ON THE MEANING OF
ESSAY 3 : ALONG
THE
There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth – not going all the way, and not starting.
-
The previous two essays in this series on the meaning of life examined the House of God and the House of Disbelief. Both “H” Houses were found to be shelters built to accommodate and protect comforting, vested “t” truths – rather than centres devoted to searching for any “T” Truths that there may be to our existence. In this third essay I will search for Truth without the walls of our Houses.
Buddha, above, identifies two mistakes one can make in the search for Truth and I will try to avoid both – firstly, by starting, and then by going all the way – along “the road to truth”. You are welcome to join me to see how far we can get.
TRUTH?
Before we take too many steps on what is bound to be a long expedition, we should consider what we are looking for, exactly – what is our working definition of “Truth”? At this point many would ask: “Truth – whose Truth?”, and/or “how can there be absolute “T” Truths in a relative world?”
In these essays I have used capital “T” Truth to refer to things which are true for all of us, all the time – regardless of the “t” truths we may personally hold about a matter. “T” Truths and “t” truths may coincide, or they may not. For example, it can be safely held as a “T” Truth that we have animal bodies (having been established beyond reasonable doubt for all humans, all the time, by our personal experiences and by our biological sciences who we prove to be true by using them successfully every day). But that we are our animal bodies can only held to be as a “t” truth – experience and observation tells me that there is much more to the human condition than just our bodies.
Who/what are “we” – what is the full “T” Truth of the human condition? We have animal bodies, but what about our “self” – is it just our animal ego, or something “higher” – a soul, or spirit? The full story of the human condition will be the main target for our journey along the road to truth.
WHERE I STAND
To put all my cards on the table before anyone follows me too far into this journey, it is my present belief – my truth – that there is a metaphysical “T” Truth about the human condition – something crucial beyond the undeniable fact of our physical bodies. This impels my belief in an agency above physics – a Higher Agency, a “D” Divine if you like – but one more amazing than the human “g” gods of our religions.
In a nutshell, I believe that atheism and theism are both wrong.
TWO OPPOSING VIEWS CAN BOTH BE WRONG
As we considered in the Introduction to these essays, if there are two opposing views, only one can be right – but it is possible both can be wrong. Theism and atheism can’t both be wrong about the existence of any Divine and/or any special meaning of life, but they can both be wrong about the nature of the Divine and/or that special meaning. It is my observation that life offers hints of something grander than humanity’s theist or atheist “t” truths. It is the aim of these essays to search for and examine these hints in a non-ideological manner – to approach (as nearly as we can) the “T” Truth of the human condition – the Truth of “us”. Are we just our physical, animal bodies, naturally evolved after a physical accident – or are “we”, more truly, spiritual beings with animal bodies?
WE MUST LEAVE OUR HOUSES
The first two essays found both the House of God and the House of Disbelief to be full of selves/souls/spirits going nowhere along any “road to truth”. We must leave our sheltering Houses to find if any such road exists, and then walk it all the way.
WHY?
Why should we leave our comfort – why not just enjoy life?
AN UNEXAMINED
THE HOLY GRAIL OF PHILOSOPHY
Many think we should just enjoy life. But not too many people are having a joyful experience at the moment, and it doesn’t look like it will get much better any time soon. The holy grail of philosophy is meant to be to find the answer to the question: “How To Best Live?” To enjoy life, most, we need to answer this question, best. But there is a danger here, many have come up with answers to this key question in the past – and presented us with communism, fascism, capitalism, theism, atheism – which have left human history dripping with blood. The only way we are going to find a life worth living is if we embark on our road non-ideologically, if we strive to go all the way – around its last corner, over its last crest, through its last forest – honestly and openly.
WHAT IF THE EXAMINED
What if we find the “T” Truth and it is disturbing – what
if we find that, contrary to
Life, truly lived, is a risky business, but to seek comfort by living an unexamined life – like an ostrich with its head stuck in the ground – is the greater risk. The cost of living such a life, sheltering in an “H” House, is high – coined, as it is, in the currency of lost spiritual opportunities. For example, the fee to shelter in the House of God is belief in a parochial, jealous, vain, brutal, sexist, “g” god – in believing that the meaning of life is to achieve salvation from the sin of being human – this is not to see life as a spiritual opportunity at all but, in fact, a wholly Darwinian striving for eternal bodily/animal survival. On the other hand, the admission fee to the House of Disbelief is also scandalously high in spiritual currency – involving the denial of the spiritual outright; of believing that the human equation only has material, animal factors; that life’s only “opportunity” is the survival of genes.
Come with me, to explore along life’s road to truth to see if we can find out if our existence in this relative reality does offer our self a spiritual opportunity, and discover what that opportunity may be? It will be a demanding journey into challenging territory – fraught with animal cliffs of fall but, hopefully, blessed with exhilarating spiritual heights with stunning views. We may be disturbed by what we find, but take heart – consider this, from one of the wisest of us all, Jesus – taken from the Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic Gospel not included in the Bible):
“Those who seek should not stop seeking until
they find.
When they find, they will be disturbed.
When they are disturbed, they will marvel.”
Gospel of
AN INVITATION TO
VENTURE OUTSIDE OUR HOUSES
I invite all those within their
Houses to venture outside and join me in an effort to firstly find the Road to
Truth, then go as far along it as we can – around its last bend, through its
last forest, over its last hill.
BUILT UPON THE HIGH MORAL GROUND
Finding our “H” Houses is easy – the House of God and the House of Disbelief both stand out – having been built upon the high moral ground. And they are built surprisingly close together because the high moral ground is narrow.
A few brave souls emerge from their Houses at my invitation to explore without their walls and, together, we descend to the fields below. These fields are lush – being well fertilised by the manure from the sacred cows of both Houses. We look about us for “The Road to Truth” and, as we do so, are spied by the sacred cowherds and, in a rare act of co-operation, the soldiers of orthodoxy – the foot-sloggers of fundamentalism – from both Houses quickly escort us away from their charges. Sacred cows are vulnerable, and they force us towards a river, which has steep banks and wildly flowing waters.
There is only a rickety bridge over
the river, but we must cross it. The bridge bears a sign, informing us that it
is “
The bridge’s insecure timbers creak beneath our feet and we can see through the planks – down to the waters below. But, cautiously, we inch towards the other side and step quickly off onto the bank. We find ourselves delivered to the beginnings of a small track – leading abruptly away into the depths of a looming forest. It doesn’t look very grand, could this possibly be the start of our royal “Road to Truth”?
There is no other path, so we take it.
BURNING OUR BRIDGE BEHIND US
As we head off into the darkling forest the rashest members of our band pause, and in a show of bravado, set fire to the bridge behind us – it is quickly alight and there is no going back now. But at least the flames do serve to cast some light along our otherwise gloomy track and, fortunately so, because two pitfalls immediately confront us: one is sign-posted “Supernatural” and the other “Metaphysical”.
These mark the entry of labyrinths which slope down into seemingly tangled and uncertain worlds – wherein it has been reputed many escapees from the Houses of God and Disbelief have ventured to seek Truth – only to emerge more confused than ever (if at all). Maybe we will return to peek into these areas later if we can find a reliable guide but, for the moment, I propose we dance around these potential traps – to explore the unnatural rather than the supernatural, and the non-physical rather than the metaphysical.
What do I mean by these terms?
THE UNNATURAL
By the “unnatural” I mean those phenomena which apparently exist in our natural world but do not look as if they can be well described as being the natural consequences of it. For example, while it may be possible that atoms might, somehow, have naturally come into existence – even to somehow, naturally become alive – is it rational to deduce that those atoms should naturally, causally, proceed to compose the 9th symphony, carve the Pieta, construct the Sagrada Familiglia, paint the Giaconda, sing the Messiah, dance Swan Lake, or write Hamlet?
THE NON-PHYSICAL
And by the “non-physical” I mean things which definitely exist in our world but are not of the physical, material world of atoms and forces – things like: humour, beauty, virtue, honour, shame, right, wrong – things which may possibly have awarded natural selection advantages, but how did they exist in the first place to be “selected” by the self?
The self?
The self, soul, spirit (call it what you will). Again, something we know to exist but not natural nor physical – that part of us which is not of our animal body and its natural animal instincts, survival needs, and genetic imperatives – nor of physical material. The “self” – that part of us which wrote the 9th symphony, that part of us which is “moved” by the hearing of it.
SOME TRACKS, BUT WHICH WAY TO VENTURE?
So, we arrive at a point where there are a few tracks to explore – one of them, all of them, may lead us to the Truth? Which to follow? Here we need some wisdom, a little knowledge – perhaps both? Let’s try a little Philosophy to guide us?
PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is: “The love of knowledge and wisdom”. Just the thing – what better as a compass to guide us along our road to Truth, than Philosophy? So, let’s take out our philosophical compass and see where it points us?
A “FOOTNOTE TO
Western philosophy evolved from
the great golden age of Greek philosophy which had its finest blossoming around
the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. – an era dominated by the
thoughts of
A “HANDMAIDEN TO SCIENCE”?
During the 20th century the process accelerated, with physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, and chemistry becoming the high-profile, practical and theoretical (Big Bang, quantum mechanics, evolutionary Theory) performers. Our physical sciences promised an imminent unification – and a Theory of Everything. Dazzled, Philosophy has trotted along behind with various philosophical “isms” like atheism, materialism, nihilism, existentialism, naturalism, reductionism, determinism, relativism, post-modernism – all of which positions have as their ultimate corollary: meaninglessness – i.e. life is devoid of special meaning (“T” Truth), only personal meanings (“t” truth) are possible. Such doctrines now form the default philosophy of academe and it is any other position that has to be justified – and justified by physical evidence, using the scientific method. All is entirely matter and energy which began accidentally (and, according to theoretical physics, from nothing) and is proceeding mechanistically. Life, itself, is a spontaneous chemical event; natural selection created everything subsequently; all our behaviour is driven by survival and genetic imperatives and entirely causal; free will cannot exist. Evidence to the contrary must be testable by the scientific method and only atoms and energy need apply.
Not only has materialism become the default position of current philosophy – any non-materialist position must be proven using material evidence. Neat, meaninglessness is concreted in. The Universe (or Multiverse) is mechanical and there can be no “ghosts in the machine” – ghosts like the self/soul/spirit.
HERE WE STAND, COMPASS IN
So, here we stand on our road to truth, modern scientifico-philosophical compass in hand, needle spinning and all points indicating meaninglessness wherever it settles. Everything is accidental, and from nothing – there is no first cause, no Divine. We are cut adrift from our supposed destiny, from our previously central position in the universe, from our special relationship with God – all is chance. Post-modern Philosopher Jacques Monod spells it out:
“The ancient covenant is in pieces: man at
last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of
which he has emerged only by chance. Neither his destiny nor his duty have been
written down. ”
- (P.167 “Chance and Necessity”,
LOST ON THE
So, basically, we are wasting our time on our “Road to Truth”. Our philosophical compass must necessarily point nowhere. There is no “Road to Truth” because there is no “T” Truth – only our personal, relative “t” truths can exist. We are necessarily lost – in a sometimes magnificent, but ultimately bleak land. We thought we were getting somewhere along the road to truth but we have come so soon to the brink of one of those “cliffs of fall” I mentioned in my introduction.
What to do, where to go?
Let’s do what a lot of us are inclined to do when given a
death sentence, let’s get a second opinion. Let’s consider what theoretical physicist
and philosopher,
“If the magnificent edifice of life is the consequence of a random and
purely incidental quirk of fate, as the French biologist
-
(P. 3, “The Fifth Miracle”)
“If”? “If”? “If”? Do I smell a chance of a way around the
precipice of meaninglessness we are standing on the brink of? “Bleak” may be
the word for
IF WE EXIST ONLY BY CHANCE
If humanity has emerged out of the universe “only by chance”, if we are “the consequence of a random and purely incidental quirk of fate”, if everything has proceeded mechanistically from an accidental beginning, if the human equation only has animal factors – then meaninglessness and purposelessness must reign and we are indeed lost on our road, with, as Bob Dylan would put it, “no direction home”. Worse, we have committed blasphemy and burned our bridges back to the House of God where we could have forsaken the pursuit of sinful knowledge (humanity’s once and always “Original” sin) and cuddled up to a little bit of comforting faith – in God “The Father”.
But, what if we are not here as a result of accident and chance?
IF NOT BY CHANCE?
Our bodies are, observably, the end result of gene mutations selected naturally by our relative (good, better, best) universe – but what if there is more to the human equation than just those bodies – what if there is more to our existence than just the mechanics of our physical world and the outcome of animal drives and genetic imperatives?
So, let’s quickly – by the last glimmer of light from our burning bridge, and with a little glimmer of hope in our hearts – see if there is more to the human equation than just our bodies. Let’s draw up a list of the “iffy” bits in the materialist, naturalist, neo-Darwinian theory of everything and make up a map to explore them.
THE MYSTERIES OF
What sort of things are “iffy”? I would nominate things that don’t look like they are well explained by the words: “accidental”, “incidental”, “meaningless”, “purposeless”, “random”? Let’s look at the mysteries of our physical world and of our non-physical world; let’s look at the mysteries of the natural and the unnatural; let’s look at the animal and the spiritual factors of the human equation.
Such things as:
· THE INCREDIBLE UNLIKELINESS OF MATTER
· THE INCREDIBLE UNLIKELINESS OF BEING
· INTELLIGENT DESIGN
·
THE APPARENT
· HUMAN VIRTUES
· THE SELF – A GHOST IN THE MACHINE?
·
SHAME, ETHICS, CONSCIENCE
· BEAUTY
·
MATHEMATICS
·
· CONSCIOUSNESS
·
MUSIC
· SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION
· HAPPINESS
· SPIRITUAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL?
· EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SPIRITUAL
· THE PARANORMAL
·
· ITC – INSTRUMENTAL TRANSCOMMUNICATION
· PAST LIVES
·
THE PHYSICAL WORLD AS
· HUMOUR
So, there’s our map. We have obeyed Buddha’s first injunction and set out on the Road to Truth, now let’s bravely continue on our path, map in hand, let’s skirt the abyss of meaninglessness to see if we can meet his other injunction to go all the way.
Time to explore the first place on our map – the incredible existence of our physical world.
“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players…”
- “As You Like It”,
Two mysteries here: firstly the existence of the world, our stage; then, the mystery of the existence of the players who strut it.
THE ACCIDENTAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE?
The explanation for the existence of our physical universe belongs in the magisterium of our physical sciences and their explanation for its existence goes something like this: our present physical universe (or maybe even universes?) is the mechanistic consequence of an accidental event occurring about 13.7 billion years ago. Most scientists are calling this event the Big Bang, or similar (the big expansion, big inflation etc.) but all basically envisage the same thing – that our universe(s) just happened – i.e. without the aid of any outside first mover, power, or “A” Agency (like a God).
IF ACCIDENTAL, NECESSARILY MEANINGLESS?
If our physical sciences are right and our universe(s) did come about accidentally – philosophy, following along behind like a handmaiden – must logically argue that all is necessarily meaningless. But the mysterious event which resulted in a physical universe came (also mysteriously) with some very meaningful forces (like gravity); essential laws (like those of thermodynamics); and a mathematical language which describes fundamental parameters (the strength of the nuclear forces) and delicate balances (like the strength of the forces and ratios between constants). All of which were so crucially set, that together they resulted in something – rather than nothing. These contrived, not only to allow the formation of this physical universe out of the chaotic initial moments, but ensured its continued existence.
SPONTANEOUS ATOMS, STARS,
PLANETS,
However they came into existence, first sub-atomic particles formed under the available forces and laws into atoms, which were compressed into giant fusions events – called stars. The energetic forces within stars created larger atoms which eventually spewed out in a super-nova explosion to form planets. Stars were thus the factories of the “star stuff” which formed into planets, molecules, and eventually – life.
EVERYTHING?
Our physical sciences have come to understand the interrelationship of energy and matter, and that the beginning of the universe was a chaos of energy, matter and radiation but, if the first Law of Thermodynamics is right, and neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed – where did the original energy come from which became matter? Science says it does not have to answer this question because the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, including the laws of physics.
Neat. But I don’t think that: (“ ” + original conditions = mass + energy + life) is going to stand as one of the great equations of all time? And where did the original finely tuned conditions come from to act in concert with (“ ”) to create order out of chaos? Gravity was one of these “conditions” – it may be a natural property of matter, but it is not a natural property of nothing. Many mysterious things needed to exist alongside (“ “) for the universe to get all its ducks in a row, and the slightest alteration to any of them would reduce our intricately interdependent universe to a chaotic jumble of energy and radiation, which by rights it should naturally have been if the product of an accident. Consider the “accident(s)”:
“We really should live in a Universe with just radiation and no matter at all. But we don’t – and one of the most exciting aspects of modern cosmology is trying to understand what monumental accidents happened in the first microsecond of the Universe’s existence.”
– Cosmologist
Krauss is not getting carried away – he may call them “exciting” and “monumental”, but he still calls the events leading to our universe “accidents”. So let’s consider these “monumental accidents” a bit further. Firstly, the accident of the unlikely formation of enough, and suitable, matter to form a universe. Describing the initial moments after the beginning Krauss says:
“Every time a particle of ordinary matter was created, a deadly twin of antimatter was spawned as well. The birth of every electron, for instance, also saw the creation of an ‘anti-electron’, or positron. The two have exactly opposite properties. If an electron and positron subsequently meet up again, they mutually annihilate in a burst of energy. In the young Universe equally matched battalions of matter and antimatter waged war on each other. The skirmishes produced radiation…Why is there any material – matter or antimatter – left in the Universe today?…every now and then, one out of 10 billion interactions might have produced a particle of matter – one more than a particle of antimatter. In the end, you’d have 10 billion particles of antimatter, and 10 billion and one particles of matter. The 10 billion particles of matter and antimatter would annihilate, leaving just the one particle of matter left over. And that little bit extra is responsible for everything we can see today – it’s kinda remarkable!”
(Pp. 25-26 ibid.)
Kinda! Why not 10 billion and one particles of antimatter instead? Let’s now consider some other crucial, “monumental accidents”?
THE FINE BALANCE BETWEEN ORDER
Not only is there a very fine balance between matter and anti-matter, but there is an equally fine balance between order and disorder. All should be chaos in an accidental, spontaneous natural beginning – any accidentally occurring order quickly reduced by entropy. Professor Roger Penrose (mathematics, Oxford) has shown that, the chances of our universe naturally, accidentally having the required amount of order to combat the forces of disorder to produce the complexity we observe, is one in 1010 123 – a number so huge that the number of zeros totals more than all the atoms in the universe!
CRUCIAL RATIOS
UK’s Astronomer Royal – Martin Rees – listed six fundamental numbers which represent ratios, relationships, and proportions between constants which must fall within narrow boundaries for our physical universe to come into existence – and to continue existing: the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism and gravity; the proportion of the mass of a hydrogen atom that is released as energy when it is fused into helium inside a star; the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the theoretical critical density; the cosmological constant; the amount of energy it would take to break up a galactic supercluster; the number of spatial dimensions.
SIZE DOES MATTER
Some see the immense size of the universe as proof of its accidentalness – if there was some intelligent first cause, why so much waste in the design – as illustrated by the huge amounts of space and uninhabitable worlds? But, apparently, the huge size and density of the universe is immaculate. Not only were the above extraordinarily fine balances of matter and anti-matter, order and disorder critical – but the size and density of the universe is critical as well.
I have quoted the following in Essay 2 which examines the House of Disbelief, but we need to consider this point again here:
“…the mean density of matter in the universe
at the very beginning has to be within 1 part in 1060 of
the so-called ‘critical density’… If the density is smaller than it is by this
amount then the universe will expand far too quickly for stars and galaxies to
be able to form. If it is greater then the whole universe will recollapse under
gravity in just a few months … the universe needs to be the vast size it is in
order for man to exist. This is the size it inevitably reaches in the 14,000
million years which it takes to evolve human beings…only if it is so vast could
we be here! ”
-
I’m not sure that I adhere to
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER
So, the fact that something exists at all (rather than nothing) appears to be because of considerable fine-tuning. Our physical world may proceed in a causal, mechanistic fashion, but how energy/matter came to exist in the first place in order for it to proceed thus, still remains the big question.
But some feel that this
supposedly ultimate question (so beloved of theists) is a non-event. They feel
that although science may still be short of all the answers (there is as yet no
Grand Unified Theory) there has been sufficient evidence flowing from the field
of theoretical physics that we are able to declare that something can
come from nothing:
“We can also show that the laws of physics are just what they should be if the universe came from nothing.”
Or maybe there was always something?
“…let me address probably the most common
question theists ask atheists, one they smugly think is the final clincher on
the case for God: ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’…The eminent
philosopher
Stenger, ibid. P.116
Quantum theory also implies there can be no state of emptiness:
“And quantum theory tells us that emptiness would have precisely zero energy – far too exacting a requirement for the uncertain quantum world. ”
New Scientist Magazine (23/7/2011 – P. 29)
So, maybe the theists beloved “why is there something rather than nothing?” question is answered by physics – something must always exist?
What then of special meaning, ultimate purpose, and/or God? We explore life for meaning and purpose ahead, and will be more able to answer those questions at the end of our road, but I think it fair to say that the “creator-in-six-days” “g” god of religion is gone. This expedition is not particularly looking for God, but there is still plenty of room for a real “G” God in what we have found so far – maybe the always existing energy that became matter “in the beginning” was God (or of God, at the very least) – maybe God did not create the universe, but became it? And, even if physics manages its unified Theory of Everything, it is not the end for a credible “G” God – hints of a rational Higher Agency will still linger – for example, consider the question: “why do we understand physics?”
THE VERY EXISTENCE OF PHYSICS IS A MYSTERY
The understandings of our physical sciences are based on our unnatural ability to speak the language the universe was written in – mathematics. How did accidental energy/atoms come to understand itself? This mystery is on our map to explore more closely later, here just let us contemplate that understanding Shakespeare’s stage – our physical universe (or even universes if a multiverse is proven) is not the end of the mystery of our existence, just the beginning – because now our road to truth has entered the even more mysterious regions populated by the players who strut Shakespeare’s stage.
We will examine first, the very existence of life itself.
Whatever amazing process originated our physical universe(s), what came next was even more amazing – life.
THE INERT BECAME ALIVE
After the original sub-atomic particles became simple atoms, in time, heavier atoms (carbon et al) were formed under the mysteriously existing great nuclear forces inside stars. These eventually spewed out, probably in supernovae explosions, to form into planets under the equally mysteriously existing force we call gravity. And, on at least one planet, some of this inert star stuff became organic – alive – living star stuff. This happened on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago, most likely as the end result of organic monomers (e.g. amino acids) forming from organic molecules (e.g. water, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide) which teamed up with other (terrestrial or extraterrestrial) monomers to form organic polymers (protein) – and enlivened maybe with the energetic input of lightning?
Whatever, the important question for philosophy is: did all of this happen spontaneously – or was life no accident?
“What physical and chemical processes can transform non-living matter into a living organism?…It is currently being tackled by an army of chemists, biologists, astronomers, physicists, and mathematicians … On the basis of their research, many of them fervently conclude that the laws of nature are, to put it bluntly, rigged in favour of life.…Belief that life is written into the laws of nature carries a faint echo of a bygone religious age, of a universe designed for habitation. … [but] Many scientists are scornful of such notions, insisting that the origin of life was a freak accident of chemistry, unique to Earth, and that the subsequent emergence of complex organisms, including conscious beings, is likewise purely the chance outcome of a gigantic cosmic lottery.”
