Thanks

It’s also partly to do with the notion of universes of different dimensions, as explored in Edwin Abbott’s little Victorian tale, Flatland. The idea that beings inhabiting a two dimensional universe would be unable to look out into a third dimension, even though it’s all around them, although they may be able to work out what it would be like. Conversely, the inhabitants of a three dimensional universe would be able to see straight through a two dimensional one.

Similarly, in our three dimensional universe we’re unable to see a fourth dimension, even though it’s all around us, but can get some idea of what it’s like, and if we could project our consciousness into the fourth dimension we’d be able to look back at ourselves and see straight through our own bodies. When we look at a Necker cube, the mind has to resolve it one way or the other, but if we could hold both interpretations in mind at the same time, then that would start to give some idea of the fourth dimension. Perhaps our minds may evolve to be able to do that, or perhaps science may be able to augment our consciousness to make it possible.

In the meantime, art can do something similar by seeming to project our consciousness into another realm, and unifying alternative interpretations to the point where a deeper, or more complete view emerges.

Iceberg theory generally states that you need to know about the subject as a whole and then the art, or book that’s written, is the top, visible part of the iceberg, 1/8th of the total iceberg.

The rest of it is what can’t be seen, under the water, and this is the part that’s required by the creator to allow the art to work on a subconscious level.

Andrew Motion, the previous Poet Laureate, regards Bob Dylan as one of the greatest artists of the century, and describes Dylan’s poetry as “on the verge of lucidity”. It struck me as a very good description, not just for Dylan, but for art more generally, because the perception of any work tends to flick between the unconscious resonances and the conscious interpretation, rather like a [url=http://wisebytes.net/illusions/necker.php]Nekker cube[/url] flicking from one perception to another. It often seems that the tension of that unstable instant, when both the conscious and unconscious are fleetingly held together, is what the spark of creativity is about, and why art can give a glimpse of a deeper level of understanding.

“In all cases the perpetrators may be assisted by others, frequently members of their own family, close friends and unwittingly, even their own lawyers.”

Why unwittingly.? If the lawyer is simply “acting on the client’s instructions”, as is usually claimed, and the object is to secure a divorce, then presumably the lawyer should be doing everything to bring that about.

If, on the other hand, the lawyer was genuinely using due care and diligence to act in the client’s best interest, then shouldn’t the lawyer first of all be making it abundantly clear to the client, that marital problems are very complex, that lawyers are not trained in the understanding of those problems, and except in cases where the client may be in danger, be advising the client,very, very strongly to consult a counsellor before proceeding any further.? In other words there would be a proper recognition that there are two quite distinct areas of knowledge and activity that had to be kept separate.

As we’re all aware, banking also has two distinct areas of activity, merchant banking and traditional high street banking, and it was the failure to keep them properly separated that led to the current problems. The failure to keep them separate was a legislative and regulatory failure, due to an unholy alliance between politicians and a banking profession that had a totally misplaced confidence in its own abilities, and which enriched itself whilst simultaneously creating widespread problems for the rest of society.

The cast of characters is different, but isn’t it pretty much the same underlying pattern of events that has brought about the tide of problems that exercises Mr Coleridge.?

“Divorce causes emotional turbulence, which can affect the minds of both parties and their supporters.”

My understanding is that more divorces are instigated by women than by men. It’s tempting to speculate that women, due to ingrained stereotypng, may be conditioned to believe they’re more emotionally aware, and therefore believe they automatically understand the issues involved and have no need to acquire any deeper understanding. Frustration of that belief may then lead, in the words of Kipling’s poem, [url=http://www.potw.org/archive/potw96.html]The Female of the Species[/url]to “unprovoked and awful charges”, and “speech that drips, corrodes and poisons”. Men, bless us, on the other hand, are more likely to “propound negotiation and accept the compromise”.