Einstein's equation E = MC2 has rightly become perhaps the most famous formula in physics.
However what is greatly overlooked is that - when appropriately interpreted in an integral scientific fashion - it has equal relevance from a psychospiritual perspective.
So from one perspective, all psychological "mass" in the accumulation of varied perceptions and concepts can be transformed into spiritual energy in the attainment of pure contemplative awareness.
Equally however all such spiritual energy can be subsequently reduced in the experience of phenomena of form.
It struck me forcibly at the weekend that spirit and matter are therefore of equal importance in experience.
However in practice this is rarely recognised.
On the one hand we have those who give primacy to matter leading - literally - to the materialistic perspective on life and advocacy of secular values (devoid of religious influence).
On the other hand we have those who give primacy to spirit which is generally identified with the religious vision. In extremes, matter is often seen from this perspective in many respects as inherently evil. Even when a legitimate role for matter is recognised it is rarely properly integrated with spirit.
Indeed to be honest when I look back on my earlier adult life, I now realise that it was dominated by a somewhat unbalanced emphasis on spirit where In effect I saw the purpose of life as the need to successfully transcend the material world.
However it was only slowly that I have come to realise that it is equally important to make spirit immanent in the world of matter (thereby realising its true purpose).
So true transformation of spirit (in transcendence of matter) cannot be ultimately divorced from the equal need for true transformation of the world (whereby spirit becomes properly immanent in matter).
When I look at the great Western religions (including of course Christianity) I now am of the belief that they are unduly transcendent in nature. Not surprisingly such religions then often find themselves in conflict with the secular world with no hope of subsequently reconciling the clash of values thereby arising.
And if what I am am saying is broadly true, then this problem cannot be solved through seeking to be true to the spirit of its founders (for the very point here is that such a spirit represents an unduly transcendent perspective!)
I have tended to concentrate - as befits my own personality and limitations - on just one aspect of this needed reconciliation i.e. between religion and science.
Success in this regard, I have argued, is based on two key requirements.
1. the demytholigisation of religious understanding and
2. the "spiritualisation" of science in the recognition of its hidden qualitative dimension.
Ultimately the three great pathways to truth through the arts, science and religion are designed to complement each other in a seamless integrated fashion.
The fact that this is clearly not the case at present only serves to highlight the unduly fragmented manner in which the "big three" are generally viewed.