-
A FREAK ACCIDENT?
A “freak accident of chemistry...the chance outcome of a gigantic cosmic lottery”?
The exact nuts and bolts of the process to the first definite lifeform may be still mysterious to science (as is the correct definition of life – are viruses alive, how about toenails?) but it may be fully understood one day – and even replicated. Will such an understanding reduce the emergence of living organisms to the status of “accident” or “chance”?
“The living cell is the most complex system of its size known to mankind. …How did something so immensely complicated, so finessed, so exquisitely clever, come into being all on its own? How can mindless molecules, capable only of pushing and pulling their immediate neighbours, cooperate to form and sustain something as ingenious as a living organism?” (P.5, ibid.)
All of this spontaneously in an accidental universe? Imagine the chances of all these unlikely ducks getting into a row accidentally.
A CHAIN OF FLUKES UNIMAGINABLY HUGE
We are, as we stand in our present organic complexity, not just Davies’ “outcome of a giant cosmological lottery”, but actually the chance outcome of several gigantic lotteries – one after the other: the chance outcome of there being more matter than anti-matter; of the universe being finely-tuned for order to emerge out of chaos and the laws of entropy; of the existence of suitable forces like gravity to form stars; of the resultant star-stuff becoming accidentally alive; of that life accidentally becoming “complex organisms, including conscious beings”; and finally, of that consciousness becoming naturally so evolved that the beings having it can understand the language the universe was written in to the point of being able to alter the universe. We are beyond majority science’s “freak accident of chemistry, unique to Earth” – we are the end result of a multiplication of gigantic flukes so freakish that the odds against it could not be written down on all the paper in our world.
After the discoveries of
THE MECHANICS OF EVOLUTION
Once some combination of molecules somehow became alive (and the first simple single-cell lifeforms so formed somehow became capable of multiplying) random variations/mutations happened to some of these reproductions. Those variations which allowed greater adaption to the environment for their lifeform were favoured because they allowed subsequent out-breeding. In this way, advantageous mutations were naturally “selected” to survive and out-multiply over time – in the competitive natural environment of the Earth. This process called, appropriately enough – natural selection – seems to have been mechanical once started and resulted in the original, simple lifeform evolving into animals that were of increasing diversity and complexity as they moved into the various differing environments that the Earth offered and competed with each other for survival.
EARTH, A CAUSAL FACTORY
Earth appears to be a causal factory, mechanically evolving life once it exists. Evolution has been pretty well established as fact – the unavoidable consequence of life coming to exist in relativity – good, better, best. Existence in such a reality will always lead to the selection of best (fittest) in a competitive environment. The biblical god who created all animals entire is demolished, but a deist God is still a possibility (which God could have started life off and let it go its own way – maybe interfering with mutations at crucial junctures?). Whatever the Truth of any God, Earth is a causally-creative factory of animal bodies.
But one of these evolved animals is very weird.
A VERY WEIRD ANIMAL INDEED?
Natural selection takes time, and after a very long time and the natural creation of many species, one species of animal went weird – very weird. It evolved rapidly, and oddly, in a very short time. Of course, I refer to humans who, in a very short time towards the end of their evolution, became conscious of the universe, of the mathematical language it was written in – conscious of their evolution, even. The mysteries of consciousness and mathematics are down on our map for later exploration, but, the point here is – those who think that we stand here, everything about us well explained by evolution appear to have believed three impossible things before breakfast – that an accidental universe came into being; that spontaneously produced life; which became conscious of the whole process?
Humans have even gone beyond
MINDLESS MOLECULES BECOMING MINDFUL?
If just a mere living cell can be described as the “most complex…immensely complicated…so finessed…exquisitely clever…as ingenious”, are there enough superlatives to describe the complexity, complication, finesse, cleverness, and ingenuity of billions of these exquisite cells co-operating together to form animals who have come to understand the process to the point of being able to change and/or recreate it (or any other beings in the universe who have achieved the same, or greater, understandings)? Our atoms and molecules may be clever and ingenious but they are ultimately “mindless” – how did they become not only alive but mindful?
What are the philosophical implications of this?
ON WHAT BASIS CAN WE HOLD MEANINGLESSNESS AS OUR DEFAULT?
It is hard to see how such a highly-ordered universe and the occurrence of conscious life within it could lead mainstream academic philosophy to hold meaninglessness comfortably as its default philosophical position.
EVOLUTION – THE NEO-DARWINIAN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING
An examination of Earth’s animalia shows clear evidence of its evolution. However, the observable existence of evolution through natural selection can only explain what happened after life arose. Evolutionary Theory has nothing to offer as an answer to the question of the original existence of energy to become matter; the unlikely order inherent in the original conditions; the emergence of life from inert matter; nor the eventual consciousness of life (some would disagree with this latter point and consciousness is down on our map for closer exploration later). Evolution is a good description of how one factor of the human equation came to be as it is – our animal body – but there seems to be another factor in the equation that is “us” and this expedition will search for it.
More of that later – our track has become more like a road, but we are about to be enveloped in a storm. We have to survive this storm if we are to continue along our Road to Truth.
· INTELLIGENT DESIGN
So, neither the universe, nor the life in it is looking very accidental, and hanging around in the background is design.
A STORM
There is a furious storm raging around the idea that our complex universe speaks of intentional design – because it implies a “D” Designer. We have brought this storm upon ourselves, because in our examination of life’s physical stage and the players strutting it we have noticed the extreme unlikeliness of conscious existence being accidental (likening the odds of it being so to a gigantic lottery). We have also considered and accepted the ideas of others which carried: “a faint echo of a bygone religious age”; and nodded at observations which concluded that the universe appeared: “rigged in favour of life”; and of things being: “written into the laws of nature”. There is much which could make rational, a suspicion that the miracles and mysteries of our existence are not likely to have been accidental.
The intelligent design storm has been raging in philosophy for some time. What muddies the waters of the intelligent design debate is that the proponents of “I” Intelligent “D” Design are usually followers of religions who are trying to insinuate their stone-age god into the observable fact that the existence of our universe, and the life in it, relies on much fine-tuning and mysteriously-existing forces. This unlikely-to-be-accidental-complexity, in the opinion of Bible-believers, opens the way for the argument of irreducible complexity – the idea that animals are so complex that they must have been created entire as we see them now (i.e. total creation of all lifeforms at once – as per the Bible). Even theists who don’t take such a fundamental line on Biblical inerrancy feel that the complexity of our world speaks of design – and design, of course, leaves a god-shaped hole into which their religion’s god fits neatly.
OPPONENTS OF DESIGN
Opponents of design feel they only have to demolish the “g” god of religion to demolish design, and have causal explanations ready at hand to plug any god-shaped hole. As the first essay in this series on the meaning of life clearly saw, the House of God’s incredible god leaves it an easy target, but the second essay saw that the House of Disbelief lacked any satisfactory answers to the mysteries of life either.
THE DARWINIAN EXPLANATION
Neo-Darwinians feel that their
one great idea – evolution through natural selection – can explain everything
about our existence. The naturalism position is well put by
“...a life form’s organisation from cells to tissues to organs to the entire organism can look designed, until scientific accounts of the growth and development of an organism from initial single-celled conception to full adulthood were available.”
And,
“Finally, life itself may seem designed, but Darwinian evolution has provided an alternative account of the development of more and more complex organisms from very simple beginnings.”
“The God
Debates” P.97, (
Again, it is the “very simple beginnings” that are the problem – the original, simple, (miraculously) organic leggo blocks out of which every lifeform is created by the (still mysterious) forces of nature – not the eventually evolved creations like animals – however elaborate. Darwinian evolution may well have “provided an alternative account of the development of more and more complex organisms from simple beginnings” – after matter came out of chaos and the organic out of the inorganic
The Intelligent Design debate has failed to lend any weight to the propositions of either fundamental theism or fundamental atheism. Theists can only succeed in proving that mystery remains, and neo-Darwinians have only proven that any god proffered by any religion to this point is not the answer to that mystery.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS AN ARGUMENT, NOT A SEARCH FOR TRUTH
I think it should be accepted by
now, with all our understanding of the
THE BIBLE IS NOT SCIENCE
One thing that is not in doubt – trying to look dispassionately at the Intelligent Design debate – is that the Bible is of religion, not science. To attempt to bring the Bible into school science classrooms under the Intelligent Design debate leaves Western civilization at risk of losing its position of technological pre-eminence – as the once pre-eminent, scientifically-advanced Moslem civilisations managed to do by a similar means.
MANY MORE MYSTERIES
Our expedition towards any Truth in life has emerged from the storm surrounding the Intelligent Design debate without being thwarted – “T” Truth is still a possibility – therefore our journey towards it still a valid enterprise. And there are many more mysteries in life to examine yet, mysteries that may speak even more strongly for or against special meaning, ultimate purpose, and the possibility (and nature) of any Divine.
Time on our journey for a little star-gazing.
·
THE APPARENT
On our road now we are going to
consider the philosophical implications of an event before it actually happens
– nothing like being prepared? We considered previously on our road some
thoughts by
“a universe designed for habitation by living creatures.”
(P. xi, The
Origin of Life,
So, are:
“…the laws of nature rigged in favour of life.”?
(P.
xii “The Fifth Miracle”,
If so, then it would be rational to expect, after 14+ billion years, that there may be plenty of it in the universe?
SCIENCE IS DISCOVERING MANY SUITABLE WORLDS
There is one “T” Truth we can know: life exists on Earth. Science is discovering many planets orbiting suns in our galaxy, and quite a few of them are Earth-like. Mathematically, the number of worlds suitable for life is likely to run into the millions. We can’t know “beyond reasonable doubt”, but just doing the maths tells us there is likely to be life on many other planets “on the balance of probabilities” – given there is life here (God or no God).
One day we may settle this by finding life on other planets – or it may find us (some feel that it has already!)? But let’s consider, before any irrefutably proven event, what would the finding of life on other planets establish for our quest towards Truth – which is likely to be ever on-going this side of the relative/Absolute divide. What would be the philosophical implications of encountering life from other worlds? Some feel that it would be, necessarily, the end of any special meaning to life. Are they right?
THE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF
EXTRATERRESTRIAL
Finding life on other planets would definitely disprove religious accounts of reality, and be a mortal blow to the gods of their “B” Books – which not only place the Earth at the physical centre of the universe, but declare humans the universe’s only inhabitants. But finding (or being found by) life on other planets – finding that we are indeed, truly in “a universe designed for habitation” – says nothing about the existence of any special meaning or ultimate purpose – but would increase its scope. Nor, indeed, would it prove anything about the likely existence or nature of a real “G” God – except, again, that such is larger than our usual anthropocentric imaginings.
WHAT IF THERE IS EXTRAUNIVERSAL
Further, what if we discover that a multiverse is the true physical reality – rather than one universe. Further still, what if we find that there is life within all the universes? The same answer from directly above – but with brass knobs on.
NOT A PAROCHIAL GOD
If our journey along the road to truth finds a truly “D” Divine, it is inconceivable that it will be the God of one “chosen” tribe, of one nation, of one religion, or even of just humanity – but a God vastly more magnificent than our ancient, pre-scientific religions could conceive of. Only a parochial and/or anthropocentric “g” god will be demolished by the discovery of (or discovery by) extra-terrestrial life and/or extrauniversal life.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF
But what if we are able to definitively establish that life is peculiar to Earth?
It would allow, for one thing, members of the House of Disbelief to assert that life is more likely accidental and therefore meaningless – because it is only to be found on one place in the universe(s). But it would also allow the residents of the House of God to maintain belief in their Bible where it states that Earth and humans are special to God. However, it still would not support religious belief that the Earth and the life on it is 6000 years old – nor all the rest of Biblical religion’s incredibilities.
SEARCHING, WAITING
It is an issue which would be resolved quickly by an irrefutable visit or contact by aliens. In the absence of them coming to us, an answer to the bio-friendliness, or otherwise, of the universe will have to wait the outcome of our explorations into outer space. A definitive answer from such an undertaking will not be arrived at soon, involving as it would, a complete exploration not only of our immense galaxy, but of all galaxies in the universe. But humanity is not sitting on its hands, we are spending millions in a search of outer space with the SETI program (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intellgence) – and a plethora of other investigations of varied expertise and credibility.
Our map tells us we are now to focus more upon the non-physical aspects of humanity rather than our physical bodies and our physical universe. This exploration focuses upon humanity, not because of any anthropocentric beliefs that we are the most important lifeform, but just because the human condition is the one that we have most experience and understanding of.
Our road now leads into some deeply
complicated territory – we must strive not to get lost. Our map indicates the
first territory to be explored is that of the human virtues. It is a territory
previously entered and charted by some of humanity’s wisest –
“Man, when perfected, is the best of animals; but if he be isolated from law and justice he is worst of all…if he be without virtue, he is a most unholy and savage being.”
Courage, Friendliness, Temperance, Truthfulness, Liberality, Wittiness, Magnificence, Shame, Pride, Justice, Good temper, Honour.
Other, generally accepted modern human virtues include: Modesty, Sincerity, Altruism, Humility, Integrity, Compassion, Tolerance, Honesty, Fidelity, Benevolence, Determination, Reliability, Insightfulness, Commitment, Persistence, Resourcefulness, Creativity, Enthusiasm, Perspicacity, Broadmindedness, Generosity.
Is the existence of virtues mysterious?
MATERIALIST EXPLANATION
Materialism holds that the universe is a purely physical phenomenon – entirely explicable in terms of matter and energy. But, can virtues be explained purely in terms of energy and matter – as just brain states – electrical impulses in meat?
Brain states can create blips and
flashes on computer screens – that is, they can be shown to exist in matter
(the brain) as energy in space and time – but when we think about virtues, our
brain states are being caused by, directed at, things which don’t exist in
space and time.
“The sciences of human nature, including
neuroscience, biology, and cognitive science, assume human behaviour is
entirely the product of the nervous system…Nervous systems are composed
entirely of physical components: cells and tissues constructed out of proteins,
communicating using electrical and chemical signals…Brain states exist in real
space and time. They have a definite location and duration. So they can only be
related to other events and objects that exist in space and time. For example,
they can be triggered by light that reflects off real objects, hits the retina
in the eye and is consequently transduced into neural impulses in the brain.
But human beings can think about things which do not exist in space and time.
Human thoughts can be directed at numbers and other abstract mathematical
objects. Humans can think about other abstract ideals like justice and beauty [and
virtues]…But how can a state of the
nervous system, a pattern of neural activation, existing in space and time, be
about or directed at objects that don’t exist in space and time?”
“Dennet”, by
Problems.
DARWINIAN EXPLANATIONS
Neo-Darwinists explain that non-physical,
abstract ideals like human virtues will be naturally selected if they promote
the genes of the possessor. We exhibit “goodness” (virtues) not for goodness
sake, but because all virtues describe characteristics that are good for successful
group living – and group living is more likely to lead to our personal (and
genetic) survival. This from psychologist
“So when you dig deep enough into what are
apparently selfless, pure-hearted motives, cynics can still rejoice in knowing
that being good is ultimately, as evolutionary biologists point out, a selfish
genetic enterprise. There really is no being good for goodness sake...”
“The
God Instinct”,
Natural selection is the neo-Darwinians’ screwdriver – it can be used in an attempt to fix anything – but to observe that something not of matter and/or energy which exists in the universe may be advantageous to the survival of your genes, does not explain away how that non-material something came to exist in a purely material world of atoms and energy in the first place to be so selected. However, some virtues are not likely to lead to the propagation of your genes, and some are even antithetical to their survival.
VIRTUES ANTITHETICAL TO GENETIC SURVIVAL
We have already considered in Essay 2 the neo-Darwinian attempt to explain away the existence of altruism by classifying all altruism as either kin-, group-, and/or reciprocal-altruism – i.e. ultimately beneficial to the survival of the individual and/or group exhibiting altruism – therefore adaptive (naturally selected). But, some altruistic virtues are actually antithetical to the survival and propagation of the genes of the body exhibiting the behaviour in question. For example, some altruistic virtues (like compassion) cause people to assist unrelated individuals (and their unrelated genes) to survive sickness, injuries and dangers – which rescued individuals then compete genetically with the saviour’s genes in the future. And humans not only help strangers (non-group members) but even wounded enemies on a battlefield (anti-group members) – the last, Darwinian double jeopardy. And humans also show compassion towards animals and even risk our lives saving animals that don’t belong to us. “Animal Rescue” is a very popular TV program, and the R.S.P.C.A. is a popular charity. Risking your genes for the genes of another species – well outside kin, group, and/or payback protocols of the neo-Darwinians.
While there is no doubt that humans sometimes have (consciously or unconsciously) ulterior genetic/survival motives when they do “virtuous” acts, many are just driven by the existence of virtues within their selves. (Our map shows we are due to examine the existence of non-physical “selves” shortly.)
Some observations (we examined a
couple of reliable ones in Essay 2 – e.g. Pinker) show that our behaviour
towards each other is improving at a fairly fast rate – i.e. that we are
evolving to be more virtuous, not only towards other humans, but towards animals
as well. How is this happening if our behaviours are naturally and amorally
selected, according to the genetic survival advantages that they impart? I
repeat a quote from Essay 2 by neo-Darwinian
“Given that self-interest was the overriding criterion of our design, we are a reasonably considerate group of organisms. Indeed if you ponder the utter ruthlessness of evolutionary logic long enough, you may start to find our morality, such as it is, nearly miraculous.”
(The Moral Animal, P. 378)
The existence of
virtues, morals, ethics – in a world made up entirely of atoms and energy – are
unnatural and awesome. This from
“Two things move the mind with
ever-increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on
them: the starry heavens above and the moral law within.”
“Critique of Practical Reason” – Conclusion.
So where does this “moral law within”, this sense of what
is good and bad, right and wrong, come from? Some would say that because it is
not natural, we have been taught it by religion. But to quote atheist philosopher
“So it seems that humans have an in-built sense of right and wrong that operates anyway, independently of their exposure to religion. …I admit there is a difficulty [as an atheist] about explaining how we come by moral knowledge. But religion does not solve that problem.”
- (P.115 “Philosophy Gym”.)
AN IN-BUILT SENSE OF RIGHT
If religion is not the answer, is the explanation of “how we come by moral knowledge” (a non-physical characteristic of us) to be found in the existence of a non-physical part of the human equation – our self/soul/spirit? Thoughts may be energy in matter, but virtues are not energy or matter. You can think thoughts, but virtues are something you have, to the point of being something you (your self, not your body) are. Virtues may drive thoughts, but when they drive thoughts in a habitual manner they become something you are – virtuous.
Is it the self/soul/spirit factor which differentiates us from the other animals, which determines our “higher”, non-animal behaviours – our humane behaviours – behaviours driven by the spiritual factors of the human equation? The evidence of the existence of spiritual factors in the human equation alongside the (equally well-evidenced) animal factors is evidence of a spiritual being in/with our mechanistic body – a “ghost in the machine”. We are to explore more of this in a moment.
WHAT ABOUT NON-VIRTUES?
While we may have a conception of non-virtues as something that exist, they
don’t in fact exist as “things in themselves”. They only
refer to an absence of the virtues, not a presence – cowardice being the
absence of courage; greed being the absence of generosity; cruelty being the
absence of compassion – and so on. Such absences, if they existed as things in
themselves, should have been overwhelmingly selected according to Neo-Darwinian
logic – leaving us as a cowardly, greedy, selfish, uncompassionate, shameful, undignified
species. While we vary individually in the extent of our
self/spiritual-evolution, as a species we are surprisingly virtuous (
We have encountered the human self, soul, spirit (call it what you will) a few times on our journey, so now it is time to explore that “self” – to see if it can move us along our road to Truth. The most common way we refer to ourselves is as human beings – but what is that being – who and/or what are we “being”? We know we have a body – we have material evidence of it, but, is our animal body our being – who we are?
On our map we have now come to the territory of the self – time to explore it. Who/what is the human being?
“The ghost in the machine” was a phrase originally coined by
philosopher
THE TRUE HUMAN DUALITY?
The idea of a Cartesian human “duality” is out of favour in
modern philosophy, however, even if we allow that
Modern neuroscience tells us the mind is generated out of a part of our body, the brain – which is matter – a thinking brain being just “meat talking”, as I have read it described. How we think can be affected by damage to that meat – so the Cartesian mind + body duality is more truly a mind/body unity. But is the self/soul/spirit also of the mind/meat, or is it separate to the material body? If so, there is a human duality – but more truly a sum of self/spirit and body/animal factors? Maybe the human equation is: human = spirit + body – rather than: mind + body?
Let’s look and see if there is any difference between our animal mind and our human self. Let’s look at how our mind and how our self works – to see if the human mind and self are distinct.
THE WORKINGS OF OUR BODY/
The animal body/mind unity works pretty much the same way in all individuals – we have the same ideas in response to environmental and animal situations because they are adaptive (successful for survival therefore naturally selected). For example, the body detects cold, sends this information to the brain and the mind thinks: “It’s cold”; the then mind decides: “I’ll seek warmth”, and the body acts to do so. The stomach sends signals to the brain which thinks: “I’m hungry”; the mind decides: “I’ll eat”, the body acts. The eyes see an approaching lion and the brain thinks: “I’m in danger”; the mind decides: “I’ll flee”, the body acts. An sexy opposite comes into view; the mind thinks: “I want that person”; the mind decides: “I’ll mate with him/her”, the body acts. The mind is being driven by animal survival needs and genetic imperatives – it is an integral part of our animal body.
THE WORKINGS OF OUR SELF/SOUL/SPIRIT
The human self/soul/spirit walks to the beat of a different drum – it drives behaviours which, observably, serve no animal purpose – but which are spiritually uplifting. For example, humans get spiritually exhilarated, “uplifted”, by walking/riding/driving through a beautiful environment. We get uplifted, exhilarated, experience non-animal enjoyment through listening to music, admiring art, reading poetry, looking at amazing buildings. Most even get spiritually uplifted by behaviours which are dangerous to our bodies’ survival: flying a plane; diving the sea; skiing a mountain; riding a horse. What is driving us to these uplifting behaviours is definitely not our mechanical body – these behaviours meet no survival needs or genetic imperatives. How we execute these behaviours is decided by the mind: “buy tickets to music concert”; “go to the art gallery”; “book into a ski lodge”, but these behaviours are not driven by bodily needs – rather by the needs of our being, our self/soul/spirit – often at the risk of our bodily/genetic survival.
A “ghost” (our self) in the machine (our body) is a good description for our being which is uplifted by spiritual experiences. This being/spirit is distinct from the body/animal – a distinct factor in the human equation, which is best written: human = animal + spiritual. The human being seeks and responds to spiritual sustenance, whereas the human body has physical needs and enjoyments. More evidence of the distinct difference between the spiritual self and the animal body is to be found in the unique human phenomenon of ecstasy – according to our map, we are due to examine human happiness down the road, I expect we will consider the phenomenon which is human ecstasy there.
So, what is the nature of self?
THE NATURE OF SELF
I remember when my father died – when I went to identify his body, the man at the morgue said to me: “Is that your father?” I said, straight away: “No. But that’s his body.” I was not trying to be smart, it just seemed supremely true.
What is this self – this strange non-physical thing defined by the presence (or absence) of non-physical things like the virtues examined above, and other non-physical things like morals, ethics, shame, dignity which we are due to explore next? What would have made that body “my father” again? What was missing – his mind or his self/soul/spirit? Or are these the same things – which can be bundled up as his psyche? Some think so.
THE PSYCHE?
