On my walk yesterday morning, I was
feeling something I rarely feel: that the weather, a thick blanket of
Pacific fog after some rain, felt “heavy.” I’ve often heard people use this
term, but this was the first time I truly felt it. At this point I’m not sure
what it signifies (except that we are approaching the darkest night of the
year, in response to which many cultures have long celebrated a ‘festivals of
light’ to counteract the dead feeling; and, in addition, that there may well be
a residue of darkness in me after the mass murders in San Bernardino and Paris),
but it has stimulated some thoughts about darkness, how most of us resist it,
and how, nonetheless, it is a necessary and unsung part of existence.
We
humans are all geared to the light, specifically sunlight. We feel more lively
when the sun is out, and more gloomy during winter months when, even if the sun
shines, it shines for several fewer hours than in summer. When clouds and
storms roll in, it gets even darker. Our language reflects this: “I saw the
light,” to indicate comprehension or spiritual awakening; “I’m still in the
dark,” to indicate bafflement, or “I’m in a dark place” to indicate depression.
The sun itself has long been venerated as a kind of god, pouring its beneficence
on earthly creatures, its photosynthetic energy into miraculous organs of
growth. And sunrise has long signified relief, renewal, a reprieve from the
dark of earthly trouble, or even the spiritual trouble signified by the phrase
“dark night of the soul.” In a cosmic sense, we respond with joy and hope to
the “light” of stars, as opposed to the barrenness of dark and cold and empty outer
space. We even measure distance in “light years”—the time it takes, presumably,
for light photons from distant stars to reach us, and thus serving as a measure
of how far in miles/kilometers from us that star or galaxy is.
And
yet, the sun can be a problem and too much sunlight and heat can lead to all
kinds of ailments such as droughts, sunburn, heat stroke, and the drying up of
fertility or fecundity. It is when we begin to dwell on this, this diurnal and
annual balance here on earth, that we begin to alter our perception and feeling
about light and dark. Our internal mechanisms, most obviously our sleep
patterns, depend on the alternation of light and dark in regular rhythm. If
that balance is upset, as it is when humans decide that people can work at any
time in the 24 hours that make up a day, bad things happen. People who work the
“graveyard shift” are subject to strange ailments and delusions. Drivers and
airline pilots who do this are far more prone to accidents than others working
a more “normal” cycle. Travelers who shift time zones often notice that the
interruption of their diurnal rhythms can lead to lower performance and
even illness. So we humans need the
dark, apparently as much as we need light. We need the respite from light; we
need the cooling down that darkness brings; we need the dark side of the earth
as much as we need the dark side of the moon. We also need the dark activity
that night brings; the replenishment that night brings; the dreams and deep
revival that sleep brings. This doesn’t even get to the penchant of some
artists to find their creativity (a kind of dark dreaming?) much more active at
night than in the daytime. Of some hunting animals to find far more prey at
night, to only find their prey at
night.
But
these are more or less surface matters. At a deeper level, we most of us may be
astonished to learn that, though we thought we knew (or physicists did) what
the vast stretches of space consisted of, it now turns out that adding up all
of the known ‘matter’ in the universe as indicated by the light from stars
simply is not enough to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe
that seems to be happening. In fact, the known ‘matter’ that we’ve always
observed (all the billions of stars and galaxies and planets) accounts for a
mere five percent of what must be out
there! Incredible. Where is the rest? What
is the rest? We cover our ignorance by calling it “dark matter” (now calculated
at 27% of the known universe) and its related “dark energy” (68% of the known
universe). But what is it? Where is it? It, and we, are in the dark. So all our
calculations about the content of the universe and its evolution, starting with
the presumed Big Bang (of which we have evidence), may be totally off. Everything
we know or think we know is now under review (see http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/).
My
point is not that we should all try to discover what’s “out there,” but rather
that in some basic way, dark is an absolute necessity. Dark Matter. Dark
Energy. Without such concepts, even though we don’t know what they signify,
everything we seem to be observing makes no sense. The Universe is expanding
when it should be contracting due to gravity. And not only is it expanding,
that expansion is accelerating at a rate that suggests there is this enormous
reserve of matter/energy out there causing it. And what we have always
considered ‘empty space’ seems to be charged full of some sort of matter and
energy we can’t detect but which seems to just pop up out of nothing. Though we
really don’t know. We are in the dark.
And
this is the other part of the mystery. We really don’t know how the world
works, how life works, how existence works. We want it to be apparent. We want
things to work logically, causally, in the bright light of our brains, our
consciousness, our reason, our mathematics, our machines, but they don’t. Rather,
they work in a way that is only partially explained by our science and
technology. Whenever we think we have some organizing function solved, we are
stumped to learn that exceptions always appear. The dark side emerges. Uncertainty
reigns. Some strange eruption blows all our predictions and calculations. This
pertains in our social organizations in a way that gets more prominent as time
goes on. Democracy was supposed to be the perfect system, giving each member of
a society his vote and thereby a share in its success or failure. But democracy
in the United States these days has been ‘hijacked’ by moneyed interests.
