular goal. And it is different from views that suggest that individual selfish behaviour will, through some mysterious power of the market, enable balance to be reached. What sort of world do we want? Complexity theory is neutral – a path-dependent perspective also shows how power leads to more power and increases inequality and fragility. But if our values focus on ‘loving others and the planet as we love ourselves’, the emphasis through the lens of complexity is, to use a different set of words, on immanence, not on transcendence, and the invitation, as explored in the Dao de Jing, is to take responsibility for how we cultivate ourselves. ‘The spiritual’ is not viewed as separate from or superior to the ordinary everyday; it is just an integral but vital aspect of living.
Softening ego boundaries
One final thought to add to this reflective piece. Another use of the word ‘spiritual’ has to do with what happens when we loosen our ‘ego boundaries’ and connect at a deeper level with both each other and the wider world. People talk of ‘peak experiences’, but there is also a more everyday experience, often aided by silence and stillness, which allows a sense of connection with nature or a mutuality with others. Slowing down conversations, allowing some silence, engaging the ‘heart-mind’ rather than working with the analytical mind, can enable something new to be experienced. It can also allow the emergence of something different in kind, compared to when we retain our separation and engage with each other through the swordplay of the left brain. I write about this a little in the section in The Dao of Complexity on emergence.
Finally…
This is an ongoing inquiry for me, and I wonder how it lands for you. For me it emphasises that how I act matters, that I have to think critically, that I have to hone and be in tune with my own authenticity, clarify my values and sometimes be courageous. And, if I care about others and the planet, I have to play my part, however small that can sometimes feel.