In philosophy, the word “psyche” is used to bundle the mind and spirit together (“mind, spirit, animating principle” – Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 1996). But the reanimation of my father, the return of his animal mind – his ability to think, to remember – would not have brought “him”, his self, back. What was needed was not only the spark of life to re-animate his mind/body, but the return of his self – his spirit as expressed in his soul’s needs – and determined by his evolved self/soul/spirit (more of spiritual evolution in a moment). Not only his brain’s ability to think but his self’s way of thinking; his sense of humour; his virtues; his morals; his ethics; his dignity; his opinion of others; his philosophy; his values; his strengths; his weaknesses; what made him happy and what made him sad; what lifted his spirit and what depressed it – his personality: the sum total of all these things – him. All these things defined my father’s “self”. The mind works, like any other part of the body, but his self governed it in a way that he acted like “him”.
THE
The mind is part of the body – generated by the brain, which is meat that can (albeit mysteriously) think about, and store memories about, how to best to satisfy bodily needs like hunger. But sometimes we are drawn to satisfactions of another kind – without the brain/mind thinking them. Consider the common experience of driving along a road and suddenly coming across a beautiful lookout – and being drawn to turn in to look at the view (or even doing a u-turn to go back). Who has not been “drawn” to a view – suddenly, without mindful pre-thought and/or going out of their animal way to “take it in” – or been drawn to follow beautiful music, a beautiful smell, to walk out of our way to gawp at a beautiful building? We are due to explore the phenomenon of beauty (what is beautiful, and why?) down the road, here we are just considering that the body/mind acts differently to the self/spirit/soul – to differentiate them – to establish the argument for the human spiritual + physical (self + body) duality.
SEMANTICS – SPIRIT/SELF/SOUL/NUMINOUS?
The words “spirit”, “self”, “soul”, “being” are often used to mean much the same thing but can cause confusion. I don’t want to get lost in the mists of semantics on our journey down the Road to Truth but generally prefer to use the word “self” (although self-evolution and spiritual-evolution mean the same thing). The word “soul” has religious connotations and is, broadly, the religious notion of the self – and refers in religious parlance to that part of us which is tested in life for its worth and subsequent treatment in the next, eternal life – so I prefer to use the word “self” because I don’t want this philosophical exploration to be confused with religious overtones. It is also my observation that people can be spiritual but not religious – often, the two positions are mutually exclusive (I discus in other places that religion in most people is Darwinian rather than spiritual). Likewise, the word “numinous”, where I use it, means for me “elevated” or “higher” feelings (generated in us by things like beauty) – rather than the older meaning of religious communion with God.
SELF/SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION
The extent to which our consciousness is raised to the spiritual aspects of life – the frequency with which we, individually, are driven to experience the spiritual and/or numinous in life and in other beings, the extent we can recognise it, and the extent we are elated by it – describes our individual spiritual evolution. We observably have individual differences in terms of our spiritual evolution: some create beauty, some consume beauty, some do both – some are moved mightily, some to a lesser extent – whereas our animal evolution is pretty similar: a body is a body, is a body. Our map shows that we are due to explore self/spiritual evolution down the road, so we will leave a deeper examination how it happens, and of all the “ifs” and “buts”, to there.
MATERIALISTIC EXPLANATIONS OF SELF
Materialists believe that everything can be reduced to the atoms and energy which make up the physical universe. Thus they see the self as just the mind, which can be reduced to just electrical impulses (energy) which zap through the brain which can be reduced, in turn, to just meat (matter, atoms). However, while we may be seen as smart if the mind works well – to be compassionate, generous, humorous, a lover of beauty etc. are not functions of the brain – but of the self (and as we shall see, can be altered by the evolution of the self). No, the mind is a product of the brain/body, not of the self. The way the mind works can be altered by damage to the brain – and affect our animal behaviours – but not the way the self/soul/spirit works.
THE NEO-DARWINIAN IDEA OF EGO
The ego is indeed animal – of our animal body – but is not the same as the self. Our animal ego is necessary to promote our body with its animal needs and genetic imperatives against others’ animal bodily needs and imperatives, in the competitive world that is our environment – wherein a “healthy ego” would be naturally selected . A healthy ego is a good animal asset but it does not need, seek, nor is it moved/affected by the things which move our self. For example experiencing beauty in art, landscape, music, literature, architecture, dance does not enhance our ego – but it does lift our spirit.
WE SOMETIMES RISK THE BODY TO FEED THE SPIRIT
We, our self, can not only be moved by spiritual things like non-Darwinian beauty (as opposed to Darwinian, bodily beauty) but we, uniquely (in animal terms), often go to great and dangerous lengths to satisfy the self’s spiritual needs.
“Dangerous”?
Dangerous activities like bushwalking, scuba diving, flying, skiing, surfing, riding. What sort of needs are we meeting when we indulge in them in a pleasure-seeking manner (i.e. not professionally or as a competitive, ego-driven, sporting contest)? Definitely not animal ones – I have never seen other animals risking their bodies to experience beauty. Sometimes they risk their bodies to satisfy “animal curiosity” (which humans also do, of course – being part animal as well). Animal curiosity, although often dangerous, (curiosity killed the cat!) may well have been naturally selected because it confers more survival advantages than dangers?
Beauty is down on our map for exploration later and we will explore its mysteries more deeply there.
THE HOLY GHOST?
We started the exploration of our self by referring to it as “the ghost in the machine”. Have we encountered the “d” Divine in our examination of self – talking of our self’s needs as being “higher”, its fodder as being “spiritual” things, and the self’s evolution. Evolution towards what? Is there an element of the “D” Divine in us?
This makes me think of the common Nepalese greeting: Nemaste – “I see/salute the God in you”. We considered, above, that any “G” God may have become the universe – rather than “created” it – maybe we (an animal/spiritual being) are the way God experiences creation? Maybe not just us, but all animals are the way God experiences “being” on this physical plane? Speculations, but I think that we have discovered enough to declare the self, separate from the animal body, and to conclude that if what it is to be human is to be truly discussed as a duality, then it is a spiritual + animal duality rather than a mind + matter duality as envisaged by Descartes.
Seeing my dead father taught me we have animal minds/bodies, but we are not our bodies, that seems to be a “T” Truth.
TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE
At days’ end, when our body’s life is over, the self is all there can be. Jesus said: “What will a man gain by winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self?”; Goethe showed us that to enter a Faustian pact against the soul/self, for animal gains is to risk all there really is; and Shakespeare urged us: “This above all: to thine own self be true.” The self is a complex subject and could take up the whole essay on its own. I think it fair to say that our path, once a track, is definitely now a road – with some more interesting things ahead.
We now come to a fertile valley where some really strange and unnatural human factors have taken root. Unnatural ideas like shame, ethics and conscience.
·
SHAME, ETHICS, CONSCIENCE,
So, is our conscience, a sense of right and wrong (our “moral knowledge”, in Dr Law’s words) “in-built” – part of what it is to be human – the native knowledge of the self within? Is our notion of right and wrong part of what it is to be a human being – a spiritual being?
A SPIRITUAL BEING WITH AN ANIMAL BODY
It seems that way, and I am not the first to have concluded that:
“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual
beings having a human experience.”
Although we do many things which are behaviours driven by our animal bodily needs, instincts, and genetic imperatives, we also sometimes go against those to do things simply because our self has decided that they are “right” or to do otherwise would be “wrong”. Our behaviours are not completely driven by our bodies – we sometimes do “unnatural” things – driven by our sense of right and wrong, good or bad. We have even turned the study of humanity’s unnatural notions of right and wrong into a discipline – ethics – what it is to be human, or what it should be to be human.
TO BE HUMANE
There is broad agreement across humanity on the ethicality of certain actions, on what is good form or poor form in human behaviour, what denotes uniquely “human” as opposed to ordinary “animal” behaviours – what it is to be humane. We often call something of which we vehemently disapprove: “very ordinary behaviour”, or “an animal act”.
TO BE HUMAN IS TO BE UNNATURAL
So, again, we approach closer the human condition by asking what does it take to be human? To answer this question let’s consider a uniquely human notion – that of shame. A natural, wild animal does not have guilt or shame when it falls short of an ideal – an ideal of “good” behaviour for its species. A lion has, for example, no notion of the human concept of “brave”, nor does it have a notion of what it is to be a lion – what is expected in terms of behaviour from the “King of the Beasts”. A pack of lions tearing apart a baby elephant wastes no time debating any “shame” that may be brought upon their leonine selves – whether their actions are “brave” or “cowardly” – beneath the “dignity” of a lion. They have no “shame” at the “unfairness” of the lop-sided match, waste no time on the “ethics” of the “cruel” situation or what is “beneath” them. All of the notions in inverted commas are peculiar to humans and their ethics and ideals – tags like “kings of the jungle” have been imposed on lions by humans. The tag has a sense of “noblesse oblige” – the rights and obligations of royalty – people said to have “leonine bearing” have a natural nobility about their body.
SHAME
So, notions of shame, nobility, and dignity are not natural – what, then, are they? They are unnatural, non-physical – they speak of the human “being” – the “self” – not the animal body. One of our most prized possessions is our human dignity, our sense of self – the human sense of unique difference from all other animals. Anyone who sees dignity, ethics, guilt, or shame in animals other than human is suffering from severe anthropomorphism (except perhaps in pets – who are not in a natural situation and are trained by us to behave like us – e.g. to be “nice” to other dogs etc.). No wild, natural animal has a sense of “bad” behaviour as defined by their idea of what it says about their “selves”. No animal is embarrassed by copulating or defecating in “public”. Why should they – it’s a natural behaviour? Only humans exhibit unnatural behaviour – we blush from shame or embarrassment if caught doing something natural in public.
NEO-DARWINIAN EXPLANATIONS
Our blush of shame is physical evidence of the existence of something other than the natural animal instincts and imperatives in us. I have heard Neo-Darwinians counter this by saying that hippopotami blush – but this is not a blush – it is a flush of rage, visible because of their hairlessness and only seen when they are angry, for example, when hippopotami fight. The animal in us can also make our face flush with anger when we argue or fight with another human, but we can also blush through shame – and only the spiritual in us can do that.
Neo-Darwinians also make out the usual argument that shame and pride are naturally selected because having them increases our chances of procreating our genes. If we blot our social copybook –
“...your public reputation deteriorates, and so also, by deductive logic, does your reproductive success.”
–
This seems a reasonable argument, but observe our closest
And there is something unnatural about human ethics. We are actually changing the natural world for what often seem to be unnatural reasons – reasons that have nothing to do with increasing the likelihood of increasing our “reproductive success” – reasons which could be described as un-genetic, even anti-genetic.
UNNATURAL ANTI-GENETIC ETHICS
In pre-human times, many animals were driven to extinction in the natural world through the over-hunting of a more efficient predator – it’s one of the ways natural selection works. But now, many naturally endangered animals still exist because of humanity’s unnatural ethical sense of responsibility that we feel towards the other “lesser” animals – our zoos look after many animals that would have otherwise gone extinct. When we had no sense of human ethics and were acting more like animals, humans drove other species to extinction (ground-dwelling birds like the Moas in New Zealand, for example) simply because they were easy to catch and eat – and thought nothing of it. Now we get a sense of shame when species are driven to extinction by us – and we get a sense of pride and self-respect when we successfully conserve animals – an example of our spiritual evolution. The more evolved spiritually we become the more unnaturally we behave.
The continued existence of whales is another good example of humans’ self/spiritual evolution. Whales have been, unnaturally, brought back from the brink of what was going to be a natural extinction at our hands because they were easily hunted. Not so long ago, we saw them as large, slow-swimming, hunks of meat and useful bone and oil – but now, after we have managed a little more spiritual evolution, we see whales as fellow-travellers – even recording their “songs” and being spiritually moved by them.
NEO-DARWINIAN ANSWER
Neo-Darwinians would put forward the argument that we protect other animals only because we have come to understand that bio-diversity is in the best interest of our own animal survival – therefore it is a naturally-selected behaviour. This may be a part of the current consideration, but saving animals just for the sake of doing it was practised by us well before we understood the principles of bio-diversity. Disgust at our species is a common reaction to the news of human-caused extinctions of other species – a lessening of self-respect. Is this natural?
Self-respect is another notion peculiar to humans, and pivotal to human happiness. Happiness is another unnatural notion – only humans seek to be happy – other animals just seek to be. We are due to explore happiness further down our Road to Truth.
OUR SPIRITUAL NATURE
It’s not that we can’t hear the natural drumbeat of our animal bodies and of our genetic imperatives, the strange thing is that sometimes, and uniquely, what we think of our self is as important to us as animal survival – and sometimes, more so. For example, many have ended their lives – and their genetic chances – because of self-loathing. Suicide as a result of self-loathing happens in humans (uniquely again) when some behaviour, some action, makes us feel so badly about our self that the drive for the animal body to survive is outweighed by the self’s sense of shame. There are other motives for suicide, of course, but self-loathing is always right up there as one of the biggest. Self-loathing can also lead to physical sickness of our bodies – even to the point of death – a case of the spirit factor dominating the physical factor of us. I have yet to hear of another animal dying of loathing the self.
WE SPARE SOME ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY
Our spiritual natures are also evidenced in our appreciation of the beauty of other animals. We no longer naturally kill and eat some animals, unnaturally sparing them and/or propagating them, just because we have come to see that they are beautiful (e.g. panda bears, parrots). An example from my own life – I used to be a very keen fisherman – I would fish in a puddle if you told me there were fish in it. Then I did a scuba-diving course. The beauties of the undersea world moved me greatly. Now I find I get no enjoyment from fishing – for me, fishing would be like going to shoot parrots up in the forest. Now there is hypocrisy in this, of course, because I still eat fish – but a heightened consciousness of their beauty means I don’t like killing them any more – just as very few lamb-eaters could kill a beautiful lamb themselves. The point here is, what is it about beauty which de-natures us?
Beauty?
Now we have come to a very interesting point along our road to Truth – a lookout – a place with a beautiful view. Let’s go and admire it.
Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
-
Why does
If we are on the road to truth we need to explore beauty.
So, what is humanity’s strange, unnatural understanding of beauty? “Unnatural” because humans, alone of all the animal species, have a drive to see beauty, to possess beauty, and to create beauty. And “unnatural” because we often see beauty in things not useful (even inimical) to our survival – for example: in landscape not suitable for farming; in other animal species not suitable for eating (even dangerous); in our own useless-for-survival artistic creations. What’s going on with human beings and our understanding of, and seeking for, beauty?
Let’s look deeper – firstly, at our appreciation of beauty in landscape.
NATURAL BEAUTY
We’re on a lookout on our road to
truth, no better spot to examine the unique human idea of scenic beauty. Humans
often describe the scenic beauty of our planet as “taking our breath away”.
“One caught one’s breath and felt the pang that is almost hurt, so exquisite was the beauty of it.”
“In my journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the breath of his body.”
-
“More to man than the breath of
his body”,
MORE TO
So, what’s going on with humanity’s appreciation of a “view” – just a jumble of atoms when all is said and done – why, when they are jumbled together and eroded by the blind forces of nature into a certain shape, do we call them “beautiful”? And why is an understanding of their beauty unique to humans – other animals have never been spotted on our lookouts admiring the view – when cattle settle for a rest in a paddock they face any-which-way; dolphins don’t queue up to look into a glass-bottomed boat to view the wonders of humanity; bonobo chimps don’t use up their survival resources by journeying miles to find pretty places for picnics; if you point out a beautiful sunset to a dog he will look at your finger. Humans, alone of all the animals admire – and go to great lengths, even to the extent of sometimes endangering the survival chances of their genes – to take in a view (bushwalking, mountaineering, overseas travelling, snorkelling, etc., etc.).
Humans are not only spiritually
moved by a beautiful view, we have universal agreement of what is beautiful in
scenery – in other words, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. For
example, although we may differ on what is most
beautiful (some may find the
THE NEO-DARWINIAN EXPLANATION
The (exceedingly uncompelling) Darwinian explanation for our appreciation of scenic beauty (from the world of evolutionary psychology) is:
“Why do we find certain landscapes pleasing? Well, they are the ones that are most promising for hunting and shelter. Hence if we are attracted to them we have a greater chance of survival.”
- “The Secret Power of Beauty”, (John Armstrong, P. 105)
The above explanation may go part
of the way towards explaining why we may find the view of an arable valley
beautiful – but why do we find a snow-capped mountain beautiful; a scene from
Antarctica; a desert scene at sunset; a waterfall; a beach; an iceberg; a field
of colourful weeds – even an advancing storm? And, for all those who remember
the 60’s film
And why do we see beauty in non-edible animals?
THE NEO-DARWINIAN SEXUAL SELECTION EXPLANATION
“…the roots of our aesthetic perception lie in sexual selection, which is
an evolutionary thing. Why should we be driven to like nice-looking things?
What’s the point, unless there’s some evolutionary selective pressure?”
Melbourne Age newspaper (14/4/2004)
Exactly the mystery we are examining! We find beauty in a tiger, a leopard, a lion, a snake, a shark – but “what’s the point” in neo-Darwinian terms? These are extremely dangerous things to find beauty in – any “evolutionary pressure” here, indeed, unselective. We need to look more deeply into the mystery of humans finding beauty in animals. Let’s look more deeply at the neo-Darwinian ideological idea of sexual selection.
One form of the neo-Darwinian sexual selection explanation states that male animals evolve beauty because it is positively selected for by the female when she is choosing a mate. For example, in the avian world, the sexual selection argument says that a male bird of paradise has evolved to be beautiful because colour and elaborate form has been selected for over the millennia by the females? Now, we humans tend to accept this argument because the male bird-of-paradise appears beautiful to us, and we blindly suppose that it is therefore, ipso facto, beautiful to a female bird. But why should the female bird see a male with bright, elaborate plumage as “beautiful”? The male’s gaudy, bright feathers offer no survival advantages but will only make his (and her) offspring brightly coloured in turn – and more likely to be seen by a predator. His bulky and un-aerodynamic fancy feathers (that we humans find beautiful because of their elaborate form) will only make her offspring more ungainly and less able to fly fast and/or twist and turn to avoid a predator. So the males’ colourful and elaborate beauty present evolutionary double jeopardy to its offspring. If beauty in the animal kingdom is all about sexual selection – how does such an in-your-face display that would lessen the chances of offspring surviving get naturally chosen above other displays that are more discrete and/or more aerodynamic?
The other puzzle is – why do we humans see a decorative bird as beautiful? It gives us no survival advantages – we are not planning to mate with it; its more beautiful colour and form does not indicate to us that this animal has more meat for us to eat; or has better flavour – we just see it as beautiful for some unknown reason. The same applies to plenty of other animals we find beautiful: leopards; butterflies; snakes etc – either not advantageous for our survival or even disadvantageous – but still found to be “beautiful” by us. An ironic twist is that because humans find birds of paradise beautiful, some of the more decorative types are being killed out by the natives – their feathers used in costumes by the men to attract women. Now this latter behaviour is Darwinian, to an extent – in that men are taking the beauty of the bird unto themselves to attract mates – but why do human women see the feathers of another species as beautiful?
Yet the human equation has animal factors and Darwinian sexual selection behaviours indubitably exist in humans – for example, a human female in a subsistence society always finds broad shoulders, athletic buttocks and legs, and muscular arms sexually attractive in a man because life has taught her that these features are preferable for her offspring to inherit to increase their chance of survival (and her genes in them). Even in our civilised societies, a strong mate is better protection while a woman is vulnerable during pregnancy and feeding. Men, similarly for breeding purposes, go for big breasts and wide hips – more likely to deliver and feed his genes. In modern human societies women, other factors can come into equal play – women tend to value rich and powerful men just as highly as well-muscled men – but the selection of the former is still Darwinian sexual selection. In more evolved societies where life is safer and offspring more likely to survive, there is not quite the same selection pressure for a “sexy” body.
Let’s consider the perception of beauty in physically safer societies – what are the criteria of mate selection there?.
SPIRITUAL SELECTION
In evolved, economically safe societies where daily animal survival does not have to be the prime consideration, humans have the luxury of choosing mates using any criteria which move them – and many women report placing as much, or more, emphasis on non-physical criteria – even spiritual criteria: are they funny, interesting, on a similar spiritual level, is there a spiritual connection? Humans who live in a safe (civil and economic) society rather than a competitive (“law of the jungle”) society have the luxury to spiritually evolve – and more spiritually evolved individuals tend to select for spiritual factors – being a “soul mate”, being likeable, having a sense of humour etc.
The human recognition of facial beauty is also a mystery.
HUMAN FACIAL BEAUTY
We have seen that In sexual selection, big breasts and wide hips are attractive characteristics for a female to have, and wide shoulders, muscular torso, strong legs in a male. But what about that bodily beauty which humans regard as equally, if not more important – facial beauty? What instructions are there in the human mind which recognises a face as beautiful when the face carries no natural selection advantage?
DARWINIAN EXPLANATIONS OF FACIAL BEAUTY
One Darwinian explanation is that good skin, healthy glow and shiny hair which makes a face beautiful also implies good health – therefore a mate good for breeding etc. etc. But what about people whose visage and hair radiate rude health, but are still ugly? And how about those wan, porcelain, delicate, but beautiful-looking heroines so loved in romantic films? Another neo-Darwinian explanation for human facial beauty is that men see certain characteristics as beautiful because they are associated with youthfulness (therefore good, young breeding stock), large eyes, small nose, full lips and small chin etc. But young people are very definite about beauty and ugliness amongst the faces of their peers. Here, apparent youthfulness of features can have no influence as to what is beautiful because they are all equally young. And, how does a young person recognise beauty in an older person? I well remember my father, when he was re-marrying, asking me (as a pre-pubescent twelve year-old) what I thought of his bride-to-be – my reply was that I thought she was beautiful. She was three times my age – so what facial information was I going on? Certainly not youthful appearance.
Also consider that, even when we are heterosexual, we have no trouble recognising what is beautiful/handsome in members of the same sex.
FACIAL BEAUTY IN A MATE IS ACTUALLY A GENETIC RISK
In fact, facial beauty can blind us to Darwinian
disadvantages. A beautifully-faced partner is more likely to be wooed from you
by others for their beauty. If you are a woman this could leave you and your
offspring without a protector/provider after your facially beautiful husband
has been lured away or, if a man, a partner of beautiful visage is more likely
to have been impregnated by another male – leaving you bringing up someone
else’s genes. As
And human recognition of facial beauty has no cultural
explanation – there is similar broad agreement on human facial beauty as there
is with landscape. For example, give Europeans photos of the faces of ten Asian
people chosen by Asians – five at either end of the beautiful/ugly spectrum – and
the beautiful and ugly ones will be easily sorted as such by the Europeans. And
the same will happen, of course, with photos of similarly beautiful or ugly
Europeans selected by Europeans and judged by Asians. Everybody agrees that
FACIAL BEAUTY ONLY APPLIES TO HUMANS
Unnaturally, facial beauty only applies to human animals. You don’t see other male animals fighting over just the “beautiful” females in a herd. Male animals spread their genes over every available female they can cover – not just those with beautiful faces. Watch a ram working a flock of ewes, or a bull a herd of cows, or a stag some hinds – the face is the last thing they look at! The important natural cues for attractiveness is just the colour, sight and smell of the genitals indicating readiness to mate – just the natural, blind, Darwinian spreading of genes for genetic survival and dominance that, we are assured by scientists, explains all human behaviour as well.