Perhaps it has been from the beginning, but it seemed to work fairly well for a
century or two, and to most people’s contentment. Not anymore. Rather than a
society of equals, the United States has become a society of haves—the 1% or
the 0.1% who control the vast majority of the wealth, and thereby the
politicians who depend on that wealth—and have nots—the mass of people who vote
in elections which seem more and more rigged to elect representatives who
ignore the people’s will in favor of the will of corporations and the wealthy
few. There’s even a term for this: “dark money.” And in this sense, the undue
influence of those with money and power can be seen as the eruption of the dark
side. So can the eruption of imperialism. Rome taught us that democracies can
be easily replaced by empires and dictatorial emperors (the Greeks posited this
transition as a natural, inevitable progression). The same thing has happened
in the United States. From a nation of mostly independent farmers served by
leaders who discouraged “entangling alliances” with foreign adventures, we have
become the most powerful empire in history, with nearly a thousand military
bases to govern our ‘soft’ empire, and nations everywhere quaking at our
approach to “help them.” And some, as in San Bernardino recently, attempting to
kill as many of us as possible. Again, the eruption of the dark side.
So
our enlightened penchant for equality, for fairness in sharing that finds its
apotheosis in socialism or communism or democracy, tends in practice to have to
pay its dues to the dark side. Russian communism demonstrated this clearly:
instead of leaders and bureaucrats who were motivated by the good and equal
sharing of a new kind of human, the Soviet Union degenerated into a cult of
brutal megalomania in which the most necessary organization was the secret
police—making sure that no one deviated from prescribed dogma. Instead of a
government devoted to raising the level of existence for the masses, the Soviet
government became, like its American twin, an instrument of empire. It gobbled
up just-liberated nation-states with as eager an appetite as any empire of old.
The dark side had eventually become dominant. No matter how glorious and
efficient our dream of equality and cooperation has been, in short, all our
utopias have sooner or later descended into the “some are more equal than
others” mode immortalized by George Orwell.
Perhaps
this should not surprise us. Ancient religions have always felt the need to pay
homage to this dark side—seeing, probably more clearly than we moderns, that
the dark side will always emerge and demand its due. They perhaps saw that
nothing that is all light can exist. It cannot exist in nature. It cannot exist
in human groups or societies or religions. So in Hinduism, there are “dark”
gods and goddesses: Shiva the Destroyer, Kali the Dark Mother adorned with
skulls, the womb and tomb of the earth (related in this sense to Coatlicue of
the Aztecs, whose name means “serpent skirt”).
Shiva is “responsible for change both in the form of death and destruction
and in the positive sense of destroying the ego.” This latter capacity makes
Shiva the god special to the Indian practice of meditation where the mind is
stopped and everything associated with individuality and the world is dropped.
So the dark side of the Hindu pantheon is ultimately seen as necessary to the
most pure and aimed at the most good.
We
can see how this might have occurred to Indian philosophers and sages. They
could see, as we can when we focus on it, that the world and existence could not
survive if there were only creation and fecundity inspired by light. Most
animals—as we are demonstrating ourselves today—have been given far too much
reproductive power. If any animal or even plant were left to survive with no
predators or diseases thinning it, it would soon overrun its nutritive zone and
cause famine and chaos. Insects without birds to eat them would become
destructive hordes, as locusts sometimes do. Rodents without larger animals to
prey on them would overrun the world with disease and death. Humans with too
much ability to counter diseases and floods and other natural disasters like
the toll insects take on our food plants, would do precisely what we are doing
now: increase far beyond the carrying capacity of the territories we inhabit,
and force countless other species into a mass extinction without parallel. The
destroyer in its many forms maintains the balance. Without destruction, without
death, life cannot continue.
Thus,
from a larger point of view, we can all see that the dark side of death and
destruction—no matter what form they take—are and must be part of the cycle of
existence. Much as we as individuals would like to (for ourselves at least), we
cannot eliminate them from our experience, cannot ignore or alter for long the
fundamental centrality of darkness in the way the world functions. And it may
well be that we are about to learn—especially we in the United States of
America, who have always been nurtured on the myth that we are the special
creation, the special light-bringing nation—that our mania to purify existence
so that it can be palatable to our massive egos can only end in deep, deep oblivion.
And that the regulating balance mechanism that has brought the earth to this
pass must, in the end, rule as it always has—with us, or without us.
Lawrence DiStasi
No comments:
Post a Comment