Audio Broadcast

Download Audio

Lesson 32- The Dialectical Universe

         In my last program, I finished up my discussion on the difference between Eros and Agape Love but it could just as easily have been titled the difference between the right and the left hemisphere of the brain because these two kinds of love, like many other things, seem to have a connection to the different personalities associated with these two hemispheres of the brain. The right brain, which is intuitive and artistic tends to depend more on feelings and is more associated with Eros and Erotic love. If you were to ask it what the purpose of sex was, it would say pleasure, or whatever turns you on! and perhaps that is why there seems to be so much erotic based sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, going on in the artistic community. The left brain, which is logical and scientific, is more interested in facts and consequences than in feelings and is more associated with Agape love, which is an appreciation of the object love independent of how it makes you feel. In other words, it is a love based on knowledge rather than feelings. If you were to ask it what was the purpose of sex, it would say reproduction and thus it seeks to control sex through institutions like marriage so that it might better serve the purpose for which sex was created.

        But these are only two of the many relationships in our universe which seem to be associated with the different personalities of our left and right lobes. In fact, it appears that the two lobes of the brain themselves are simply one of many examples of another phenomena found throughout the universe: the phenomena of dialectical relationships.

        It appears that our universe must have been created by someone who was obsessed with dialectical relationships because it is full of relationships in which two seemingly opposed things blend together to form a united whole. This type of relationship is called dialectical because the prefix dia means two and lectical refers to a clash or dynamic relationship between the two. In fact, the dialectic is really more than two, because the two, when they united in a dynamic blend, create a third which is a product of their interaction. Throughout the universe we have examples where one plus one, instead of equaling two, equals three And this may be because, whoever created the universe, is Himself a dialectical relationship in which one person interacts with another person and through their interaction they create a third person. Yet, in some paradoxical way, there are not really three but one. Let me just mention a few of these types of relationships.

        The hydrogen atom, which is the basic unit of reality consists of a proton, which is a large stable body that sits in the center and has a positive charge, and a small dynamic electron which circles the proton much like the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun. According to one book which I read, the proton, which has the positive charge is 1800 times larger than the electron which has the negative charge. When they unite, they form the hydrogen atom which is the first and most basic form of stabilized energy. From this atom, which forms 75% of the universe, all atoms evolved. Thus, the basic building block of the universe is a dialectical relationship between a positive and negative charge.

        It just so happens, according to the same book, that the female ovum, which is large and stable, like the proton, and has a positive electrical charge, is 1800 times larger than the male sperm, which, like the electron, is small and dynamic and has a negative charge. When the two united, they form a third being which is the product of their dialectical relationship.

        The universe, according to the physicist, is composed of matter and anit-matter and there is a more of one than there is of the other. In other words, it is a dynamic relationships between unequals and together they form the universe.

        There are two theories of how light travels. One theory says that it travels in cycles or waves. In other words, it is cyclical or circular in nature. Another theory says that it travels in a stream of photons. In other words, it is linear in nature. They have one test that proves that it is cyclical and another test which proves that it is linear. So to the question Does light travel in a cycle or line, the answer is Yes! because the universe is full of dialectical, paradoxical relationships in which two things that seem to be opposed in reality are cooperating towards the same end. In fact, modern physicists have defined the universe as a Cosmic Dance of paradoxical, yet unified relationships. It is Cosmic because it involves the whole universe. It is a dance because, like a dance, it involves the dynamic interaction between two different things. It is paradoxical because, although they might appear to be in an oppositional relationship, they are really cooperating towards some greater goal. And it is it is unified because although they appear to be different beings and they are, they are also really united in one cooperative system. In other words, they are Trinitarian in nature consisting of one which interacts with another to produce a third product. One plus one equals three which in reality is just one system composed of three relationships. Its just like it says in the Nicene Creed, We believe in the Holy Spirits who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

        I dont know about you but just telling you about this blows my mind! The universe is so complex, its simple and thats another paradox that blows my mind too! Thus it appears that a dialectical God, with a dialectical mind created a dialectical universe based on dialectical relationships. Therefore it shouldnt surprise us that the basic form in the universe is a triangle and that it is defined as a union of opposing forces and that Truth, according to the philosopher Hegel, is a Union of opposite. You see, its all dialectical.