IS BEAUTY IN THE
Some would say beauty is not
universal – a thing in itself – but is just in the eye of the beholder. But all people find some things beautiful –
for example, Australian wattle, or a Chinese panda bear, a Norwegian fjord, the
Matterhorn, an English rose,
So how about human-made beauty?
Why do we find beauty in our own artistic creations – paintings, sculpture,
words?
NEO-DARWINIAN EXPLANATION FOR ARTISTIC BEAUTY
This from
“When we are excited by beauty – whether in
painting, music, sculpture, words or ideas – what is happening at a deeper
level is that we are responding to features in the beautiful object that reveal
the hand of an artist…A person with such skills is likely to be a person with
highly desired traits as a progenitor or parent or companion…we are in the
presence of a potentially good mate.”
(P. 6, Op. Cit.)
The “hand of an artist” will be
certainly revealed but artists tend to be rather dodgy “progenitors, parents,
or companions”. Take the average pop star musician for example, or perhaps poor
old, mad,
THE BEAUTY OF COLOUR
And why is colour beautiful to us?
Sometimes colour transforms an
ordinary scene into beauty. A field of purple “
THE BEAUTY OF SMELLS
Being repelled by bad smells has selection advantages because excrescence and rotting things have germs which could endanger our survival – but why are we attracted to “nice” smells which have no survival advantage. We can’t eat flowers yet we grow useless flowering plants in vast, decorative gardens which take up arable land because we like their smell (and find their form beautiful). We find gardens spiritually uplifting although they are worse than useless for our animal bodies – taking up soil and labour which could have been used for survival. They take time and energy we could better spend protecting our genetic kin – or giving birth to more of them – which we should rightly be doing if our life is purely governed by genetic and bodily survival imperatives.
BEAUTY THROUGH OTHER SENSES
We also detect beauty through our other senses: touch; taste; hearing (the mystery of music will get its own section). And none of the beauty we experience through these senses confer animal survival values either – again, some could even be fatal (the beautiful feel of a tiger’s fur, the beautiful taste of a Japanese puffer fish – for instance).
WHAT’S GOING ON?
So what’s going on with the
phenomenon that is humanity’s unique understanding and appreciation of beauty? What
do others think? This from that well-known judge of all things beautiful –
“ ‘Beauty’ is a non-natural property. It is
non-natural in the sense that the philosopher
It seems
SO WHAT’S GOING ON?
What’s going on within this strange, unnatural, spiritual, human, behaviour? If, in the words of Hales: “Beauty is a non-natural property” maybe we need to peek into the supernatural; if it “cannot be stated entirely in the language of physics” maybe we need to peek into the metaphysical?
A LITTLE PEEK INTO THE METAPHYSICAL
“Are our thoughts, our creative endeavours, our art, our poetry, our philosophy, our music no more than the by-products of electro-chemical energy in a brain that would live out its earthly life just as well without them? Or are these creative masterpieces hints and whispers of a grander and finer reality of which we are all a part?”
- “Is There An Afterlife?” P. 468,
IS TRUTH BEAUTY?
At the beginning of this section
of our road to truth,
But here, on our journey towards Truth, we have established that humans experience beauty as a spiritual experience. This is more empirical evidence that the Truth of the human equation is that it has both animal and spiritual factors.
Our road now passes through another interesting region – the strange field of mathematics – another area humans can find beauty in.
“The belief that the underlying order of the
world can be expressed in mathematical form lies at the very heart of science,
and is rarely questioned …Why this should be so is one of the great mysteries
of the universe.” (p.148
The mysterious underlying order of the universe, which we encountered earlier on in our journey, can be expressed in mathematical form. The human mind can understand mathematics – and is thereby deeply and mysteriously linked to the universe.
More from
“no feature of this uncanny ‘tuning’ of the human mind to the workings of nature is more striking than mathematics, the product of the human mind that is somehow linked into the secrets of the universe.” (ibid. p. 160).
Are our minds in – or of – the universe?
Our physical sciences hold that we are the mechanistic products of a purely physical event – necessarily meaningless because accidental. Yet the human mind is tuned into this accidental formation by our understanding of mathematics – the language the accident was written in? How can an accident have order written into it – is it then, still an “accident”? And how can we – supposedly a spontaneous, random, and mechanistic result of an accident – make sense out of it? Bizarre.
OR IS MATHEMATICS JUST THE PRODUCT OF THE HUMAN
There is a dispute about mathematics in the world of
science. Some feel that there is no mystery, mathematics is just a human
invention. This view is called the “formalist” school of thought: mathematics
is only an invention of the human mind, having no meaning beyond that
attributed to it by mathematicians. The contrary view, which sees our
understanding as a mystery, is called “Platonist” (from
Leading
“The complete details of the complication of
the structure of Mandelbrot’s set cannot really be fully comprehended by any
one of us, nor can it be fully revealed by any computer. It would seem that
this structure is not just part of our minds, but it has a reality of its own …
The Mandelbrot set is not an invention of the human mind: it was a discovery.
Like
–
“This set has such an extraordinarily complicated structure that it is impossible to convey in words its awesome beauty.”
– Op. Cit. p.151.
There’s that word “beauty” again – this time in the arcane realm of pure mathematics (British mathematician G.H.Hardy also wrote that he “practiced mathematics for its beauty, not its practical value”).
Penrose has no doubt mathematicians are dealing with the “works of God” and sees an analogy between mathematics and inspired works of art:
“It is a feeling not uncommon amongst artists, that in their greatest works they are revealing eternal truths which have some kind of prior ethereal existence … I cannot help feeling that, with mathematics, the case for believing in some kind of ethereal, eternal existence … is a good deal stronger.”
– Op. Cit. p. 97
So, “...not uncommon among amongst artists, that in their
greatest works they are revealing eternal truths.” – shades of
“One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulas have an independent existence of their own, and they are wiser than even their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.”
– Op. Cit. p. 154, (from
And
“When you discover these things, you get the feeling that they were true before you found them. So you get the idea that somehow they existed somewhere, but there’s nowhere for such things … in the case of physics we have double trouble. We come upon these mathematical interrelationships but they apply to the universe, so the problem of where they are is doubly confusing.”
– Quoted from: “Superstrings: A Theory of Everything?” (P.C.W. Davies and J.R. Brown pp. 207-8)
For my purposes the resolution of the dispute about
mathematics being “created” as the formalists would have it or “discovered” as
the Platonists would have it does not matter. The point, for our exploration of
the mysteries of life, is that it is unnatural that the human mind has this
capacity to understand and relate to the workings of our universe through
mathematics beyond what is explicable by the Darwinian need to survive. Other
animals survive perfectly well without having an understanding of mathematics. Why
did we move on to mathematics (whether a discovery or a creation) when it was not
needed? – we were already on top of the food chain.
There seems to be no particular reason why we should need to be able to
achieve this sort of deep [mathematical]
knowledge in order to make a living in the world. In fact, many communities for
many thousands of years, have made a perfectly satisfactory living on this
planet without having such an underlying theoretical knowledge.
“Are We Alone?” (Paul Davies – p. 82)
NO SATISFACTORY NEO-DARWINIAN EXPLANATION
No satisfactory neo-Darwinian explanation has been
tendered to try and explain away the mystery that is our understanding of
mathematics – to explain that to speak the language of the universe could
possibly be accidental.
“…consciousness and our ability to do mathematics is no mere accident, no trivial detail, no insignificant by-product of evolution that is piggy-backing on some other mundane property. It points to what I like to call the cosmic connection, the existence of a really deep relationship between the minds that can do mathematics and the underlying laws of nature that produce them.”
- Ibid. p. 84
According to our map we are due to explore the phenomena that is human consciousness soon. At this point it is fair to say that, in our exploration of the phenomenon that is humanity’s understanding of the language that the universe was written in, we have uncovered yet another mystery that does not have an explanation in the ideologies that are materialism, naturalism, or Darwinism.
Before we explore the apparent mystery of consciousness we
will examine next, on our road, the mystery alluded to above by
This from scientist
“But how strange this is. Our minds are the products of the laws of Nature; yet they are in a position to reflect upon them … A more interesting problem is the extent to which the brain is qualitatively adapted to understand the Universe. Why should its categories of thought and understanding be able to cope with the scope and nature of the real world? Why should the Theory of Everything be written in a ‘language’ that our minds can decode? Why has the process of natural selection so over-endowed us with mental faculties that we can understand the whole fabric of the Universe far beyond anything required for our past and present survival?… None of the sophisticated ideas involved appear to offer any selective advantage to be exploited during the pre-conscious period of our evolution…Why should it be us?”
– Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation, Pp. 172&173
Downright unnatural, I say.
“What is remarkable is that human beings are actually able to carry out this code-breaking operation, that the human mind has the necessary intellectual equipment for us to unlock the secrets of nature…we find a situation in which the difficulty of the cosmic code seems almost to be attuned to human capabilities …The challenge is just hard enough to attract some of the best brains available, but not so hard as to defeat their combined efforts and deflect them onto easier tasks …The mystery in all this is that human intellectual powers are presumably determined by biological evolution, and have absolutely no connection with doing science. Our brains have evolved in response to environmental pressures, such as the ability to hunt, avoid predators, dodge falling objects etc. What has this got to do with discovering the laws of electromagnetism or the structure of the atom?”
– (Mind of God, Pp. 158-159).
WHY
The unnatural here is obvious: the minds of all animals – other than humans – developed just as Darwinian evolutionary theory says they should – just as far as they needed to survive against genetic competition and environmental survival pressures. Once they had achieved that there was no need and/or pressure for them to ever develop their brain to the point of understanding the universe(s).
According to the ideological “isms” flowing from our physical sciences: Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism – humans are just like all other animals – naturally created and evolved by natural selection. But here we stand, with a unique understanding of the process and a unique knowledge of the language it was written in. This unique knowledge has meant that our understanding of the universe has become such that we can alter parts of it – for example, we can alter plants, our own animal bodies, the bodies of other animals (all for better or worse) – to suit ourselves using our over-evolved knowledge of sciences like genetic engineering. As we saw earlier in our journey, we have become star-stuff, not only observing the stars, but understanding and altering our universe as well – creatures and creators of the universe at one and the same time. This makes us not only unique among the animals – but, again, unnatural.
UNIQUE, UNNATURAL?
The chimps are our nearest neighbours in the animal world (just
1.5% different in
NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR SUPERIORITY, JUST ANOTHER MYSTERY
Again, this is not an argument for the “superiority” of humans, just another mystery that needs exploration if we are to approach the Truth more closely.
WE
We are not only radically different from the other mammals – but we are conscious of it. “Conscious”? This brings us to the phenomenon of consciousness itself – another human point of difference from the rest of animalia. Other animals may have some form of consciousness, but the degree of difference between them and us is unnatural.
So, on our journey towards any “T” Truth there may be in
our existence – towards any special meaning and ultimate purpose – we have approached
the phenomenon of human consciousness. This is quite a difficult peak in our
road, let’s see if we can manage to scale at least a little way up its difficult
slopes – slopes with such a degree of difficulty that a complete conquest of
· CONSCIOUSNESS
The phenomenon of human consciousness provides substantial problems for our physical scientists who believe that everything can be satisfactorily described in physical terms – that ours is a purely physical universe with causal closure – everything existing being the mechanical result of a physical beginning, all human behaviours causal. The problem that consciousness presents for a physical theory of everything is a familiar one – if everything is physical (matter and energy, material and motion) – how did something non-physical like consciousness come to exist?
And the problem that consciousness presents is seemingly
intractable:
Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious.
Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how
anything material could be conscious.
“The Big Idea: Can There Be a
Science of Mind?”
Is this an exaggeration? This from the International Dictionary of Psychology (Stuart Sutherland, 1989):
Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomena; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it.
Has our little expedition we bitten off more than we can chew by presuming to consider consciousness? Let’s try another dictionary – this time the “Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy”, 1996.
“Possibly the most challenging and pervasive problem in the whole of philosophy. Our own consciousness seems to be the most basic fact confronting us, yet it is almost impossible to say what consciousness is.”
The Dictionary of Psychology declares it “impossible to
specify”, but the Dictionary of Philosophy is more philosophical – downgrading
it to “almost impossible”. Most likely we have
bitten off a wee bit too much, but we’ll see how far we can clamber up
So, what does consciousness feel like?
WHAT IS HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS?
For any animal, to be conscious is for it to be awake. Humans are animals, but once we are awake we have a unique awareness that we call consciousness – existential consciousness – we become not only awake, but we become aware that we are awake, that we exist. And aware of a whole lot more: that we are alive; that we must die; that we are in a universe; that mathematics exists; that maths is the language the physical universe is written in; that we are human. And, through unnatural expeditions like this one we are engaged on, we are becoming aware of a whole lot more – hopefully the “T” Truths of life (hidden behind the “t” truths of our ideologies).
That’s what these three essays are about – using our unique human consciousness to find any Truths of what it is to be human, and what they have to say about how we should best live. Other animals are conscious, awake, aware of part of their environment – but they have no understanding of what it is to be alive, or of being mortal, or of being part of a universe, or even an awareness of being a bird, a fish, a lion.
Spiritual people often talk of a “raised consciousness”. What does that tell us?
HUMANS
What is a “raised consciousness”? An example of raising our
consciousness is when we heighten our awareness of our surroundings, to
perceive and allow higher non-physical elements to enter our consciousness.
Higher elements like our, previously discussed, understanding and enjoyment of beauty
– “higher” because “above” our physical animal needs and imperatives – elements
which move our soul/ self, not our bodies. We have already considered in our
exploration of beauty how
And the more to human life is the opportunity we are presented to raise our consciousness. To raise our consciousness may be to best live? More of this later.
CONSCIOUSNESS-LOWERING
While raising our consciousness of life allows us to enjoy life more, lowering our consciousness depresses us. A good example of this is the existential angst which became a big part of the 20th century human experience. It is a century which saw the finality of a credible, rational belief in our primitive religions – and saw the rise (and savagery) of the secular political systems which replaced them – like Fascism, Nazism and Communism. Philosophy during this time became the handmaiden of our physical sciences – the main philosophical “isms” of the 20th century being: existentialism (perceiving life to be absurd from believing that a rational understanding of the universe was impossible); scepticism (denial that knowledge is possible – even of whether we really exist); post-modern relativism (everything is relative, there are no “T” Truths – only this); materialism (everything is of matter and energy); reductionism (“The explanatory arrows always point downward” & “The more we comprehend the universe, the more pointless it seems” – Steven Weinberg); neo-Darwinism (all behaviours are causal and explicable in terms of natural selection and genetic imperatives); scientism (“there is physics and there is stamp-collecting” – physicist E. Rutherford); liberalism (have fun, there is no right and wrong, no good and bad); and consumerism (consume then die).
THEN CAME A RAISING OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS
Towards the end of the 20th century, and the dawning of the new Millennia – after our almost century-long, depressing “ism” mania –– there was a marked raising of our consciousness. New Age religions and spiritual self-help gurus and books blossomed (for better or worse?). But it was a spiritual evolution, and it is not finished yet. Everything in a relative world is in a state of evolution – except our fundamentalisms (like theism and atheism), wherein we shelter from evolutionary change.
Speaking of fundamentalism, what do the neo-Darwinists make of the mysteries of human consciousness?
THE NEO-DARWINIAN EXPLANATION
Fundamentalists allow no mysteries. For the neo-Darwinians,
human consciousness, like all things, can be explained in terms of natural
selection. This from philosopher and psychologist
The more mysterious and unworldly the qualities of consciousness, the
more seriously significant the Self. And the more significant the Self, the
greater the boost to human self-confidence and self-importance – and the
greater the value that individuals place on their own and others’ lives.
In which case it is easy to see how the very qualities of consciousness
that seem to render it so mysterious and magical would have been the occasion
for consciousnesses’ becoming a runaway evolutionary success. In fact these
qualities would soon have been designed in.
“Seeing Red”,
Here consciousness is seen as a “thing” which, when it
magically materialises in accidental matter (which has naturally evolved into
humans) it will be selected by nature because it leads to the greater survival
and out-breeding of its possessors. Like all such natural selection ideology, it
still does not explain how the non-material, like consciousness, emerged in the
first place from a purely material world of atoms and energy to be available
for selection. In the words of
How cells comprised of inert atoms could bunch together mechanistically
into “mindless molecules, capable only of
pushing and pulling their immediate neighbours” (
For Professor Humphrey “Consciousness is something we do with our brains” (p. 133 ibid.)
and thus can be dismissed, with the brain, as being part of the evolved animal body
– entirely natural – to be even expected somehow, its existence not mysterious at
all. We might as well say that music is not mysterious because it is something
we do with our hands.
But there are other schools of thought that hold
consciousness “exists independently of
its physical substrate” (Horgan, “The End Of Science” p. 173 – quoted from
Roy Williams, “God Actually” p. 67).
“What is, I think, incontestable is that the
properties of consciousness are
deeply complex and almost utterly mysterious. They remain beyond explanation in a material, determinist way, by any laws of chemistry or physics.”
Let’s consider the difference between consciousness and our body – what Horgan, above, calls our “physical substrate”.
IS CONSCIOUSNESS INDEPENDENT OF OUR PHYSICAL SUBSTRATE?
It’s the self which is experiencing consciousness – not our arm, leg, foot, or brain. The brain is receiving and sending impulses, the brain is receiving, storing, and sending information – when it is conscious. But it is the self which is experiencing consciousness.
The self is, observably, not the body. The self remains the same (albeit, hopefully, with some self-growth/spiritual evolution in the course of a life) while the material, physical stuff of the body changes constantly as our atoms and energy interchange with the physical and animal universe. There are no human atoms, just atoms which we swap constantly with the environment (living and inert) and each other – but there is only one self – ours – us. If consciousness is just a product of a physical part of the body (the brain/mind made of atoms and electrical energy) how can we recall – be conscious of earlier thoughts our minds had (say 10 years ago) when not one atom of that mind remains which originally had those thoughts?
RAISING CONSCIOUSNESS
Maybe human consciousness is a product of the other factor we have identified in the human equation – our spiritual beings – and not a product of matter? Consider the role our consciousness plays in human artistic creativity. We can communicate with, be conscious of each others’ selves, through our arts – spiritually – a consciousness raised above the day to day animal interaction to survive. Our consciousness is a great creative driver – music, poetry, dance, painting, sculpture, humour, literature all speak between selves and across ages of our consciousness of life and its beauties, absurdities, joys and dramas – of what it is to be alive – of what it is to be a human. Our spirits can be moved, raised – our selves can be inspired – by the raised spiritual consciousness of another human being we may never bodily meet. In this way our individual consciousnesses can speak to each other on a level higher than the animal and physical – on a raised, spiritual level – sometimes even without words and/or each other being present.
CREATING OUR WORLD –
Our consciousness allows us not only to observe and consider our world, but to partake in its ongoing creation. We do not just react to life, like other animals, but because we are conscious of it we consider it, and try to understand it. We are a product of life, but through our consciousness we are also taking part in the creating of it – especially the part that is our self. The point, the special meaning, the ultimate purpose of relativity lies in its creativity. To get closer to any special meaning and ultimate purpose of life in the relative we need to contemplate what exactly is being created.
WHAT IS BEING CREATED IN OUR RELATIVE UNIVERSE?
Physical things like bodies are being created/evolved by our relative universe in the classic Darwinian way, but non-physical, spiritual things like our “Selves” are also being created/evolved in our relative universe through our consciousness. How this happens we are due to examine shortly, here suffice it to say that those who cannot manage to raise their consciousness above their bodies are missing quite an experience, and quite an opportunity – the opportunity of spiritual evolution.
CONSCIOUSNESS
Modern quantum physics suggests a number of other
realities other than the old Newtonian understandings, and a consideration of
further discoveries from the quantum world may require a radical rethink of
consciousness – e.g. maybe the brain is a transceiver converting energy fields
beyond the brain into features of the mind? This from eminent psychiatrist
“Advances in quantum physics suggest that certain drugs, and the
conditions which produce
Psychologist
“Note also the views of these neuroscientists [Fenwick and Parnia: 1995 & 2005, Van Lommel: 2001] to the effect that in spite of modern advances in brain research we still have not been able to find consciousness – the mind – inside the brain, and that it may indeed be independent of it and work through it…An analogy, though it must not be pressed too far, would be with the way in which a television signal works through a television set. The set is the physical mechanism that is able to convert the signal into pictures and sounds, but these pictures and sounds do not originate with the set.”
To look at a television set is to understand very little
about how television signals are created and/or sent – just as looking at the
brain and the location of electronic impulses within it is to understand very
little about consciousness. Can our consciousness be in another place, another
parallel reality without the body itself going anywhere? More from
“In the old Newtonian universe, the mechanical view declared that all possible forms of energy and fields had already been discovered; that ordinary, everyday perception of space, time and matter and energy was the only scientifically correct reality; that all people were separate from each other and the rest of the universe; and that consciousness could not exist without a living brain. Some of these declarations can be reassessed in the light of new discoveries in physics. ... It was observed that there are similarities between quantum processes and human thought processes. Leading physicists suggested that consciousness may involve quantum events.” (ibid.)
Quantum events like non-locality? Looking at our map, I see we are due to have a further peek at the quantum world down the track.
THE MYSTERY THAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?
Did we scale the
We may not have made it to the summit, but all that we have examined here indicates that a purely materialist explanation of human consciousness is deficient. At least on the balance of probabilities consciousness is way more than “just meat thinking”. That matter and energy accidentally came from nothing to become spontaneously alive is unlikely enough, but when the phenomenon of that matter having consciousness is added to the equation, the thesis of accidentally becomes even more insupportable. To understand consciousness just by looking at our body, is like trying to understand the phenomena that is television just by looking at a television set – what of the making and sending of signals, not to mention all the programs with their ideas, emotions, motives, messages – the purpose of television.
THE PURPOSE OF CONSCIOUSNESS?
So, does consciousness have a purpose?
The purpose of anything is what it does. Consciousness does awareness of our existence, and that awareness is both a joy and a burden. To be aware of beauty is a joy, to be aware of our mortality is a burden.
One school of thought is that consciousness is the way the Divine is experiencing the universe – like the God of Neale Walsch’s “Conversations With God” series?
“I am the Magnificent Everything – and what I am seeking is to know Myself experientially. I am doing this through you, and through everything else that exists.”
“Conversations
With God”,
Our self, spirit, soul which seeks to experience, create, and which is moved by beauty, for example, may be the consciousness of God?
Understanding consciousness is a big task – one that has occupied many a more expert expedition for a much longer time. What we have achieved by this exploration of consciousness is more evidence towards the conclusion that humans are a body + spirit duality. The raising of our consciousness is also evidence that the relative world is driving the evolution of our self/soul as well as the body.
All considered, we have climbed high enough up the
difficult slopes of
So what’s next on our journey towards Truth? Some need more evidence to support a belief that we are spiritual beings, so let’s explore the aspects of life we often call “spiritual” – aspects emanating from, and speaking to, our souls.
Time here, then, to relax after our climb and listen to some:-
Music produces a kind of pleasure which human nature cannot do without.
-
The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils.
The motions of his spirit are dull as night,
And his affections dark as Erebus.
Let no such man be trusted.
-
Why are we moved by the “concord of sweet sounds”? Does that fact bring us any closer to the Truth of the human condition – “the motions of our spirit”?
As we have seen, neo-Darwinians would say we don’t have a spirit/soul, we are just bodies evolved by natural selection from a physical accident who like to imagine that we have selves/souls because, somehow, the notion gives genetic advantage, therefore has been naturally selected. But, if we don’t have souls, what part of our animal body is moved by our arts like music and poetry, and how?
