[Zak Safra]

Hi Peter,

this is very interesting. I wholeheartedly concur with your comment on preserving the environment which enables the reciprocity. It’s a very productive way of thinking of situations in general, to move away from direct, (reductionist?) causality and see how critical context is. I think its also connected to how Iain speaks of relationships as Primary, and maybe this is what he means when he speaks of a Hindu(?) myth where the universe is visualized as net of interconnectedness. (If I got that wrong, please do correct me).

The second type, which you called rational, and parallels mind and world sounds quite Platonic. I understand why you call it closed. In Chapter 22 on Time, Iain speaks of the Platonic forms as being an attempt to escape temporality. (I may have grossly misquoted here, I will try and check it later). And I suppose it does make sense to associate it with a left hemisphere kind of thinking because in a sense it wants everything categorized, and seeks some kind of fixity, the way I understood you describe it. It reminds me of how ancient Egyptian and other societies justified slavery and social hierarchies arguing for some kind of metaphysical structure which meant it could be no other way.

On the other hand, there are some Kabalistic ideas I am aware of where positive actions below (in the lower realms) can incur an Awakening above (in the higher realms). And I’m not sure that’s a left-hemisphere notion. Just a thought 🙂

I didn’t quite understand the last two types you described, (and I don’t understand Dutch). but I found your post fascinating, thank you.