        Let me just give one example of how a paradoxical relationship might work. I always ask my students who makes the best the locks: the locksmith or the thief? They look at me with a puzzled look on their face. What do you mean they say, everyone knows that the locksmith, who makes locks, is the one who would make the best locks. Thats not true, I say because the locksmith can only make what he thinks is the best lock. However, it has be field tested by the thief, who if there are any flaws in the designed will discover them and break into the lock. Then the locksmith has to study how the thief broke into his lock and redesigned it to eliminate that flaw. And, once again, the thief test his efforts and the process continues over and over again and each time the quality of the lock improved. So you see, without the thief, the locksmith cant make the best lock. If there was no thief, he would make one simple lock and keep repeating its design over and over again. Then I ask them who makes the best burglary tools, the thief or the locksmith. Again they look surprise but then their faces light up as they begin to realize that while the thief is helping the locksmith to make the best lock, the locksmith is helping the burglar to make the best burgulary tools. So the final question is, are they in an oppositional or cooperative relationship? to which the answer is Yes! The are involved in a dance of paradoxical, yet unified relationships.

        In other words, it might be that the greatest form of cooperation is competition. But arent these two terms the opposite of each other? It would seem so but in a paradoxical universe opposite might attract because they each one need the other to fulfill themselves. But lets return to our analysis of dialectical relationships.

        I have already spoken of the possibility that we ourselves are a Trinity in which the right lobe, which views reality from a creative imaginative point view, interacts with the left lobe, which view reality from a logical technological point of view, and the frontal lobe, which blends the two point of views, makes a judgment based on what it receives from the other two. A similar thing happens with our own eyesight which is three-dimensional. The reason that we have 3-D vision, which includes the three dimensions of height, width, and depth, rather than 2D vision, which includes only height and width, is because each of our eyes look at reality from different angles or points of view. If you have ever seen one of those 3-D viewers from Disney World in which a circular card containing pictures is placed in the viewer and produces a 3-D picture, then you can see how this is done. If you look at the pictures on the card, you will see that there are two pictures of each scene taken from a slightly different angles. When these pictures are shown to your brain, it blends the two into one picture which contains height, width, and depth. Many animals, because their eyes are on the opposite side of their heads, only experience 2-D vision containing only height and wide, which is what we see when we look at the cover of a magazine. Once again one plus one equals three.

        Another example of a dialectical relationship is sexual reproduction. The first type of sex, it appears, was asexual reproduction, which means without sex. Its the type of reproduction that one cell animals have in which the cell clones itself by dividing into another identical copy of itself. This type of reproduction is non-dialectical in nature because, like a locksmith without a thief, the cell interacts only with itself and therefore can reproduce only the same genetic pattern. This type of reproduction is a dead-end because it is non-progressive and could be symbolized as a circle which keeps repeating itself over and over again. In other words, no matter how many times this creature reproduces itself, it always ends with only itself. If this type of reproduction was the only type then the earth, instead of being populated with all the various life forms that exist, would be covered with a jelly-like mass of one cell creatures. In other words, there wouldnt have been any evolutionary development from simple to more complex life form. The reason is obvious. Unless there is a great variety of life forms, there cant be any Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest. If everything is identical. Then one is stronger, faster, smarter, healthier, taller, shorter or whatever. In other words, there is no variety and without variety there is no basis for judgment or choice. Thus, if evolution was to ever take place, a new type of reproduction had to take place in which one cell interacted in a dynamic way with another cell to produce a third cell which was a blend of the original two cell. This, of course, is what happens in sexual reproduction where one-plus-one equals three. Once this was possible, then variety was possible and with variety it became possible for the process of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest to begin a linear, progressive path towards higher and higher forms of life. Thus we can see that the circle is the symbol for repetition and existence while the line is the symbol for extension and development. Keeping this in mind, let us further explore that nature of sexual reproduction.

        Asexual reproduction is symbolized by a circle which, because it keeps repeating itself is non-progressive and non-reflective, while sexual reproduction is symbolized by a line which, because it is progressive and reflective, keeps extending itself towards some unseen goal. The first symbolizes existence while the second symbolizes development and if the purpose of life is, according to Jesus, the fullness of life then only a linear, progressive attitude is capable of taking you there.

        We could say that same to same equal the same and is therefore circular because it repeats the same pattern while same to different equals different and is therefore linear because it leads to new patterns. For example, in human reproduction, the male produces two types of sperm: one which has an X chromosome, which is female and one that has a Y chromosome, which is male. All female eggs have an X chromosome. Now if the X chromosome of the sperm meets with the X chromosome of the egg, it is same to same or female to female and a female will result. If however, the Y chromosome of the sperm meets with the X chromosome of the egg, it is same to different or female to male and a male will be reproduced.

        Now in order for you to get the full significance of this, I am going to have to tell you some shocking news. The female is the default sex and all males are modified females. In other words, the female is the basic sex, the foundational sex, the sex that comes first. Thus, we might say that asexual reproduction is female in nature because it is the female reproducing herself by subdividing. I once read that scientists succeeding in having females rabbits reproduce without the male but they could only reproduce females. If the female had continued to reproduce in this way, life would have remained circular, existential, and non-progressive. But, if the purpose of life is to develop towards the fullest expression of life then this type of reproduction had to go. It had to be replaced by a reproductive method that allowed two cells that were different to interact dialectically so that they could produce a third that was a blended difference of themselves.