Let’s examine music first. Humans create music, most of which is not (like bird calls or whale “songs”) about territory or mating. Why is music (an unnecessary part of life with no adaptive function) universal in all human societies back to the dawn of history? It’s a mystery to neuroscience:
“Given its omnipresence in human culture, why is there no clear-cut adaptive function? …The origins and adaptive significance of music thus remain deeply mysterious.”
- Hauser & McDermott, nature neuroscience, July 2003.
ONLY THE VIBRATION OF
How do we convey non-physical, spiritual states to other consciousnesses
through the physical act of making air molecules vibrate at different pitch,
beat and timbre? Why did only humans develop the capacity to enjoy and perform
music based on mathematical scales? Neo-Darwinian scientists argue that all
human skills, such as language or walking on two legs, were naturally selected in
that they gave their possessors an evolutionary advantage over rival creatures.
But
“As neither the enjoyment nor the capacity of producing musical notes are faculties of the least use to man in reference to his daily habits of life, they must be ranked among the most mysterious with which he is endowed.”
– “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex”, P.878.
So, “neither the enjoyment nor the capacity of producing musical notes are…of the least use to man”. Music adds no advantage to the execution of our “daily habits of life”. The mystery therefore is “its omnipresence in human culture”?
EXPRESSING THE INEXPRESSIBLE
As
A FREAK ACCIDENT OF NATURE?
Materialists are necessarily stumped by music because it cannot be described in terms of matter and energy. For reductionists, music is just a freak accident with no meaning which emerged via a chain of freak accidents from the accidental material beginning. But, like beauty, music strikes a spiritual chord with humans.
Music is it related to the mystery of humans being in key with mathematics – the language the universe was written in – music and mathematics are, in fact, related.
“How likely is it that music is but another freak accident of Nature? Music works because of the laws of mathematics, and those laws are wired into the Universe from the beginning.”
- “God, Actually.” –
“...was so pure that it seemed to have been ever-present in the universe, waiting to be discovered by the master.”
(New York Times,
“...lay the music of the spheres [revealing] pre-established harmony”
(ibid.)
THE NEO-DARWINIAN EXPLANATION
The “music” of other animals, for example, bird and whale
songs, can be given a Neo-Darwinian interpretation – they are noises for territorial
and/or mating purposes. And some human music also has evolutionary/animal explanations
and functions – for example, martial music (to spur the adrenalin of soldiers),
rock and roll music (to spur the hormones), relaxing background music (similar
to the vibrations of our mother’s voice we were soothed by in the womb). While
it is a Truth that some music has a Darwinian function – being able to move (or
still) the body – it is also a Truth that some music can move the soul –
THE MUSIC OF OTHER ANIMALS CAN ALSO MOVE US
Just as we can be moved by the beauty of other animals, we can also be moved by their raw music (e.g. bird song). Neither fact confers any survival advantage to be selected for, so how do we universally recognise some animal sounds (the nightingale for example) as beautiful and be moved by them?
“Now more than ever it seems rich to die,
To cease upon the
While thou are pouring forth thy soul abroad
In such an ecstasy!”
-
This brings us neatly to poetry.
POETRY
Not only music can move our souls – our souls can be transported on the wings of beautiful words. How can words be beautiful and spiritually moving if they are just animal communication?
More from
“Away! away! for I will fly to thee,
Not charioted by Bacchus
and his pards,
But on the viewless wings of Poesy,
Thou the dull brain
perplexes and retards:
Already with thee! tender is the
night
And haply the Queen-Moon is on her throne…”
“I caught this morning morning’s minion, king-
dom of daylight’s
dauphin dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon,
in his
riding
Of the rolling level
underneath him steady air, and
striding
High there, how he rung upon the
rein of a wimpling wing
In his ecstasy! Then off, off forth
on swing,
As a skate’s heel sweeps
smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl
And gliding
Rebuffed the big wind.
My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird – the achieve of,
the mastery of the thing!
–
And
“And you, my father, there on the sad height
Curse, bless, me now with your
fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good
night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
– Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
I don’t think that there is any debate that poetry – like music – raises our spirits and moves our souls. Why – there is no Darwinian beauty in words – or in a nightingale or falcon? Although sensed by our eyes and ears (our animal organs) poetry, music and natural beauty is also received by some other non-bodily part of us – the spiritual factor in the human equation.
Beauty in whatever form evokes a complicated reaction in humans. Music, poetry, natural beauty, human-made beauty – excellence in any form – can result in a feeling of exhilaration (goose bumps and raised hair on the back of the neck is not uncommon). Now, these latter are typical animal, bodily reactions – but it is also not uncommon for the experience of beauty to be so intense that we cry. What’s going on with this strange animal called a human? Is any part of the phenomenon of being moved by music, poetry, and beauty Darwinian? Does it meet a bodily need – or a spiritual need? Does it give any advantage to our genes such that it has been naturally selected – or does it just serve to raise our consciousness? It is a mystery.
NOT THE TRUTH, BUT A TRUTH
We have discovered, again, more empirical evidence that a spiritual factor exists in us – with needs independent of our bodies. Our minds can recognise falcons through our eyes, and recognise nightingales with our ears, but our souls are recognising and being moved by something else – the beauty of their song, the beauty of their form, and/or the beauty of their endeavour and movement. Such beauty seems non-Darwinian because other animals do not have it, and such recognition is not needed for our bodily survival.
So, while we may not yet have arrived at the absolute “T” Truth of life, we definitely seem to be moving towards it. Again, certainly, that to be human is to be both animal and spiritual is looking to be a Truth.
What next? The Shakespearian quote at the beginning of our exploration of music implies that there are people who “hath no music” – people of whom it could be said: “the motions of his spirit are dull as night.” It has been my experience of life that while I have found people who are moved to greater or lesser extents by spiritual things – people whose behaviour is dominated to a greater or lesser extent by their animal, bodily functions – I have found none who have no soul at all. All is relative in a relative world and what “moves” people may be relatively more or less “sophisticated” (the beauty of high art, or a restored car), more or less Darwinian (your own child – or children in general) but there seem to be none who cannot be moved, at least to some extent, by spiritual experiences.
The region of spiritual evolution is the next we have come to on our road – let’s explore it.
What exactly is “spiritual evolution”? Perhaps we should
first determine what could be “spiritual”?
“The word ‘spiritual’ needs some clarification. It is intended to refer to the whole of a person’s inner life… it is about their way of being, their soul.”
“In Search of Civilization.” (P. 164)
I think this is a good working definition of spiritual – by the use of the words “spirit”, “soul”, “self” we will be referring to our “inner life”, our “way of being” – our human being. And, by spiritual evolution we mean: the growth, development, evolution of our inner being – our self – as compared to the evolution of our bodies.
MATERIALISM
Materialists would argue that we are just our bodies – just matter/energy – meat and electro-magnetic impulses. They hold that there is no inner being driving some of our behaviour, all of our behaviours have Darwinian explanations – naturally selected by the natural physical environment because they confer genetic survival and propagation advantages. To imagine otherwise, they maintain, is animal ego – also naturally selected – and the correct word for our “us”, our “soul”, “self”, “spirit”.
SO WHO
We definitely have, are associated with, an animal body. We definitely enjoy and suffer through our animal body the physical experiences of life. But, as we have seen throughout this essay, there are many non-physical phenomena and experiences in life as well. And we enjoy and suffer these non-physical experiences of life too – through our spirit/soul/self/being – not through our bodies. It is “we”, our selves, that are moved by the non-physical phenomena (like beauty, music) that exist in life – moved such, that we actually spend animal survival resources to seek them – it is not our matter and energy, our meat and electricity, or our ego, that wants to take a bushwalk, go to an art gallery, attend a musical concert etc. etc. Although some relatively unevolved souls can do these things in an animal/egotistical way – to appear cultured to win a lover; to skite to others; to walk a track faster, etc. – most do these things to enjoy the beauty of the experience.
OUR BODIES CHANGE
Our animal bodies are made up of atoms which are constantly changing – moving into and out of our body all the time. If we are adults, our bodies are highly unlikely to have any atoms remaining from those we were born with – and any that may have found their way back to our body are most likely to be now making up other organs or parts of our body – a hydrogen atom in our brain may have been in one of our muscles before. There is no such thing as a brain atom, or a leg atom – or even a human atom. The majority of our present atoms previously made up other animals, plants, and/or our planet. An atom is an atom, is an atom – there is no difference between a carbon atom in a rabbit, radish or rock – animal, vegetable or mineral. The same is true for our energy.
There is, especially, not a
BUT WE, OUR SELF, STAYS THE SAME
While we are not distinctly our present material there is such a thing as “us” – a unique human being – a unique self/soul/spirit, a distinct “way of being”. There are no two people whose selves are identical – even identical twins (basically clones) have distinct selves – you can clone a body, but not a self. But, while our bodies are not the same matter we began with, our being, our self, remains the original spiritual entity. We do not interchange our selves with other human selves and/or other animals, as we do with the fabric of our bodies. Our atoms are on loan – our self is us – forever.
BUT OUR SELVES DO DEVELOP,
Our selves, while remaining the same being, do grow,
develop, evolve over the course of our life – while our bodies just age (I
examine the evidence for this assertion, below). Physical evolution takes
generations upon generations. However, “we” – our selves – observably change,
grow, develop – evolve – over the course of a life (maybe even lives –
discussed in Essay 2 and, further below). And that change is spiritual
evolution. This from
“The rung of a ladder was never meant to rest upon, but only to hold a man’s foot long enough to enable him to put the other somewhat higher.”
–
What does
SO HOW DOES SELF EVOLUTION
Step One: Be your self.
People who are not true to their self are, effectively, handing life back. These people are usually driven to be false through fear – usually of a vengeful god, or a vengeful government. However, it is impossible to hide completely from life – even being false (or trying not to be your true self) reveals a lot about the self. More usually, life in this dangerous but thrilling, frightening but beautiful, challenging but rewarding, neutral and uncaring universe immaculately reveals our self to be known. Layer by layer, life peels us like an onion, to reveal our core – our self.
KNOW THYSELF
Step two: Know thyself.
Sometimes others can come to know us pretty well, sometimes they know us very little, but always, after a truly-led life, our self is available to be truly known – by our self. It is observable in life that some come to know their true selves, and some don’t – we are apparently free to choose (discussed more fully when we explore the controversy that is the idea of “free choice”).
Should we?
“Know Thyself” has been received in many advanced civilisations as ultimate wisdom. This did not happen by accident. It is the observation of many that the success of our life depends not on the amount of money, power, fame etc. we gather – rather it depends on the person we are – the person we have become. So, on knowing our true self hangs life’s ultimate opportunity – to evolve our self – to become a better person.
Again, is this just my “t” truth? Let’s consider the evidence on which this observation is based.
A full life invariably reveals the self to be known. Life reveals our selves by our words, and more surely by our actions: are we compassionate or uncaring; are we brave or cowardly; are we determined or feckless; are we giving or selfish; are we kind or cruel; ignorant or feeling – which of the human virtues do we have and which do we lack? And by how we have filled our many roles: have we been a good friend or poor; a good parent or negligent; a good worker or lazy; a good citizen or not; an inspiring human being or shameful? It is when we reflect truly on our selves that we come to truly know our selves. In the process of knowing the self, sometimes friends and/or foes are agents; sometimes families and/or strangers; sometimes solitary meditation. But it’s what happens next which determines whether any spiritual evolution occurs.
Step three: Can we love the self we have come to know?
If we can love the truly-known self we will be happy (as opposed to feel passing happiness). It is impossible for a sane person to fool the self for long – we are our own harshest judge – and if we are not happy with the truly known self we will descend into unhappiness, even self-loathing. Strangely, it is unhappiness which is the catalyst for change/evolution – most people can’t stand self-loathing – the driver for many drink and drug problems, even suicide is not an uncommon reaction. Thankfully, most people opt for change – choose to change in order to come to love the self – and this is self-evolution. We will examine this in more detail when we explore human happiness next on our Road to Truth.
There is more to explore concerning the evidence that self evolution exists as a fact, but there is an elephant in the living room which needs recognition now or we may loose some people from our exploration party. I refer to issues within the “Problem of Evil” debate.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
To the above observation that life allows us to be, know, and grow the self the House of Disbelief might respond with a “Problem of Evil” argument. It goes something like this: because we have only one life, the death of babies and children, and/or the fact that some lives are blighted – means that some lives are, necessarily, purposeless if the ultimate purpose of life is spiritual evolution. We have encountered this argument before on this journey and Essay 2 spends quite a bit of time on it. In a nutshell, the assumption that this Problem of Evil argument is based on, is that we only have one life – and there is no substantial evidence for this assumption, and plenty of evidence against it – evidence also that we may have many lives.
This is an idea which also moves us into the territory of the metaphysical and/or the supernatural – an area that a glance at our map tells us we are to explore shortly. Here just let it be said that while it is obvious that our bodies have only one life, it is equally obvious from what we have explored above that we are not our bodies.
While we are at this point we have to consider another doctrine of the House of Disbelief before we can carry our exploration further. Above, we spoke of some people choosing to know the self – and some not. The doctrine is, of course, the doctrine of causality – which basically states that we have no free choice.
FREE CHOICE
That free choice does not exist is, like the Problem of Evil, doctrine essential to the House of Disbelief – being corrosive to another of its cornerstones – the causality and materialism of the universe. To accept free choice is to imply that there exists something other than matter and energy, something otherworldly and non-phenomenological in a human, something other than the animal body, something other than an entirely physical, mechanical, causal universe.
THE
To know thyself is only an opportunity – an opportunity presented by the existence of the self in a relative reality (good, better, best). And it is an opportunity only – not an imperative (the only imperatives in life are animal, e.g. to feed, breed, survive). We examine free choice in Essay 2 and we will encounter it again, suffice here to state that the fact that some observably choose to know the self and some don’t, is more evidence that free choice exists.
So, back to spiritual evolution.
WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE OF HUMANITY’S SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION?
We have examined some of this evidence which supports the thesis of humanity’s spiritual evolution in our examination of the House of Disbelief, but we need to reprise some of it here on our road to Truth.
Some days humanity’s spiritual evolution is a bit hard to see,
but a very short tour back through history will show you that spiritual
evolution is happening – our choices and values are getting what Darwin himself
called “higher”. Even only 100 years ago spiritually-evolved attitudes were
unlikely, 200 years ago – close to non-existent. I tender an example of our “enlightened”
attitudes just over 100 years ago – this from
“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average
negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be
true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and
our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no
oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and
smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not
by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilizations will be
assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins.” -
So much for educated, secular enlightenment and the spiritual evolution of the supposed best of us 136 years ago – ironic to read it now, after Barak Obama’s election to President of the United States!
Only a few years before
“The spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as
the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted and finally carbonised.”
Less than 2000 years ago (still a blink in terms of the time humans have been around) people were killed by wild animals and each other for amusement in sports stadiums; 2000-3000 years ago slavery, animal sacrifice and ethnic cleansing were even approved by our “god” – according to the Bible – and brutal death by stoning was righteous punishment for a long list of minor “offences” including blasphemy, working on the Sabbath, adultery, homosexuality, and disrespecting one’s parents!
While religious stoning still
occurs in a few unevolved pockets of humanity, considered as a species, we have
demonstrably become less violent, more compassionate – more spiritually evolved.
But some dislike to hear this – it upsets their theories of meaninglessness –
it has even become politically correct to state humanity is becoming less
evolved. This from journalist and
“Some people do not like to hear that the world may not, after all, be
getting worse in every way. But those of us who believe in the possibility of
the improvement in the human condition are not necessarily foolish or naïve. In
the past century there has been a revolution in health, longevity, education,
human rights. The proportion of the world’s population living in absolute
poverty has dropped from about 80% in 1820 to about 20% today. You’d never
think it by watching the nightly news, but since the early 1990’s the number of
armed conflicts in the world has fallen by 40%. The percentage of men estimated
to have died in violence in hunter-gatherer societies is approximately 30%. The
percentage of men who die in violence in the twentieth century, despite two
world wars, is approximately 1%. The trends for violent deaths so far in the twenty-first
century are still falling, despite wars in
-
And more from the above
“In the decade of Darfur and
Some of the evidence has been under our noses all along. Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labour-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanours and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution – all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to non-existent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur and widely condemned when they are brought to light.”
-
Pinker,
Pinker expounds further on this subject in his more recent book: “The Better Angels of our Nature (2011).
IS THIS SECULAR EVOLUTION – NOT SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION?
But does this improvement represent spiritual evolution or secular advancement? Are we still the same “underneath”, in our selves/spirits, and now just more constrained by secular laws and orders?
Our laws are more “evolved” but who made those laws – were
they perhaps imposed on us from outer space? No – we show demonstrable signs of
spiritual evolution. Wars do still originate, but our attitudes to them
have changed remarkably. Now an ever-growing percentage of us demonstrate
vehemently in the streets against them – consider the recent marches and
demonstrations in the West against the war in
As well as against wars, we now
also have massive protests against despoiling the natural beauty of our planet,
we march for whales and for animal rights, against economic policies perceived
as unfair to foreign third-world countries (as shown by the World Economic
Forum demonstrations at Davos and elsewhere). And we demonstrate against racist
and sexist ideas. Political assassinations now only occur with any regularity in
Our growing compassion and sense of responsibility for mentally and physically disadvantaged members of our society – where previously they were made fun of – is another example of our growing spiritual evolution. As is our growing sense of responsibility for other animals – for example the R.S.P.C.A. These are spiritually evolutionary behaviours, steps forward – representative of spiritual evolution because it has nothing to do with our bodily and genetic survival – even taking energy and resources from our genetic tasks. No, we are at a more advanced level of spiritual evolution than we were less than just a half century ago – behaviour that is not the result of our evolving physical bodies.
And, unnaturally again, humanity
alone is taking these spiritually evolutionary steps. I am open about the idea
whether other animals have spirits, but in the last 100 – 250 – 100,000 years –
a chimpanzee (98.5%
And, as we will see in the next section on human happiness, the things which make us feel happy with our self are those things which we see as human virtues – and the majority of them unnatural (i.e. not possessed, or valued, by all the other animal species which are behaving as Neo-Darwinians say they should if driven solely by natural animal needs, instincts and genetic imperatives).
CAN SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION HAVE A CAUSAL, DARWINIAN EXPLANATION?
Even neo-Darwinians find spiritual evolution a mystery – Pinker again from the above quoted lecture:
“The other challenge posed by the decline of violence is how to explain
it. A force that pushes in the same direction across many epochs, continents
and scales of social organisation mocks our standard tools of causal
explanation. … Nor could it possibly be explained by evolution in the
biologist’s sense. Even if the meek could inherit the earth, natural selection
could not favour the genes for meekness quickly enough ... Whatever its causes,
the decline of violence has profound implications … Why is there peace? From
the likelihood that states will commit genocide to the way people treat cats,
we must have been doing something right. And it would be nice to know what,
exactly, it is.”
A MYSTERY
So our spiritual evolution, our evolving human virtues,
are a mystery that “mocks our standard tools of causal explanation” and “Nor
could it possibly be explained by evolution in the biologist’s sense.” Maybe to
understand the “decline of violence”, our increasing “meekness”, and how “we
must have been doing something right” – we need to move away from the
Neo-Darwinian theory of everything – the theory that everything can be understood
and explained solely in terms of the physical evolution of our animal bodies?
The relativity of our universe does have an evolutionary function, but apparently
also for our spirits/selves – as surely as our bodies.
A DANCE, NOT AN ADVANCE
Our spiritual evolution has not been a straight-line
advance – more like a dance: some steps forward, some to the side and some
back. Some of us appear to be more spiritually evolved than others – usually
those of us not stymied by religions – which tend to be Darwinian rather than
spiritual (as discussed in Essay 1). Some nations regress for a time – reverting
to the animal usually in response to threats to their animal security – like
the
While humanity’s spiritual
evolution is obvious to those who will look, it is also obviously uneven –
there are groups, societies, whole nations whose spiritual evolution is
constrained. Invariably the constraint is because of oppressive religions,
political systems, and/or tough environmental survival conditions. At the end
of the day, spiritual evolution is a luxury, a luxury only the animally secure can
indulge in. If the USA is concerned about religious terrorism, then the best
(and cheapest) way to combat it, is not by force of arms, but by making
people’s daily lives more secure – religious fundamentalism and terrorism has
less appeal if daily life is guaranteed – people don’t have to look to the
“next life” if this one is OK. The worst terrorism comes out of the harshest
conditions – there are plenty of corroborative examples for this in the world
at the moment (
WHAT IS DRIVING OUR SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION?
If you believe we are no more than our animal bodies, then the fact of our spiritual evolution is a mystery, as it is for Pinker – “we must have been doing something right. And it would be nice to know what, exactly, it is” – but a mystery even he thinks worth exploring. If the purpose of anything is what it does, the purpose of life looks like it might be spiritual/self evolution – because that is what it does.
The next place on our map may have some explanations as to what may be driving our spiritual evolution? Let’s see – we have come on our journey along the Road to Truth to the sylvan glades of human happiness. Time to enter and examine.
· HAPPINESS
“What is the highest good in all matters of action? To the name, there is almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated alike call it happiness and make happiness identical with good life and successful living. They disagree, however, about the meaning of happiness.”
The idea of happiness
is peculiar to humans – only humans are driven to be happy – other animals are
just driven to be. In fact, we are so driven by the desire to be happy, it
often seems to be the purpose of our life. This from the
Whether one believes in religion or not,
whether ones believes in this religion or that religion, the very purpose of
our life is happiness, the very motion of our life is toward happiness.
–
ANIMAL SURVIVAL FIRST, HAPPINESS NEXT?
For some people, the pursuit of happiness certainly seems to be “the very purpose of our life”. However, is the pursuit of human happiness similar to the pursuit of spiritual evolution as we discovered above – a luxury, only available to groups and/or societies who have, firstly, assured their animal survival?
It is my observation that this is so. It is only human societies and/or individuals whose day to day survival needs are met that spend any significant amount of time in the pursuit of happiness. It may be the human condition to be both an animal body and spiritual being, but animal survival must come first – at the forefront of our animal minds (conscious and unconscious) must necessarily be the survival of our animal body and the continuance of our genes. Without the vehicle which is our physical animal body, our spiritual self’s present experience is at an end – as are any opportunities it may offer to our self.
Exactly what those “opportunities” may be, I expect, will be revealed by a consideration of exactly what it is that makes us truly happy.
SO, WHAT MAKES US HAPPY?
I expect the answer to this question of what makes us happy, will tell us much about what the Dali Lama calls “the very purpose of our life”? What makes us happy will speak volumes about who we are, individually and collectively, about “us” – our self/soul/spirit” and about the human condition. If so, it may take us quite some way down our Road to Truth?
HAPPINESS THROUGH OUR ANIMAL SENSES, NEEDS
Human animals, can achieve pleasure and contentment – even passing happiness – through the animal senses and/or by meeting bodily needs. We can experience a degree of happiness when we are tickled, when we feed, when we drink, when we find warmth, even apparently (from one of the plethora of studies into human happiness) when we just smell baking bread.
These things please our animal senses – and can even be said to make us “happy” – but only for a while. Contentment from the animal senses must necessarily be passing – all pleasant stimulation to the body’s senses will soon be no pleasure at all – constant tickle will soon turn to pain; we need to be thirsty to get some happiness from a drink; hungry to get contentment from food; cold to get contentment from warmth – we will even get sick of bread if we have to smell it cooking all the time. There is nothing intrinsically happiness-making in them as things-in-themselves.
