GUEST CORRESPONDENT: MICHAEL BERRY

Hi Kurt,

In the last few days I have revisited your “entanglement” post and read and researched scientific papers published on the ‘entanglement’ theory… a load of assumptions are revealed, built upon former assumptions, both physically and psychologically – a perfect example of the ‘observer is the observed’ psychologically.

The ground truth which humans seem to fail to see is that the universe is an evolutionary living organism, as is the earth, being inseparable from the whole dynamic cosmos. 

The human body is also a living organism, like all other species within the greater whole, remembering that the concept of inner and outer is a convenient fiction. However, objects do stand alone in form/shape independence, as objects – yet at the same time are dependent upon the organism’s whole for existence and survival. 

So a pencil does have an independent form, yet is inseparable from the energy of the whole of life dynamic. Similarly – the heart appears as an independent organ/object, although in the heart’s case it is part of a complex physiological supporting organism -it therefore being both actively independent and dependent at the same time.

Technical thinking is the capacity to measure that which perceptively exists – quite independent and different from psychological thought. A technical image of an apple is rooted in the empirical actuality of the apple.

Psychological thought can only exist in psychological images, which are not actual reality, BUT unfortunately mimic the addictive fear response, bringing about psychological disorder in the body/mind, and hence the greater whole of the planet and universe. 

The self is the issue – it creates an image of itself as the universe and then acts as god…consequently everything falls apart as the universe is a whole living loving organism and NOT a sum of the parts animated by a human puppeteer. So ALL thought not rooted in technical fact is a complete illusion – it can never be empirical.

The problem with art is that humans fail to see that technical visual thinking is NOT the same as psychological thought. Hence the disaster of contemporary art, where the self is a sacred space which can vomit any image and be praised for it. 

Contrastingly, when art is seen and accepted as the technical visual language that it is, then, and only then, will visual thinking be in its rightful place.

Best engergies,

Michael