        How was this accomplished? Some females became males and, in doing so, became reflective agent on those that remained females. Thus, we now know through the science of embryology that all of us males began in the womb as females. At first, during the first seven weeks, all children are externally females. Then, those which contain a Y chromosome get a shot of the male hormone, testosterone, and their ovaries start to descend out of their bodies and become testicals and their clitoris enlarges and become penises. It really shouldnt surprise us because the evidence was staring us in the face all the time. Havent you notice that men have nipples on their chest which, if the two sexes were totally distinct and separate, made no sense because nipples are the beginnings the females mammilla glands which she uses to produce milk to feed her young. Also, most of us have heard of some people known as hermorpodites who are born with the sexual characteristic of both females and males. Like males, they possess a penis and like females they possess a womb. Generally, medical science waits until they find out which psychological roles appeals to them in order to decide which way to change them.

        However, one of the most startling examples concerns a family in the West Indies some of whose girls, because of a genetic defect, turn into boys around the age of thirteen. Up until thirteen, they are physically and psychologically feminine Hispanic girls. Then at the age of thirteen, the defective gene causes mass quantities of testosterone to be produced in their system, and suddenly their breast disappear, their voices deepen, hair grows on their chest, their muscles become more pronounced, their womb heals over, and their clitoris enlarges to become a penis. Not only are then now physically males, they are also psychologically male. They are the typical macho Latino male and there nothing effeminate about them. Although they are capable of having sex, they can not reproduce.

        Now some of you are saying, How can this be? Doesnt the Bible say that Eve was created out of the rib of Adam and, if this is so, then the female came from the male, not the male from the female? My answer to you is The Bible is not a science book and many times when people try to use it as one they wind up with egg on their face and they undermine the credibility of the Bible because they are misusing it.

        Some churchmen in the center Age refused to believe Galileo when he stated that the earth was going around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth. They based their conclusion on the fact that the Bible talks about the sun rising and setting. The facts say differently. We must remember that the Bible is a religious book about relationships: God relationship to us, our relationship to each other, husbands relationship to wives, parents relationship to children, and our relationship to the rest of creation. That is why Jesus said that the whole law could be summarized as Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, with thy whole mind, and with thy whole hear and thy neighbor as thyself, and You should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. St. Paul gives advice of how husbands and wives should act towards each other and how children should act towards parents and, in the Book of Genesis, we are told that our relationship to the rest of creation should be one of stewardship. In other words, we were given responsibility for taking care of it.

        When one understands that the main thrust of the Bible is about relationships, then the account of Adam and Eve could take on a new perspective, especially when one knows that the phrase of my rib among the Ancient Hebrews meant a relationship so close that they were actually one flesh. In fact, Jesus, when speaking on the issue of divorce said that from the beginning the married couple were one flesh and what God had joined together, no humans should separate.

        The Bible, when properly understood and used, is an invaluable book for understanding the mind of God as spoke through the hearts of people throughout the ages. In fact, it is almost impossible to understand Him until we have learned His vocabulary and mind set by reading it. However, it doesnt end there because in addition to the written Word, contained in the Holy Scriptures, there is the Living Word which, according to St. John, is found in every human being. It is the Logos within us which, with its capacity for rational thought, is always speaking anew to us and leading us to newer and deeper understandings of the Truth. In fact, Jesus had said that after He had ascended into heaven, He would send the Holy Spirit of Truth who would teach us all truth. Obviously then, our understanding of the Truth is incomplete and it is constantly unfolding itself to those who seek and knock on its door. Therefore we should not be afraid of the Truth because, as Jesus said, the Truth will set you free.

        The Bible can be a tricky book, subject to many interpretations and misinterpretations and that is why we, as Catholics, although we are encouraged to read it for personal inspiration, leave it final interpretation to the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church, who have inherited the Chair of Moses, the Keys of the Kingdom, and the power of binding and loosening things in heaven and on earth. When the Bible is left to personal interpretation it is capable of becoming a divisive agent among us. Therefore, dont become upset when scientific truth threatens some traditional view that you have held since childhood. Trust in the Church to unravel and reinterpret it in the light of new understanding. The Churchs position when this happens is either the scientific conclusion is incomplete or untrue or we have misunderstood what the Bible is saying. Its army of scholars and theologians will wrestle with the problem and, in time, give us the final conclusion of the Church.