HAPPINESS THROUGH CONTINUING OUR
We can also get some happiness from obeying our genetic imperatives – by having offspring – observe new parents and/or grandparents.
HAPPINESS THROUGH HEALTH
To be healthy is a good feeling. If we feel healthy we feel as though we are “bursting with life”, we feel as though we are “ready for anything” – we feel a happiness.
HAPPINESS THROUGH SECURITY
People who feel they have animal security feel happy. To feel secure is a warm, fuzzy, happy feeling – safe from a storm, financially secure, plenty of food in the larder. But at the back of the minds of every human is the knowledge of our mortality – however healthy and secure we feel is the dampening knowledge of our ultimate death. The ultimate animal security is to feel secure from death – this is why religion is so popular.
THE FEAR OF DEATH
The religious appear overtly happy because they feel they have found the secret to eternal salvation – the ultimate security – the end of the fear of death through faith. For many, this is even worth sacrificing your rationality for but, for most, there is always that nagging little doubt – and fear. According to our map, we are due to examine the paranormal further down the track – I suspect we will explore the fear of death at greater depth there.
THE ANIMAL IS DEFINITELY A FACTOR OF THE HUMAN EQUATION
But, for here, if we are what makes us happy – the fact that because we do get some happiness from our animal body (from pleasantly stimulating our physical senses, from meeting our health, genetic and survival imperatives, from feeling bodily secure) means that it is a safe conclusion that there is an animal factor in the human equation.
BUT ANIMAL FACTORS WILL NOT MAKE US HAPPY ALONE
But while successful breeding, good health, and bodily security will make us happy for a while, is not enough on its own to make us be lastingly happy people. Just being parents and/or grandparents is not all that is required to be lastingly happy – there are many unhappy parents and/or grandparents. Also many unhappy people have rude health, and many unhealthy people can be happy (I have seen friends who, while fighting and/or dying of cancer, remained happy people – happy within, somehow). It is not a stretch to say that many people who have animal security are unhappy – look at the faces and behaviour of people in an average, prosperous Western city.
There must be other factors to lasting human happiness? Let’s examine the spiritual factor of the human equation.
SPIRITUAL HAPPINESS
Just about every day certain things will make us happy by being a “moving experience” – by uplifting our spirits. For example: seeing a beautiful view; hearing beautiful music; smelling a beautifully perfumed flower; tasting beautifully-cooked food. These may be experienced through our various animal senses and register as an observable blip in our animal brains, but they are not about our animal needs and genetic imperatives – we don’t have to see a beautiful view; hear music; smell flowers; our food doesn’t have to be beautifully cooked – to survive or breed. No, these things just “move” us – make us happy by lifting our spirits.
Other non-physical things, not necessarily experienced through our animal senses, can also to make us feel happiness – by inspiring us – for example: a gratuitous act of kindness; experiencing virtuosity in another human (in any field of endeavour); encountering a beautiful soul; witnessing a brave act. So, if non-physical, spiritual things make us experience happiness, then the spiritual is just as much a part of the human equation as the physical – we are what makes us happy. The fact that spiritual things make us happy is more evidence for the discovery we made back along our Road that the human condition is to be, indeed, a duality – but not a body+mind duality – rather body+self/spiritual duality.
Is it possible to be happy people – rather than just feel happy occasionally?
WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR US TO BE HAPPY PEOPLE?
We can feel happiness through physical, bodily means and through non-physical, spiritual means – but what does it take to be happy? Can we, in fact, be happy people? If so, what do we have to “get” to enable us to be happy people? To answer these questions we need to go deeper into the human condition.
We saw earlier that the body’s happiness must necessarily be passing. Must the self’s happiness also be necessarily passing? Is this also a part of the human condition, or can the self can be lastingly happy?
BEING HAPPY WITH THE SELF
There is an obvious difference between feeling happy and being happy. The key to humanity rests literally with the word “being”. We are not our bodies – we have bodies, but we are a being – a self/soul/spirit, call it what you will – a human being.
THE FIRST STEP
It is my observation that the first step to being a happy self, rather than just experiencing passing happiness, is to chose to come to know our self. We have already discovered in the above section of our journey which explored spiritual evolution the importance of the ancient dictum to “Know Thyself”. Why is knowing the self important in our quest to be happy? Because, if we come to truly know our self we can come to know if we are happy with our self – with our “being” – with who life has revealed us to be. Can we be, as the saying goes: “happy in our skins”? (vastly different to being happy with our skins – if you think about it – physical beauty is skin-deep, true beauty is soul-deep).
THE TRUE SELF
If we manage to come to truly know our self, and can honestly say that we love that self, then we will be happy – as opposed to just feeling happiness.
“Truly” is crucial here because faking it won’t work for long. If we imagine our selves to be other than we truly are – through wishful thinking; through a high ego; through mistaking a beautiful body for the self; through being misled by the blandishments of others who are out to get something from your physical beauty and/or physical talents – we will never know the real self, and lasting happiness will not be available. Indeed, unhappiness beckons.
THE DANGER OF CONFUSING SELF
The ego is not the soul/spirit/self, but a part of the animal body – a naturally-selected animal ingredient essential for animal survival in a competitive environment. More and more studies have shown that criminals who are given to random violence actually have a high ego, rather than having low self esteem. A high, but false, sense of pride in the self – of personal superiority even – can lead to anger and violence when the world does not agree with your own inflated opinion of self – you have not truly come to know the self but how you wish it to be.
As I will discuss shortly, the most reliable hallmark of true self-worth is genuine love from others – “genuine”, as opposed to the above-mentioned blandishments for personal gain or physical fear of you (bringing on Stockholm Syndrome – mistaking fear for love).
HOW IS THE TRUE SELF REVEALED?
Our true self is revealed by our actions – which flow from our choices.
WE BECOME OUR CHOICES
Our actions flow from our choices, therefore, through our choices we create our selves. Our selves are not created by our wishes or our dreams, but through our actions flowing from our choices. To know our actions is to know our true self. If we can love our actions then there is a fair chance we can love our selves. We will discuss in a moment the importance of the love of others in true self love.
MORE EVIDENCE FOR FREE CHOICE
Neo-Darwinians, materialists, and the such like, won’t allow free choice because it does not fit their necessarily causal and mechanistic model of the universe, but nowhere is there greater evidence for the existence of free-choice than in our creation of self – we don’t all create the same self.
UNHAPPINESS
Of course, just knowing our true selves is not enough to be happy – in fact it may lead to unhappiness. If we cannot love the self we have come to truly know, then we will be unhappy – even to the point of self-loathing, sickness, suicide. Medical studies have shown that self-loathing can lead to fatal sickness – empirical evidence of the existence of the spiritual from the effect it can have on the physical.
As we have seen in the section above dealing with spiritual evolution, unhappiness, even self-loathing, is not the end – the discomfort of it can spur us on to life’s greatest opportunity.
THE
If we are not happy with the self that life has allowed us to know, life gives us its greatest opportunity – the opportunity to grow our self – to evolve spiritually. Life in the relative is an opportunity for many things, its most immaculate being this one to evolve our self.
SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION
So, our spiritual evolution and our desire for happiness are inextricably linked. Life is an opportunity to know and grow – driven by humanity’s unique need to be happy with our self. “Unique”, as I have said before, because other animals don’t need to be happy with the self, they just need to be.
TO BE HAPPY DEPENDS ON BEING HAPPY WITH THE SELF
Every person who can be described as truly and lastingly happy (as opposed to just feeling happy for the moment) is happy with their self, to the point of being able to love the self.
TO BE CONSTANTLY, DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY IS IMPOSSIBLE
It is, of course, impossible to be deliriously happy all the time. Lastingly happy is obviously possible – as evidenced by those happy souls we know who fit that bill. Lastingly happy people have an enduring quiet happiness – what could be almost described as a background radiation of happiness – a secure, quiet happiness which helps them through life’s difficulties and its inevitable moments of sadness and passing unhappinesses.
If our enduring happiness depends on it, what then is the best way to get genuine, well-founded, enduring self-love?
THE GETTING OF LOVE
Humans do many things for the getting of love – some work, some don’t. Some not only do not work but are counter-productive – even involving us in Faustian pacts against the self/soul. Which are these things?
MONEY
We have seen on our journey that humans are complicated things, actions can have clear motives, or they can have dual (animal and spiritual) motives. Or they may start out as one thing and end up as another. For example, the accumulation of money may start as the animal need to be rich enough for survival, but ends up being about feeling good about the self – the attitudes of other people towards you changes when you become rich. If you are rich, people will appear to respect you, to like you – even to love you – perhaps allowing you to falsely love your self. But “appear” because such “liking” and/or “loving” is usually blandishment to get their hands on your wealth, or some of your prestige by association – people who are as rich as you are (or richer) treat you differently to people who are significantly poorer.
However, money enough to ensure our animal survival can
make us happy, but money above that – i.e. money in and of itself – won’t make
you any happier. This from studies conducted by
“money makes a negligible difference to our well-being once we are beyond average wealth, extracting ourselves from poverty gives a significant boost to our happiness barometer.”
Quoted from Age newspaper – 27th May, 2009.
Money, enough for the animal body and family genes to survive, allows a feeling of “well-being” – a level of animal happiness – money more than our fellows changes the equation. But any well-being and/or self-love built upon our possession of money is as fragile as that possession can be.
POWER
Power, another popular way to get self love, also may start out with animal survival motives but again, when achieved, the possession of power beyond enough to survive changes people’s behaviour towards you – and your own feeling about self. You mistake their behaviour as respect, even love, and you adjust your own feeling about self. But it is most likely fear – people don’t love or respect your self, but fear you – or want some of your power. Dictators are/were good examples of this – all the false fawning admiration expressed in statues etc, and the false mourning at death (there are still tears to be seen in the eyes of those visiting the tomb of that bloody murderer, Lenin). The Old Testament god is another good example of fear being mistaken for love. Religious people are mostly victims of the Stockholm syndrome – a syndrome about mistaking fear for love – where people come to “love” the captors that have the power of life and death over them. Religious people who worship a brutal God invariably fear “Him” and mistake it for love. Is it possible to truly love a god like the biblical one who slew men, women, children, horses, donkeys and anything that drew breath in innocent, peaceable cities that his chosen tribe wanted?
Fame also brings many people to you who profess friendship, love and respect. But ask any ex-star how genuine this is. “Love” from people based on fame, like love based on power and/or money, disappears as quickly as that fame, power or money. Any self-love based on such love is built on quicksand.
To watch their antics is to know that the powerful, rich, famous, and/or beautiful are most often the unhappiest (or at least, the not-happiest) of all people. There are also other ways that people attempt to acquire self respect, esteem and/or self love
SELF LOVE THROUGH GROUP MEMBERSHIP
Many of us also get self-respect/esteem/love and some happiness from being associated with the power and/or success of a gang, a religion, a football team. This explains why some apparently decent people will do indecent things to further their religion. But self-love by association is fraught – ask any supporter of the Melbourne Aussie rules football club.
TALL-POPPY LOPPING
We most often measure our own achievements with the yardstick of others’ achievements. Some of us, frustrated at this attempt to feel good about the self, realise that it is easier to drag others down than build our selves up, and engage in that all too human pastime of tall-poppy lopping. Bringing others down to our own perceived level (or below) brings some grim satisfaction, but no lasting happiness to the self – there are always others who appear relatively good/better/best.
HOW TO
So, back to how best to get self respect/esteem and/or love that is true – and lasting?
We are not all capable of truly great achievements in artistic, sporting, or academic fields, for example – most of us have humble capacities. But there are some things we all have the ability to do. We all have the ability to love others, to forgive them, and do good things for them (the things we would like them to do for us).
Love, forgive, do – sounds familiar? Consider also this:
“If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and the latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth.”
–
From
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LOVE
Why is the approbation of our fellow men so important? Because
the best evidence of our self-worth seems to come from others. This from
“The attentions of others might be said to matter to us principally because we are affected by a congenital uncertainty as to our own value – as a result of which what others think of us comes to play a determining role in how we are able to view ourselves.”
And self-worth is often more important than bodily survival.
“For the dueller, what other people think of him will be the only factor
in settling what he may think of himself.”
ACADEMIC STUDIES ON HAPPINESS
Our happiness is so important to us that it is one of the most popular areas for academic studies. What do academic studies have to reveal on the subject of happiness? Innumerable studies have found that if we have friends, a partner, good connections with our community, a job, purpose in our life, the love of our fellow men, we will be happy.
True. But why do these things make us genuinely happy? For
the reasons we have been discussing, above – they allow us to feel good about
our selves, our beings – genuinely happy for genuine achievements. They are a
mark of the worth of our selves/souls – not the beauty of our bodies, of our
power, the amount of our temporal possessions. This from 16th
century philosopher
“A man may have a great suite of attendants, a beautiful palace, great influence
and a large income. All that may surround him, but it is not him…Measure his
height with his stilts off: let him lay aside his wealth and his decorations
and show himself to us naked…What sort of soul does he have? Is his soul a
beautiful one, able, happily endowed with all her functions? Are her riches her
own or are they borrowed? Has luck had nothing to do with it? ... That is what
we need to know; that is what the immense distances between us men should be
judged by.”
Quoted
from
TO EVOLVE A BEAUTIFUL SOUL
So, if life is an opportunity firstly to know our self,
then to grow/evolve our self until we are happy with our self – then it is an
opportunity to evolve
Only our beautiful souls/selves will not lose their power, money, fame, or get wrinkles – it is the only part of our being which has any chance of being eternal.
NEO-DARWINIAN IDEOLOGY
In the background I can hear the neo-Darwinians ideologists
singing their usual refrain: self love and happiness is not about spiritual growth,
evolving a “beautiful soul”, but just about the animal – ego, status and
prestige – necessary for animal survival and breeding purposes. This from
“The elephant [human body] was shaped by natural selection to win at the game of life, and part of its strategy is to impress others, gain their admiration, and rise in relative rank. The elephant cares about prestige, not happiness and it looks eternally to others to figure out what is prestigious.”
- P. 101 “The Happiness Hypothesis” (Haidt’s italics underlined).
Seen through the lens of neo-Darwinian ideology, gaining the admiration of others is not about our need to be happy with our spiritual self – but just another purely animal act to garner prestige in order to breed more successfully than other animals of our species – to win the “game of life”.
DO WE
For Haidt, in “the game of life” all animals, including
humans, are the same, and: “the elephant [our animal body] cares about
prestige, not happiness”. Is this what truly drives the human need for the
admiration of our fellows? Is this what makes their admiration, in the words of
Sometimes, for sure – especially for individuals with lower spiritual evolution – but only sometimes, even for them. We have seen on our exploration that humans spend much of their waking hours in non-genetic, or non-survival behaviours – in seeking happiness (even if the activity is not recognised as such, and/or is futile). Most of us recognise, most of the time, that a higher happiness is available beyond just prestige for breeding. The happiest people you will meet are those who have recognised the prestige treadmill for what it is and have stepped off – taken a survival risk against their animal bodies – and tried to find, to know their true selves – to follow their vocation, their calling, their souls.
HAIDT’S DUALITY
Haidt, by stating “the elephant cares about prestige, not happiness” allows that happiness and prestige are different. Neo-Darwinians usually confuse the two.
Prestige and status is of our animal bodies and driven by our egos. Our animal egos are to do with bodily survival and successful mating. Lasting happiness is, conversely, happiness with the self/soul/spirit. Throughout his book Haidt refers to the human duality as analogous to an elephant and a rider – the elephant being the animal body with its unconscious animal instincts and genetic imperatives, and the rider is the mind – the conscious, thinking self. But this exploration has allowed us to see that the human duality is rather to be a spiritual being with an animal body – the human, animal mind being a part of the body, not a distinct part of a Duality. To couch this idea in terms of Haidt’s analogy I would describe the body (which includes the mind) as the elephant and the self as the rider. In other words, I see the mind not as the rider of the animal body, but as an integral part of it.
As in all animal and rider arrangements, sometimes the elephant/animal is in control and sometimes the rider/self. The rider is enjoying the animal ride, but is sometimes moved by things other than those which move the elephant – “higher” things which move the self/soul/spirit (like the pursuit of beauty) or like lasting happiness rather than passing animal contentment. The animal/rider conflict is life, the resolution of it determines how well we take life’s opportunity – the evolution of our self – and the taking of that opportunity determines how happy we are, how much we enjoy life. As we have seen when we explored the territory of consciousness, to raise our consciousness of life, to spiritually evolve, is to enjoy life most – to even experience ecstasy.
SO WHAT IS HAPPINESS,
We posed these questions at the beginning of this section on happiness. We have answered the first “what is happiness?” question by discovering that lasting happiness is truly knowing that we can love the self.
The second question about what our happiness says about us reveals two things. Firstly: that because both animal and spiritual things can give us some happiness it says that we are both animal and spiritual, and secondly: because love is the only thing which works invariably to make us lastingly happy – we are about love. Lest that sounds to you like a sentimental-sounding, New Age generalisation consider what George Vaillant had to say in summarising a 70 year-long study on human development and happiness (Vaillant is professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School and director of the study for its last 40 years):
“The only thing that really matters in life are your relations with other people…happiness equals love – full stop.”
Quoted
from an article written by Vaillant, Australian Financial Review, 21st
August, 2009. Study available at: http://adultdev.bwh.harvard.edu
Loving others ensures they will love you. If you are loved by others, you will allow it as evidence that you are worthy of your own love. If you can love your self, you will be happy. Genuine self-respect and love, based on the true love of others, is the only thing the possession of which invariably leads to happiness – and, conversely, self-loathing invariably leads to unhappiness.
Funnily enough, self-love is also the only possession which is totally within our control – no one else can change/evolve/devolve your self.
And the third question – our purpose? The purpose of
anything is what it does. What do we do? While we sometimes do acts which
society calls “evil”, evil is never the object of sane peoples’ actions – in,
and of, themselves. As we have seen above, sane people can do evil things when
we engage in efforts to love the self through the getting of power, fame,
money, and/or other – eventually futile – means. Evil acts can also emanate
from the animal side of the human equation when we strive to ensure our animal
survival – for example: protecting ourselves; invading the land of others (even
killing and/or enslaving the original owners – read the Bible). We invariably
find that evil never leads to lasting happiness but, if the life is long
enough, it will invariably lead to self-loathing – ask anyone on their
deathbed. O
For the moment – if the purpose of anything is what it does and relativity does creation through evolution – it is beginning to seem that the purpose of the relative universe is creativity – including self creation. Are we approaching Truth? Let’s see.
We now, in our journey, emerge from the sylvan glades of human happiness and stumble into the foggy, froggy hollows of semantics. Some shelter in their mists playing a semantic game, saying the self/spirit does not exist – all is of the body – the “spiritual” should be more truly labelled psychological or emotional.
Those who see life as just a fluke occurrence in an equally fluky, entirely physical and mechanistic universe argue that the spiritual does not exist, that the things I have been ascribing to our “spiritual” being should be more correctly described as animal psychological and emotional responses – of our bodies, not of some non-physical self/soul/spirit. These would argue that our “spirituality” is just an electro-biological response centred in the lump of meat which is our brain. Is this semantic gymnastics by neo-Darwinian materialists to explain away the difficulties that the existence of the spiritual poses for their material theory of everything?
Let’s first have a look at love, something many take to be evidence of our spirituality.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF “LOVE”
The word “love” can be used to describe both psychological/animal things and spiritual things. For example, we use the word love to describe the feeling we have towards our offspring, towards our sexual partner, or towards our fellow tribe/group members. This is not a spiritual thing, but a Darwinian feeling we have towards our offspring, sexual mates, and/or our tribe members – and naturally selected because such feelings would help the possessor and/or his/her genes to survive. But as we have seen above, to be happy, humans have the need of another, unnatural, type of love – humans have a need for love of self. I describe this need as “unnatural” because it is not akin the natural animal “love” of offspring, sexual partners, and group – and no other animal has it – as we have remarked before, animals other than humans don’t need to be happy, they just need to be.
THE PEACOCK IS TRYING TO SPREAD HIS
To illustrate this point consider the peacock. A peacock spreads his tail not to feel good about his self, but only for one purpose – to spread his genes. This is a natural behaviour with a Darwinian motive – to attract breeding partners. Now, a human can also do the Darwinian thing and dress up like a peacock to attract partners in order to spread their genes – but sometimes they are after another thing altogether when they exhibit this behaviour – humans may just be trying to feel good about their selves. For example, humans who are not interested in breeding (de-sexed people – or people beyond breeding age) still try to feel good about their selves by feeling more attractive, presentable. Older people (most often past child rearing) are particularly susceptible to having body-enhancing plastic surgery – risking their animal survival to feel good about their selves.
CONFUSING BODY WITH SELF
They won’t succeed with their ultimate aim of happiness (only
achievable by loving the self – as we saw above) because they are confusing the
body with the self. The point I am making here is that the driving need for human
peacock-type behaviour can be, but is not necessarily, Darwinian gene-spreading
– whereas it is always about genes for peacocks and other, more natural
animals. Animals other than humans can achieve the maximum happiness they are
capable of, through their pleasuring their bodies and propagating their genes –
humans can reach a higher happiness, but only through spiritual happiness –
love rather than animal ego. But humans are both animal and spiritual, and
when both are satisfied together humans have the unique ability to experience
ecstasy – more of that in a moment.
CONFUSING THE SPIRITUAL WITH ANIMAL EMOTIONS?
Maybe I am confusing the “spiritual” with what are just animal emotions? Let’s see?
EMOTIONAL?
Being emotional is not the same as being spiritually moved (inspired) – emotions are bodily responses to Darwinian survival situations. For example, consider the animal emotions of fear and anger – which trigger the physical reactions: fight and/or flight. Are these reactions of the same level as those I call spiritual – for example, when we – our selves – are “moved” by hearing sublime music, taking in a beautiful vista, smelling a pretty flower, tasting a perfect peach – all of which spiritually move us but serve no Darwinian function? Is the deep, spiritual connection we have for someone whose soul we connect with – a lover, a close friend, a soul mate – the same as the Darwinian emotions we feel for a sexy individual who has just come into view, or the primitive emotions we accord a fellow teammate or tribe member? The former speaks of a spiritual connection and understanding – the latter of bodily needs and animal/genetic survival.
CONFUSING THE SPIRITUAL WITH THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
Some insist that what I am calling the “spiritual” is actually psychological – animal – to do with our animal/psychological makeup and needs.
PSYCHOLOGICAL?
In an attempt to disprove the existence of a genuinely
spiritual factor in the human equation by re-labelling it psychological –
therefore animal – members of the House of Disbelief often go about it by
confusing, equating the spiritual with religion – then consider that they have
demolished the spiritual by demolishing religion. Consider this about the
psychology of the religious impulse from
“illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest and most insistent wishes of mankind…man’s need to make his helplessness tolerable”
(
And the following which, along with his other famous
utterance on religion (“religion is the
opiate of the masses”), we might consider as
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world and the soul of the soulless condition.”
- (Economic Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.)
Both utterances about religion are undeniably true, but what is deniable is that religion and spirituality can be equated – religion is not “the soul of the soulless condition”.
RELIGION IS DARWINIAN
We found in Essay 1 that, while religion claims to be
spiritual, it is actually about bodily survival (for eternity), animal emotions
and psychological needs – an animal response to existential threats. In this
way, religion is Darwinian not spiritual – about survival through power over your
potentially dangerous environment and over your always dangerous enemies. Power
which comes from your control over your god supplied by your religion – whose
officers claim to know what their awful, vain and jealous god wants – usually
awe, worship, praise, faith and fidelity. Religion also preys on our animal
fear of death by promising perpetual animal survival – “S” Salvation is key
Christian doctrine and the explanation for its sweep through the
Religion has some spiritual aspects – when the “wishes”
and “sighs” of “the oppressed creature” are expressed in beautiful words, art,
buildings, music – but the motives and methods of religion are largely animal
psychology and should not be confused with the spiritual. To demolish the
religious impulse is not to demolish the spiritual factor in the human equation
– it exists independent of religion. This from
“It [the spiritual] names a set of complex properties that material creatures have. Religions, cults, and myths are attempts – for better or worse – to organise and guide our inner lives. But the issue of spiritual life can be raised and pursued apart from religion. “
“Op. Cit.” (P. 164)
RELIGION, A PSYCHOLOGICAL
Jungians psychologists also see religion as psychological
– a necessary and therapeutic tool for civilisation. Sociologists such as
So far, the evidence for a spiritual factor in the human equation has consisted mainly of non-physical phenomena in human beings like our understanding and appreciation of non-Darwinian beauty, and unnatural aspects of humanity like our understanding of morals, ethics, virtues, and shame. But is there any physical, empirical evidence for the existence of the spiritual?
Time now on our journey to hunt for empirical evidence for the existence of the spiritual factor in the human equation.
· EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SPIRITUAL
Medicine has long understood that self-loathing can produce physical changes to our bodies – people can get bodily sick (even to the point of death) from loathing the self. It has also been shown that feeling good about the self, loving the self, can result in positive physical changes to our bodies. Hospital studies have shown that sick people can have their spirits lifted by music or pets, and such “lifting” can positively affect their physical health. How? There is nothing about the love, or touch, of a pet, or about music that changes the physical molecular structure of our bodies – it can only affect our spirits/souls/selves – which in turn must make the physical changes to our animal bodies.
These physical, bodily changes brought about by spiritual means, are empirical evidence for the existence of the spiritual – more evidence that humans cannot be totally described in material terms. While we “have” a body – we are not that body.
GUILT
As well as recovering from physical illness through spiritual means, conversely, people can become sick through spiritual means. For example, people can get physically sick from guilt. Guilt can be very destructive, physically, to the human body. “Badness” – which does not occur in nature – towards others does not sit well with the human condition – or not for long. And what we see as “bad” is interesting too. For instance, rape – if we are just genetic machines then raping someone is natural (as it is in the animal kingdom) – it should even be seen as “good” because it obeys our genetic imperatives by furthering the domination of our genes. But for humans, rape is a crime against another’s being – their self.
LOVE
The fact that there is not one recorded case of someone from getting sick from being good to others or by being loved by others – in fact the very idea is ludicrous – is more evidence about Truth of human nature. Being good suits us, being loved makes us happy, being bad or “evil” (a concept not available to other animals) can make us physically sick.
SOME CAN’T
More empirical evidence for the existence of the spiritual can be found in human sexuality which covers a broad spectrum of behaviours. Our sexuality can operate at base, animal levels of satisfaction (for example, exploitation of others) – up to sublime spiritual encounters between lovers (for example, Tantric sex). Sex at base levels provides animal, physical satisfaction but absolutely no self/spiritual satisfaction – “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction” was a very successful pop/sex song for a reason. Animal “satisfactions” of the type above can even lead to self-loathing – spiritual damage.
PHYSICAL/SPIRITUAL
But human sexuality can rise to a higher, spiritual, level enabling a higher level of satisfaction – ecstasy. Making love to someone you love, rather than just having sex for animal pleasure, ego satisfaction, and/or for spreading your genes – is a vastly different experience available to humans. Tantric sex, often called spiritual sex, is an example of incorporating love into the sex act. Tantric sex is a physical manifestation of a spiritual bond – it is the physical realisation of the love of a soul mate – it produces a physical/spiritual ecstasy by pleasing the two factors of the human equation at once. The difference the spiritual makes to a physical, animal act is more empirical physical evidence for the existence of the spiritual.
There are other examples of ecstasy available in physical/spiritual union. For example, eating. Feeding meets animal needs but dining can be ecstatic. By “dining” I mean good food cooked with artistry and, as many great chefs describe it – with love. Dining can lift the spirits, enabling heights of enjoyment beyond just meeting survival needs. We can dine even on a beautiful piece of fruit – if we raise our consciousness to take in its physical perfection: shape, colour, ripeness, smell, taste, texture. The Japanese, for instance, often spend great amounts of money on just one perfect piece of food, perfectly presented – as a gift of great significance. It is not just about the food, but about spiritual aspects of giving, receiving, and eating such a gift of perfection – it can lifts our spirits if we manage to lift our consciousness sufficiently to appreciate it all.
Of course, we can’t remain in a state of lasting ecstasy in this relative world – animal survival must come to the fore at times – and can be enjoyable on a certain bodily level – while not ecstatic. Without the animal factor surviving, the human equation is broken – and this life’s opportunity is over.
RAISING OUR CONSCIOUSNESS FOR GREATER ENJOYMENT OF
There is no doubt that raising our consciousness is one of life’s great opportunities – but how to raise our consciousness?
There are many ways we can raise our consciousness of life. We can raise our consciousness alone – by meditating; by appreciating beauty when we: walk through a garden, the bush, along a beach, swim in the sea, ride a horse, pedal a bike. Or we can raise our consciousness of life in the company of others – while singing in a choir, playing in a band, working as a team, chatting as a group. We humans, uniquely among the animals, have to put up with existential suffering because of our higher consciousness of life (knowledge of our mortality, for example) so we might as well consciously seek and enjoy the benefits that higher consciousness can provide. Spiritual evolution allows us to bring the spiritual factors of the human equation to bear on day-to-day life for our greater enjoyment of it – to best live. Physical scientists and materialists who feel that they can describe the human condition solely in terms of our body are doing the equivalent of trying to describe a book only in terms of its paper – you can do it, but you get a very shallow description.
WE
Our journey along the road to Truth has brought us to the point where we have uncovered enough evidence to be able to say that our conclusion about the human equation is safe – Human = Spirit/self + Body. In a nutshell, to be human is to be a spiritual being with an animal body (other animals may well be spiritual beings as well, but this exploration has focussed on humans as the animal we know most about). Our sciences have given us a pretty good understanding of humanity’s physical factors – an understanding that is increasing every day. Many scientists feel we will soon achieve complete mastery of the body to the point where disease, death even, will be dispensed with. But our understanding of the spiritual/self factor in the human equation is lagging – mainly due to our primitive religions which claim this area as their own.
TIME FOR A STEP TO THE LEFT?
Because religion has failed in its role as our spiritual
guardian, we need to explore some other areas which claim to increasing our
knowledge of humanity’s spiritual factor and purpose. Before we can say that we
have obeyed
I will consider the paranormal as a whole, first, and then examine separately any interesting areas which may need closer exploration.
· THE PARANORMAL
We skirted these areas at the beginning of our journey because we had only just begun and they seemed dangerous areas for a rational undertaking to get straight into – and we were short of light and a reliable guide. We have encountered some people in our journey so far who may be reliable guides, so, under their guidance, let’s go back and have a peek. But dangers remain and we have to be careful.
What sort of “dangers”?
Firstly, there are dangers to our credibility. We have tried to be as rational and objective as possible in our exploration – not always easy in areas like the spiritual. But now we are entering areas of great subjectivity and anecdote – areas beyond the expertise and remit of our physical sciences – areas that cannot be confirmed by the tried and true scientific method.
Secondly, there are personal, psychological dangers because these areas deal with our deepest fears and fondest wishes – our fears of death, of judgement and hell – our wishes for eternal life and heaven. Because of this we are at risk of losing our way on the road to Truth, of seeking personally comforting “t” truths rather than the “T” Truth.
Thirdly, the paranormal is infested with more than its fair share of bogus operators who are attracted by the fact that it is the needy (therefore gullible and vulnerable) who often go there for answers and help.
AN AREA PEOPLED BY THE NEEDY
Who are these “needy and vulnerable”?
They are people recently bereaved and/or people nearing death themselves, tend to be the most needy and hence most vulnerable to the unscrupulous bogus operators who often prey in this area. To be needy inclines one to gullibility and expert operators can supply suitable messages supposedly from recently departed loved ones – for a fee. I’m sure we have all seen those shows where supposed “mediums” expertly work audiences with general statements which will always hit a mark in an audience comprised largely of the bereaved: “I’m hearing from someone who has recently departed – I feel chest pains…etc, etc”. Such bogus performers (for “performers” is what they are) are easily revealed as such by “S” Sceptics. But Sceptics then take their usual next leap (rather than step), in declaring this is evidence sufficient to deny the credibility of all mediums and the whole paranormal field – similar logic to denying the possibility of any God and all special meaning when those of religions’ gods and special meanings are revealed as bogus.
Has the area been successfully demolished as territory suitable to be explored by an expedition seeking Truth?
INCREASINGLY OBJECTIVE RESEARCH BY GENUINE RESEARCHERS
Over the last 50 years more and more objective (and increasingly scientific) researchers have entered the paranormal field – looking for the Truth rather than personal comfort, money and/or status. Sometimes these researchers are academics – usually university-based psychologists, psychiatrists and scientists – and sometimes quasi-academic freelance interest groups (often with academic members). The latter groups are usually Institutes, Foundations, or Societies of Parapsychological and/or Psychical research. Most are self-funded, and just about all, make no money whatsoever – rather, members incur considerable personal costs, not only in monetary terms, but also in terms of lost credibility, status, and career opportunities in a world dominated by the physical sciences.
MODERN SCIENCE
There is much opposition to research into the “non-physical” from the dominant physical sciences for the obvious reason that the field is outside their remit. The physical sciences and their resultant materialist philosophies dominate academia, and funding (usually coming from the business world) is hard to get for any research which does not lead to some commercial, business-based payback. Criticism of anyone not toeing the materialist line can be vitriolic.
Academia also has tended to place anything outside of the
physical world on a par with religion and, as a result, parapsychology has been
tarred with religion’s brush of wishful thinking and feathered with its incredibility.
Consequently, parapsychology is an area which the vast majority of academic scientists
have studiously avoided since Psychology became recognised as a science (
A RELIABLE GUIDE?
I mentioned when we first encountered the metaphysical and
supernatural labyrinths at the beginning of this essay, that one of the reasons
we should perhaps avoid these paranormal areas was because we lacked a reliable
guide. Since I wrote that at the start of our Journey I have encountered the
work of several people who fit none of the templates of fraudsters. One of them
is
“There is no doubt in my mind that the
question of whether or not we live after death is by far the most important
that faces us, and that has always faced us. It is the most important not only
because it has to do with our destiny and with the meaning and purpose of our
existence, but because it has implications for the way in which we live our
present lives.”
”Is There An Afterlife? – A
Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence”,
The book, quoted directly above, (2005, “O”-Books) represents
a brave foray by an orthodox scientist into the world of psychic phenomena.
WHAT SHOULD WE ALLOW AS EVIDENCE IN OUR EXPLORATION?
Someone from the other side would be good. But by “someone” materialists always mean a body – for them, we are just our bodies – nothing more, nothing less. We have irrefutable, scientific evidence of what happens to our bodies after death, but whatever happens to us, our selves, our beings is impossible to test on a science bench.
These essays have examined several, non-material phenomena which present evidence considerable enough for it to be rationally concluded that:
1.) Although we have bodies, we are not our bodies;
2.) That we are best described as spiritual beings with animal bodies.
It is therefore rational to ask: what happens to our spiritual beings when they are disassociated from our bodies?
But what could form evidence sufficient for a rational answer?
It only took one truly black swan (“truly black”, i.e. not a bogusly painted one) in a world of white swans to prove that black swans existed. What should we allow as credible evidence of the self/spirit/soul’s existence in another reality; and what should we allow as credible evidence of the nature of the next reality?
Let’s consider the various forms of evidence about the non-material world there are.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
There are people of known integrity who claim to have been to another reality and come back (e.g. near death experiences and out of body experiences). There are also people who have claimed to have communicated with beings existing in another reality from this reality. Some people have claimed to have witnessed beings who have crossed over to this reality from the next. Does their individual or collective weight of evidence count for nothing, or does it add up to one black swan?
The answer to this must rest on the integrity and closeness of the experiencer. Members of our expedition who have had such experiences themselves will need no convincing of their truth. But, for the rest of us, the accuracy of our judgement of this must rest on how well we know the people having it and how reliable they are. I have had no experiences myself but have had some related, first-hand, to me by people I know well – and who I know to be reliable. And related to me in a moving way that would be very hard to fake – and by friends who had nothing to gain by tricking me, only everything to lose. Personal evidence can never entirely form conclusive evidence for another (subjectivity must always be present, however the honesty of intention) but it is still evidence of some weight.
But there is also independent research. How reliable is that? Again, it relies on the credibility of the researcher and will be influenced by vested interest – which must be ascertained.
RESEARCH
Firstly
Fontana examined psychic phenomena often in the company of other respected scientists (the most intriguing was the 2-year-long examination of the séances at Scole – a town in Norfolk, U.K.) and came down heavily on the side of the veracity of the psychic abilities of some practitioners – this from his concluding chapter:
“Having studied the evidence for these [psychic] abilities for over 30 years and seen a significant amount of the evidence at first hand, I am in no doubt that the evidence of psychic abilities can only be rejected on doctrinaire grounds and not on those of objective judgement. Psychic abilities are a matter of fact, not of belief… If your answer is that you are more than a biological accident whose ultimately meaningless life is bounded by the cradle and the grave, then I have to say I agree with you.”
THE SCEPTIC RESPONSE
The usual “S” Sceptic response to the Scole séances – that
it must be fraudulent, driven by the usual suspects: money and renown – was
fielded by
“the Scole Group had no discernible financial motive for practising
deception. In fact they were considerably out-of-pocket as a result of the work
of their Spiritual Science Foundation, and steadfastly refused financial
assistance…even to cover their expenses. Publicity could also be ruled out as a
motive for deception, particularly in the case of the two mediums, who remained
anonymous throughout the investigation.”
p. 329 Ibid.
As I have stated, sceptics have a very important role to
play, but for most, the slightest potential for fraud is given the same weight
as proof that fraud did happen.
WHAT INFORMATION WAS COMMUNICATED?
Some of the extraordinary, but coherent information that was conveyed by communicators supposedly from the next reality included:
·
Our Earthly plane of existence is the “lowest”
plane of reality – of the maximum illusion – real enough, but, like the shadows
in
· Beyond ours, there are several planes of existence – of ascending reality – from our basic, relative reality to the Absolute reality.
· The level directly above our relative reality is a type of purgatory where:
· We experience a total life review and come to know our self truly, thereby.
· During the life review we experience all the pain and emotional suffering we brought to others during our Earthly existence. There is no hell – beyond this.
· There is judgement, but it is self judgement.
· The above experiences must be faced if spiritual progress is to be made.
· Progress is inevitable but only when we are ready – some spirits remain attached to Earthly reality – not “crossing over” because of unwillingness to move on.
· We can reincarnate on Earth if there are lessons that can only be learnt by us here.
· Spiritual evolution continues on every ascending plane.
· The ascending planes are of increasing beauty.
·
Learning to love is the ultimate purpose of life
on Earth: (”…it is important to add here
that there is an almost universal emphasis, from mystics and communicators
alike, upon the fact that ultimate reality is “love”, and that the purpose of
our life on earth is to learn how to love, how to behave selflessly and
compassionately, and to overcome the ignorance, greed, and hatred to which
material existence lays us open.” (ibid. P. 455)
It has also been conveyed that, in the next reality, our experience is shaped not just by our own thoughts, but by the thoughts of others who think in similar ways. We gravitate to people of like mind to ourselves – those who love trees and flowers, peace and harmony, go to a domain where the thoughts of others who love these things have helped to create just such an environment. By contrast, if we prefer the city, we go to a city-like environment, and if we are identified with violence and strife we go to a place of violence and strife (I like that – talk about Divine justice – but because I like it, there is the danger I have found my “t” truth rather than the “T” Truth?)
THE END OF PHILOSOPHY
If
Maybe this is as it should be?
“
p.
327 ibid.
THE SCOPE FOR PERSONAL SEARCH
“Inner development” is, of course, the same phenomenon of life that this expedition has recognised as spiritual/self evolution. Life may not be what some people would call “perfect” (i.e. heaven) but it certainly does perfectly provide “scope for the personal search…for the inner development”.
SCEPTICISM
There is of course the possibility that
I think that there may be other reliable researchers and guides into the paranormal. If we can identify them we will explore some other regions with their aid. But to stay rational, we need to stick to exploring regions that:
(a) have had extensive research conducted into them.
(b) by reliable experts.
(c) involve phenomena which have happened to normal, ordinary people – i.e. they don’t rely on the psychic ability (and honesty) of mediums.
There have been some highly credible, well qualified
researchers explore the field of near death experiences – and many normal people
(i.e. not claiming psychic and/or mediumistic abilities) have experienced them.
It is an area that has considerable research conducted into it. Has this
research corroborated or denied
BACK FROM WHERE?
Some revived patients have remarkable stories to tell about
their experiences of death (we will take “death” to mean the cessation of all
vital signs). Such
Several books of varying reliability have been written on
the subject – but enough of them by rational, credible, highly credentialed
scientists and/or medical people, to take the matter seriously – and more are constantly
being written. One credible and extensive study was conducted by
“I do believe – but just not on the basis of my own or others’ data regarding
Quoted from “Near Death – stories
from the other side”,
Those who have personally experienced
“A strong decrease in fear of death among near-death experiencers has
also been noted by a number of researchers and commented upon by most people
writing in this area…This change in attitude on the part of those who’ve had an
‘ Psychologists and sociologists have traced many of our individual
as well as societal problems to anxieties related to death…Such freedom from
fear leads to indifference to negative kinds of immortality striving.’
Freedom from a drive for material success, with all that entails, is one such change frequently noted. An intuitive acceptance of both life and death and a focus of attention on the here and now are further outcomes of this change in attitude to death.”
“Transformed By The Light,”
A PRODUCT OF RELIGIOUS CONDITIONING?
Some sceptics claim that
“In terms of religious affiliation, about half of the sample (46 per
cent) claimed to have no religious affiliation at the time of their
Many diverge from previously received religious
understanding of the afterlife. This from
“Furthermore,
although religious belief is very much a feature of both US and Indian culture,
Osis and Haraldsson found that the ‘phenomena [of
EXPERIENCERS OFTEN RETURN WITH LESSENED RELIGIOSITY
Researchers have found it quite common that
“there is a feeling among this sample that they now have an ongoing direct contact with God or a Higher Power that requires no mediation by institutions such as the Church or interpretation by the teachings of any denomination or tradition.”
-
THE MATERIALIST EXPLANATION – DRUGS, EPILEPSY
Materialists have attempted a few answers for the phenomenon
of
“It can be anything from drug intake to epilepsy. It’s just the mind playing tricks on us…Thinking is just meat talking to itself.”
(quoted by
Melbourne Age newspaper,
I’m sure that some
“...disputes that these experiences are the by-product of drugs. His book ‘Reflections of a Setting Sun’ recalls a dying patient who reported hallucinations of spiders and strange creatures among apparitions of his dead brother: ‘At the time he was on a moderate dose of morphine...Once the morphine was substituted with another pain reliever, the spider hallucinations disappeared but the visions of his brother continued up until the time of his death.’ ”
(The Weekend Australian Magazine,
21-22/5/2011, Reporter
The same article also reports on two recent studies of
“Use of opiates does not appear to have influenced reports of these
encounters in both groundbreaking studies, which were published this year in
the rigorously peer-reviewed ‘Omega Journal of Death and Dying’. ‘Let’s stop with the cheap explanations,’
“It is not difficult – in fact it is easy – to propose naturalistic interpretations that could conceivably explain some aspects of the core experience…[but such an] interpretation, to be acceptable, should be able to provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects…”
K. Ring, “Life at Death”, P. 216
NEUROBIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS
Sceptics like to point to the work of Canadian
neuroscientist
Recently, providing ammunition for the sceptics,
“We think the near-death experiences are caused by a surge of electrical energy as the brain runs out of oxygen. As blood flow slows down and oxygen levels fall, the cells fire one last electrical impulse. It starts in one part of the brain and spreads in a cascade and this activity gives people vivid mental sensations.”
(Reported in The Australian
Newspaper, 31/5/2010 –
Oxygen starvation often produces vivid mental sensations –
often very night-marish and hallucinatory – probably accounting for some of the
“hellish”
However, if all
And there are some experiences which utterly defy any medical explanation. For example:
There are many books, articles, and reports of
REMEMBRANCES OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
Also compelling are cases where some other survivors reported
with amazing accuracy on what occurred around them when they were physically unconscious
– as observed by their selves which were out of their bodies (“selves” because
their brains/minds were still on the operating table). One famous case is the
experience of
The importance of this case is not just the details of
Reynold’s
And another case known as “
“Maria, meanwhile, underwent cardiac arrest in 1977. She floated out of
her body, drifted around the hospital [inside and out] and noticed a tennis shoe on a window sill [outside the hospital
on a 3rd floor window ledge].
It was later found to be exactly where she said it was. The shoe was said to be
invisible from the ground and not in any location where
(Reported by
AN AREA WHERE TRUTHS WILL BE HARD TO ESTABLISH
Indubitably, some reported
Some of the
But there is another area of paranormal research which lends itself more to scientific controls and requirements – like repeatability. It is an area in which interest is growing rapidly. I refer to ITC – Instrumental Transcommunication.
Instrumental transcommunication (ITC) is the phenomena of communicating with beings, who say they once lived on Earth but now exist in another, “higher” plane of reality. The communication is done via electronic media rather than through human mediums. It is a field which is generating increasing interest because no special psychic powers are needed – therefore is open to anyone who can afford ordinary electronic equipment like a short-wave radio, and who has serious intent. Repeatable experiments are also possible – thereby producing more objective, empirical evidence than researchers into the paranormal have been able to produce in the past.
ANOTHER RELIABLE GUIDE
The last 50 years has seen increasing interest, and quite a
bit of research into ITC – especially in
CREDIBILITY
To me, she seems very credible, not at all matching the usual template for a fraud. Fraudulent practitioners in the paranormal are invariably in it for the money, the status as one who possesses special powers, and/or just the personal satisfaction of being able to trick and outsmart others. None of these motives can be attributed to Cardoso, whose foray into the field has cost her both money and loss of, previously considerable, status. And, far from claiming special powers, she tells people how to do it for themselves in the Journal she edits – www.itcjournal.org. and in her recent book: (“ELECTRONIC VOICES: Contact with Another Dimension?”, 2010, Circle Books – including a CD of the voices of her communicators from the other side). This book could possibly make money, but it’s bound to be poor return for the past 13 years’ work.
ITC CAN REMOVE THE MEDIUM AS A FACTOR IN COMMUNICATING
Communicators from the next reality via human mediums have, in the past, sometimes complained that the information being conveyed can be constrained and/or compromised by the ability (or honesty) of the mediums involved. ITC removes the potential for fraud and incompetence which must always be a factor in séances etc. But, while ITC requires no special powers, it does require a degree of effort and earnestness from the people trying it. For the best results researchers need to be genuine, relaxed and well-centred – hoaxers and hysterics need not apply. Ideally they should be:
“stable people with their feet firmly on the ground…it is important to keep one’s balance and a certain sense of detachment…an obsessive, disturbed person will not be of great help to the communicators.”