        Anyway, to return to my major topic of how male and female are just another example of the use of dialectical relationships to project the universe towards some linear objective. The female is the basic sex. In other words, if nothing else is added to the mix, we would all be females because x to X equals X. It is only when a Y chromosome replaces one of the Xs that the male is produced.

        Now, if a Catholics, we believe that it is the mind of God, who through His Logos, is leading the universe towards its final destination, then we ought to believe that this Logos, who is Jesus, had a logical reason for creating kicking reproduction up a notch from asexual to sexual, by creating a male out of the female. And it appears that there is.

        Asexual reproduction, because it is no-dialectical and non-reflective and thus is non-progressive because, as I have mentioned, you cant have Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest with asexual reproduction that keeps repeating the same genetic patterns over and over again. The only type of change with this scenario is the rare mutation that takes place when an imperfect copy is made. Otherwise, it is a circular system which keeps repeating itself. If the Logos of God was seeking the fullness of life, this obviously was not the mechanism that would do it. It was a good start for building the foundation material of life but something else had to be added to the mix to allow life to develop towards higher and higher levels of existence.

        I can imagine Jesus, the Word or Logos of God saying to Himself:

        Without reflection there is no progress and since My Fathers plan calls for life to develop to its fullest expression, then I must use a dialectical, reflective method to accomplish His Will. But reflection cant succeed unless a judgment is made following the reflection. But one cant make a judgment where everything is identical. Therefore, asexual, non-reflective reproduction, which keeps repeating the same genetic code over and over again, has to be replaced by sexual, reflective reproduction which creates a variety of choices. What would be the best way to do this? I know. Ill take a female, add a little testosterone, and cause her ovaries to descend from her body and become testicals and then enlarge her clitoris to become a penis. Then well get rid of the breast because the female of the species will be the main source of nurturing. In fact, she will be the most important one of the two because, it will be on her that the survival of life will depend. The male that I create will be her protector and provider and, if necessary, he will give up his life for her and her children because life- its survival and advancement- is what my Fathers Plan is all about.

        Just as the Father is greater than I, so she will be greater than him. And just as existence must precede development, so she will precede him. However, he will be my instrument for development because he will reflect back to her whatever qualities that she desires, and since the survival of her children and of the species will be her major concern, I will place in him an instinct to cause him and other males to compete to display their dominance in whatever area she designates. If the survival of her children depends on farming, he and other males will compete to demonstrate their dominance as farmers; if it depends on herding, they will compete as herders. Whatever it is, the male will reflect back to the female those qualities that she instinctively values as necessary for her survival and the survival of her children. And just as I placed in the male an instinct to compete for her attention, Ill place in her an instinct to be drawn to the dominant males. In this way life will not only survive but it will advance and improve. And, I, the Logos of God, will write into the Book of Life those that are fit to survive through a process of Natural Selection.

        Its a perfect plan for growth and development so long as the female is wise enough to reflect back to the male what is necessary for the survival of the species. However, if she should ever forget her role and tempt him in the wrong direction, then she will undermine the advancement of life. If she begins to project negative qualities that cause the males to compete to become drug dealers, criminals, or other activities which undermine the survival of her society then I, in my judging capacity, will have to write her and her off-springs out of the Book of Life. And if an entire society is foolish enough to produce unwise females who mate with sub-dominant males or males who are dominant in negative qualities, then that society or civilization will also be written out of the Book of Life.

        Do you get it? Jesus, as Gods Logos or Logic, is the Natural Selector which determines who will survive in the natural world, and, at the end of time, who will survive in the world of the spirit. In fact, He once said, The Father judges no one. I am the judge of all.

        Interestingly enough, the creative, existential right lobe, which seems to be patterned on the artistic genius of the Father, who is the great I AM, is, like animals, non-judgmental, while the logical left lobe, which seems to be patterned on the LOGOS, who is the Son, being goal directed, is constantly making judgments concerning what tends towards the fulfillment of our dreams.

        By the same token, Jesus is constantly making judgments concern what moves the universe towards the fulfillment of the Fathers dream and what doesnt. Those things that move towards the fulfillment of the dream, He writes into the Book of Life; those that dont, He writes out of the Book of Life. He is the Suffering Servant of God who is eternally striving upwards to bring creation to its goal of the fullness of life and He can not rest until, as He himself said. Thy kingdom come; Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven.


        If the Father is the great I AM, then Jesus is the great I AM What Is Yet To Come and in order to accomplish His mission He needs to implant His Spirit in others who then become His eyes and ears, mouth and arms, - in other words, His Body- which is constantly working to move the world from what it is to what it ought to be.

        So why should we go to Church? Because the Church is the Body of Christ and it is where the members of His Body meet to plan and to encourage one another in creating a world based on the Divine Plan of God. Well, I see that my time is up.