“Electronic Voices”,
Successful communications also apparently depend on hard work from those on the “other side”, and the quality of the voices (clarity, volume etc) can also be affected by day-to-day, earthly environmental factors.
WHAT INFORMATION IS BEING CONVEYED?
Quite some of the information being received through ITC is
similar in nature to that gleaned by
“The occupants of the Earth have to learn to think differently. With the help of ITC some will learn the worthlessness of their material thinking and will turn towards spiritual interests” (Locher and Harsch, 1989).
Sometimes the information is difficult for a materialist to grasp in their basic, material reality – for example, in the next reality:
“you wear an etheric body...of a finer or more tenuous matter than the [our] physical form”... and the next world is: “the original of the earth [which is in actuality] an ugly smudged copy of the [real] world”
(
I’m not sure why some find this sort of information is so outrageous – we live in a seemingly solid world but have found it to be comprised more of energy than matter.
Other information communicated to us via ITC includes:
THE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS FROM ITC:
Meaninglessness has become the default setting of academic philosophy because it has become the handmaiden of our physical sciences. ITC threatens this present ideological stranglehold and will be bitterly opposed by vested interests. Philosophers are entrusted with answering the question “how to best live”, but seem to have been more keen to win arguments than find Truths.
GOD?
We have not hunted much for proof any “D” Divine on our exploration but have observed that a “Higher Agency” than blind physics is often hinted at. The last item on the dot-point list above, for example, implies that there is an overarching, authority (supervising how much the communicators are “allowed” to reveal to us about life). There is not much mention of God, or the nature of God, in ITC communications but there is one intriguing communication implying that the nature of God is not singular (“Humans make the mistake of imagining God as a single person” – “Breakthrough, Theo Locher & Maggy Harsch). That’s interesting!
THE IMPLICATIONS FROM ITC FOR RELIGION
There are plenty of implications for our religious imaginings. While the next levels of reality (above the purgatory-like second level) appear to be heavenly places of increasing beauty and love, there does not appear to be either the theists’ hosanna-singing heaven, nor their fiery hell. Nor does there appear to be the judgement-free nothingness of the atheists. There is, however, the definite statement that our religious faiths and beliefs do not decide our next reality – rather it is our actions that are important. The most important implication is that there is no right religion (and no “B” Book) which will open gates for us. What determines of our next experience after this is not the personal truths we hold, but what our “t” truths say about us – the “T” Truth of who we are.
As for prayer, we are told the only prayer worthwhile is “one from the heart” – and that to pat an animal, to smile at a child, to appreciate a flower – is a such a prayer to God.
OUR TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION EXCEEDS OUR SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION
Both philosophy and religion need to value Truth more highly than winning arguments if we are to survive as a species because humanity is at the dangerous pass where our technological evolution far exceeds our spiritual development – we have atom bombs but crude theisms and atheisms.
WILL ITC BE A TOOL FOR OUR SURVIVAL AS A SPECIES?
ITC has apparent potential, but only time will tell. Its honest practitioners will have to be careful of being swamped by the potential for dishonest ones – the last thing we need is for a potentially fertile field to be buried under a slag-heap of fraud, or another bogus religion. So far, my experience of ITC is limited to reading some ITC journals, Cardoso’s book (“Electronic Voices”), listening to her CD of the voices, and an exchange of emails with her about the subject. All of which leads me to believe in her absolute integrity and conclude that she (and others) have indeed been communicated with by people of great wisdom – apparently from another plane of existence. The alternative that she is a fraud, or has hysterically over-interpreted some sounds (pareidolia) , or has been tricked by other parties hiding in nearby bushes for the ten years she has been researching ITC in different locations – do not seem tenable. That she has picked up stray radio broadcasts is also a non-starter because her communications often consist of dialogue – even question-and-answer sessions.
SCEPTICISM STILL NEEDED
We must retain a healthy scepticism in order to test the
evidence properly because we desperately need the “T” Truth – not just more of
our “t” truths. It has been calculated that over 70,000 people are presently
experimenting with the various forms of ITC, and some of them are proper
scientific studies – Cardoso has already been part of several in
The sooner we come to truly know our selves – the better – both for the survival of humanity, and for our own personal eternity. Although it is frequently reported that there is no classic hell-fire and damnation in the next reality, the eternal company of those who are truly our soul mates may seem very much like it? To put it simply, but plainly, the banker who thinks he is a magnificent being because he has amassed huge material wealth and the envy of others may be disappointed with the company of fellow robbers and criminals for eternity. Likewise the religious zealot who feels he has pleased God by killing people of other religions may not be content with the company of fellow murderers rather than the expected flesh-pots. One thing is for sure, engaging in Faustian pacts against the soul for a little temporal status is fast losing its gloss.
REINCARNATION
One of the most important issues raised in our exploration of the paranormal so far is reincarnation – the information received occasionally from the next reality that we may have many incarnations on this earthly reality. The implications for our exploration towards the Truth of our existence are such that it is worth our expedition examining the issue more closely.
If we have many incarnations on Earth (past and future) the
implications for the philosophy of meaning are immense. For example, if we have
many lives on this Earthly plane, then the “Problem of Evil” pillar of the
House of Disbelief (perhaps its most popular pillar), is demolished at a stroke.
The existence of the so-called “evils” of life (for example, early deaths – like
that of
MUST WE NECESSARILY ONLY HAVE
We have explored the speculation that we must only have one life already in Essay 2 and concluded that there is absolutely no evidence to support it. That our being finds itself with an animal incarnation once is only proof of one thing – that it can happen – not that it must never happen again. That we must have just one life is the only doctrine that the House of Disbelief and the House of God share and it is a speculation necessary for the soundness of both Houses. Reincarnation will therefore be strongly opposed by both sides. In the past, the House of God tortured many so-called heretics to death for espousing it and, in the present, reincarnation produces fear and loathing from atheists and theists in equal measure.
EVIDENCE FOR REINCARNATION
There may be no evidence which effectively denies reincarnation,
but what is the evidence in support of it? We have seen some evidence already
in our exploration into the paranormal but, to gather more, let’s go to a
professional medical scientist who has explored the territory in depth. I
propose we examine the work of
One of the leading researchers and practitioners into the
phenomena of past life recall is
Weiss stumbled upon the phenomenon of past lives when he was
treating a patient who had deep problems that he had been unable to treat. He
tried hypnotherapy in an attempt to explore her childhood and was stunned when
she went back, not only to her childhood, but beyond her present life to an
earlier life. He had never known this to happen to anybody and he was stunned. He
was sceptical but, because reliving some of the trauma supposedly suffered in
her past lives was helping his patient with her present problems, he persisted,
and regressed her to past lives in following sessions. The patient, over
several sessions was able to go back over many lives (she had memories of 86
previous lives – most of them very humble and grim). She reported, and relived,
parts of many incarnations – in different sexes, in different countries, during
differing eras. Not only was Weiss able to take her through several traumas, he
was also able to get her to report on “After Death” experiences (as opposed to
Weiss’ patient was also able to pass on existential information from various “Masters” (higher beings from the next planes of existence) – intended for humanity. Some of the information passed on from the Masters to us included:
“Our task is to learn, to become God-like through knowledge.” (P. 46)
“...there are many gods, for God is in each of us.” (P. 54)
“There are many dimensions...different planes...Each one is a level of higher consciousness. What plane we go to depends upon how far we’ve progressed”. (P. 68)
“Only we can rid ourselves...of the bad habits that we accumulate in the physical state.” (P. 69)
“...we continue to grow. When we get to the spiritual plane, we keep growing there too. We go through different stages of development...We decide when we want to return [to Earth], where, and for what reasons. Some choose not to come back.” (P. 140)
“There are seven planes in all, each one consisting of many levels, one of them being the plane of recollection. On that plane you are allowed to collect your thoughts. You are allowed to see your life that has just passed. Those of the higher levels are allowed to see history. They can go back and teach us by learning about history.” (P.p. 171-172).
“We have debts that must be paid. If we have not paid out those debts, then we must take them into another life...in order that they may be worked through. You progress by paying your debts. Some souls progress faster than others.” (P. 172)
“We will all have a dominant trait. This might be greed, or it might be lust...you must overcome this in that lifetime...If you do not, when you return you will have to carry that trait, as well as another one, into your next life...[if] you did not fulfil these debts, the next one [life] will be harder.” (P. 172)
– all page numbers from “Many
Lives, Many Masters”, Brian L. Weiss – Simon & Schuster, 1988. Reprinted
2008.
Weiss was initially deeply sceptical, but was convinced
about the veracity of this information when his patient was also able to pass
on intensely personal information to Weiss concerning (and from) from his own
family (including from his son who died as a baby). This was information that the
patient,
After the patient recovered from her problems, Weiss was left with problems of his own – problems which took him four years to resolve. Should he reveal what had discovered, and suffer the inevitable opprobrium that would follow from his fellow empirical psychiatrists? In his words:
“It took me four years to write about what happened, four years to gather the courage to take the professional risk of revealing this unorthodox information.”
Weiss felt, professionally, he had to publish because past
life recall worked with other patients as well – especially for patients who
had problems inaccessible to other methods. He went on to regress into past
lives many other patients – some of whom were also able to report afterlife
experiences and information from Masters similar to Catherine – and similar to
those reported by
Weiss has experienced patients speaking foreign languages they have never learned in this life, and:
“I have had many patients who could validate their past lives in one way or another. Some have been able to find their children from a recent past life, and the children, still in physical form but much older than their reincarnated past-life parents, have been able to confirm the past-life regression memories.” (P. 218 ibid.)
THE IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR QUEST IF WE HAVE MANY LIVES
The implications of having many lives are immense for our exploration into the meaning and purpose of life. I will list a few that come quickly to mind under the following heads – I’m sure there are many more, but these are important for us:
Religion: People recalling past lives have been members of other religions – most having been, at one time or other, members of all the main religions. The inevitable conclusion is that there are no “chosen people” of God.
Philosophy: I have discussed this above, but to reiterate, if we have many lives the “Problem of Evil” is demolished.
Economics : The ruling, short term gain ethos of capitalism, needs to be reconsidered. Many of our capitalists operate on the selfish “I’ll Be Gone” system – meaning they are pursuing personal short-term gains, no matter what the adverse affects of this policy on their company and/or nation. Your tenure in office (or even your life) may well be over before the full consequences of your short-term pillaging is felt, but you may well suffer the full consequences in your next incarnation.
Environment: Likewise, you will suffer the environmental consequences of pillaging the planet for short-term gain when you return.
Politics: Those in political power should consider what is in the best long-term interest of their country before the short-term interest of their own power. And, even further than that:–
Nationalism: We should look beyond the parochialism of nationalism – people who report other past lives also report that they have lived in different countries – as members of different ethnic groups. Therefore the idea of nationalism – putting your country first, and/or of disadvantaging other countries to benefit your present one, is not a good idea – who knows what country and/or ethnic group may encompass your next life?
Sexism: The same applies to sexism. People who recall memories of past lives report being both sexes.
Racism: People also report having been members of different races in past life.
UNITY
An important lesson for us from all this is the unity of humanity. We are one – there is no good or bad; right or wrong; better or best – religion, country, sex, race and/or political system. Our self/soul/spirit belongs to no religion, nation, sex, or race – we are part of a Divine Unity.
CREATE A WORLD YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE BORN INTO
And the bottom line of reincarnation is this: if the vast majority of us have many more future lives, we are creating our own future, now – we are creating future: societies; economies; environments that not only our children and grandchildren will have to live in – but our selves. If you don’t care about others, ask yourself the question: what sort of a world would you like to be born into yourself?
This is, of course, all predicated upon Weiss; his experiencers; and now, his professional colleagues (who are presently practising past-life recall therapy) not being part of some huge fraud. As in all things, you will have to examine the evidence for past (and future) lives for Truth – against your own fears and wishes (your truth) and decide for your self. This seems to be how this relative reality, that we are all a part of, works – in its immaculate function of self creation.
CONCLUSION ABOUT
THE PARANORMAL AS A WHOLE
So, what have we discovered in our exploration of the labyrinths signposted “Metaphysical” and “Supernatural” in the company of our chosen guides? Have we found any evidence of a grander metaphysical reality beyond this physical one; have we found that we are a spiritual being with an ultimate purpose; or is it established that we a spontaneous lifeform in an accidental, mechanistic, and essentially meaningless universe?
One of our guides,
“Are we no more than biological accidents with nothing to motivate us beyond the struggle to stay alive, or is there more to it than this? Is there no purpose to our lives beyond self-interest, or are selfless ideals such as love and compassion, empathy and altruism, peace and harmony, the very stuff from which existence arises? Are our thoughts, our creative endeavours, our art, our poetry, our philosophy, our music, no more than the by-products of electro-chemical energy in a brain that would live out its earthly life just as well without them? Or are these creative masterpieces hints and whispers of a grander and finer reality of which we are all a part?”
-
Our exploration has uncovered plenty of evidence from reliable and well-qualified investigators that there is a reality beyond this material one – a “grander and finer reality” than this relative reality – but, unless we have a substantial personal experience of the paranormal, “hints and whispers” may be all we will get.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
As stated above, while I have had no personal experiences of the paranormal, I have had some experiences related to me by friends. Most I have dismissed and forgotten, but a couple I found compelling – not because of the stories themselves (although amazing enough), but because of the integrity and stability of the people concerned. While the experience of another, no matter how credible, cannot form irrefutable proof for our self, they certainly must hold some weight – as must the evidence from credible, experienced, and qualified (academically, medically, and/or scientifically) researchers.
PHYSICAL PROOF OF THE NON-PHYSICAL
It must, however, be concluded that physical evidence of the non-physical – sufficient to convince a fundamentalist materialist – can never exist. A Materialist only believes in matter and energy, by definition, and even if a materialist had a personal experience of the afterlife that he found convincing, he could not bring a lump of it back to unshackle his fellows from the grip of reductionist, materialist philosophies. His only choice is to cease being a materialist himself.
FRAUD
It is important to keep a sceptical approach when exploring paranormal phenomena. Without it, the potentially fertile field of the anomalous would undoubtedly become buried under a slagheap of fraud. There are definitely frauds in the various fields of the paranormal, but to uncover some (even the majority) as bogus operators is not the same as proving the whole field fraudulent – just as a bogus religious officers and bogus gods discredit, but do not disprove a God.
CONCLUSION
All up, certainly some more evidence of a spiritual factor in the human equation has been produced by this exploration of the paranormal – and some more evidence for the existence of realities and dimensions beyond our relative ones. Evidence sufficient to allow a rational belief that our present physical relative reality is not the only one. It seems, such can be safely held “on the balance of probabilities” – especially if we consider the evidence supplied by our investigation of the paranormal along with other evidence uncovered on this journey.
Are we there yet? Have we approached the Truth close enough to see it?
BACK ON TRACK
We return back to where we were on our road to Truth before our excursion into the paranormal realms. Now, armed with our additional discoveries about the human condition, we can now see that there is a faint glow up ahead. Is it perhaps the Truth? Maybe, but there are a couple of more regions to explore on our map yet, so let’s continue our journey to see if we can approach more nearly the glow up ahead.
Some scoff at the weirdness of the paranormal, but if you
want weird, just take a peek at the “normal”. O
Many cling to our material world as the only thing we can know. Good ol’ matter, you only have to handle a lump of it to know that it is real – our one and only true reality. Or is it? Quantum physics has shown us that even a lump of matter is not very material – more space than anything else – more energy than matter (so why do people have trouble with reports of “ghosts” moving through matter?) In fact, the closer we look at it, the curiouser and curiouser our “normal” material world looks. We are about to be enveloped in the swirling mists of quantum “reality”. Those who feel that our material world is rock-solid and completely understood – purely physical, totally mechanically-causal – and that such a normal world must necessarily argue against the paranormal, have not recently contemplated the actual weirdness of our world according to quantum physics.
It may seem like we live in a well-understood world of Newtonian physics of cause and effect, but we actually exist in a barely conceivable quantum world full of the non-solid. A world: where there is evidence for many more dimensions than the four we operate in; where matter can be altered by consciousness – affected (or even effected?) by mind; a world with something called “non-locality” where particles can continue to be connected to each other even though far apart physically – allowing consciousness and brain to be unglued (perhaps, more truly, self and body?).
“Unglued”? In our world both thoughts and things exist – a dualism. Our brains are things with thoughts. If we didn’t allow some dualism in our philosophy we may be worried about crashing our cars into the thoughts of others, for example, but consider this:
“Much of modern science can be seen as an attempt to disprove dualism.
In the strictly scientific world-view there is only one stuff – out of which
bricks and brains are constructed. My thoughts and feelings are just what the
brain does…It’s largely an illusion that the mind has any affect on the world.
We’re all imprisoned in the chains of cause and affect that started with the
Big Bang. But in spite of numerous claims this remains a statement of faith.
Neuroscientists may be able to show what happens in the brain when we think, or
when we exercise “free will”, but this cannot be shown to be proof that dualism
is wrong…Those electrical patterns are not thought itself; they may be no more
than symptoms of thought.”
And:
“quantum mechanics…is the most effective scientific idea ever: it powers
your television, your computer, anything dependant on electronics. So we know
it’s true enough to work, but it’s also weird enough to defy belief…Crucially,
two things [have] been discovered. First particles can continue to be connected
to each other even though separated by long distances…a phenomena known as
non-locality. Second, quantum theory shows that the mind can affect the [physical] world.”
Appleyard interviews distinguished physicist
“The observer is brought into quantum physics in an essential way, not
only as a passive observer, but as an active part of the dynamics. He makes
certain choices not specified by the physical dynamics which seem to come from
the psychologically described realm rather than the physically described
realm.”
Ibid. P. 16
THE END OF CAUSALITY
The implications for the debate about the existence, or not, of free choice are considerable. Non-locality, for example, allows the mind to be separate to the brain – and Strapp’s “certain choices not specified by the physical dynamics” unhinges causality. These discoveries are, in Appleyard’s words:
“world-changing. This idea would, if widely accepted, end the reign of
scientific materialism, replacing it with a new dualism. It would mean that the
universe is not a “causally closed” system, locked down since the Big Bang, as
mainstream science has always insisted it is, but open to freedom of choice by
the autonomous, floating, matter-altering mind. We would have regained our
souls.”
Ibid. P.16
Out-Of-Body experiences, Near-Death Experiences, our consciousness separating from the body at death and creating realities on other planes – all become rational possibilities. What we perceive as matter is more truly energy. The atomic particles which make up our bodies have more space between and within them than, proportionally, between the planets of the universe. Electro-magnetic and nuclear forces create an illusion of solidarity – our bodies are more truly energy than particles of matter. Are, then, reports of beings from other realities passing through our “solid” objects like walls, so weird – so unlikely?
And, if we find that we can create or alter this present physical “reality” by our observations of, and choices about, it – are then some of the reports we have received about parallel “after-worlds” so incredible?
“Thanks to the advances of modern science we know that this material [the
matter of which this world is composed]
is also mysterious, and more in the nature of energy than of solid substance.
We do not know what it really is and we do not know from where it really comes.
If the findings of quantum physics are to be believed and if it can indeed be
directly influenced at some level by the consciousness of the observer, it may
be rather nearer to a form of “mind stuff” than a form of inert matter. The
more we ponder such possibilities, the more descriptions of the next world come
to seem, if not credible, at least a little less incredible.”
-
Talk of a “paranormal” existence after this one – where our bodies are more etheric than here because of different levels of energy vibration – does not look so incredible. The “observable” solidity of this world was always (previous to atomic and quantum discoveries) tendered as the necessary quality of existence, or non-existence – what now?
We are getting near the end of our journey. Our original, barely perceivable track has grown into a road and the glow we previously noticed, up ahead, has grown brighter still. Is it the Truth? There is only one more place to explore on our map before we have gone just about as far as we can go. It is the strange region of human humour – did you hear the one about:
The world is a comedy to those who think,
A tragedy to those who feel.
–
What is humour? Why does it make us smile, even sometimes
in the grimmest of situations? What makes us go into strange, often involuntary
spasms of the body called laughter? It is a mystery with no good Darwinian
explanation. This from
“What is the survival value of the involuntary, simultaneous contraction
of fifteen facial muscles associated with certain noises which are often
irrepressible? Laughter is a reflex, but unique in that it serves no apparent
biological purpose; one might call it a luxury reflex. Its only utilitarian
function, as far as one can see, is to provide temporary relief from
utilitarian pressures … where laughter arises, an element of frivolity seems to
creep into a humourless universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics and the
survival of the fittest … that a complicated mental activity like the reading
of a page by Thurber should cause a specific motor response on the reflex level
is a lopsided phenomena which has puzzled philosophers since antiquity.”
The noise of people laughing is one of the loveliest sounds. It is funny on its own – often producing near hysterical laughter by itself – people placed in front of recorded laughter always begin laughing themselves, after a while.
THE ONLY SPECIES TO LAUGH?
Are we the only species that laughs? Without being too anthropomorphic, some animals appear to laugh – some even seem to indulge in the lowest form of humour – slapstick humour. Watch a cage full of chimps for a while, especially when they come to realise they have an audience. Humans like slapstick too – usually in childhood – but the more we grow up, the more our consciousness of life is raised, and the more we enjoy subtle humour like irony.
IRONY SATIRE
Irony, satire and existential humour is the comedy of
people who think. As the quote from
Why do we laugh at our existence?
THE HUMAN CONDITION IS RISIBLE
We find much about our existence, the human condition, that is ridiculous and absurd. Animals we undoubtedly are, but we have greater aspirations – this from one of our greatest comedians:
“Humour [is] something that thrives between man’s aspirations and his limitations.”
–
There is a huge dichotomy between our selves and our bodies – between our spiritual aspirations and our bodily limitations. The human condition is ridiculous – we have a spiritual self that wants to approach the Divine, and an animal body that wants to defecate, copulate, masturbate. This brings us to:
DIRTY JOKES
We derive much humour from our natural animal behaviours – “dirty” jokes, rude words – are to do with our sexual and excretory functions. We humans are the only animal to find natural things like excretion or copulation funny (and, as we considered earlier, we are the only animal too embarrassed to do them in public). Again, humans are most unnatural animals – why are we so offended and/or amused by natural acts if the human condition is to be just an animal – what’s so funny?
Is our peculiar, unnatural humour pointing us towards the Truth?
“There is more logic in humour than in anything else. Because, you see, humour is truth.”
–
So, what’s the Truth for us to find in humour? For me,
it’s just more evidence that humans have animal bodies but are not well
described if we only refer to them in determining the human condition. From
“...where laughter arises, an element of frivolity seems to creep into a humourless universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics and the survival of the fittest.”
More than “frivolity”, humour can move us to hysteria.
HYSTERIA
Human humour often skirts the abyss bordering on madness – and when it does, hysterical laughter ensues – bubbling with fear and barely controllable. We find our animal fears risible, we laugh at death in black humour and gallows humour. Again, what’s so funny?
We are laughing at the ridiculousness of the human condition, at the absurdity of life, we split our sides at its unnaturalness – the Divine soul battling with the base animal.
OUR LAST PHENOMENON
We have explored the last region marked on our map. Humour, like all the other regions we have explored on our journey, does not comprise the Truth on its own but, along with all the other phenomena we have encountered and considered along our “Road to Truth” it may constitute enough evidence to get us over the last climb on our journey?
THE CONCLUSION – OUR
LAST CLIMB
This essay was inspired by
Where? And was the danger and discomfort worth it?
At the beginning we considered
A
We did
find that, although we are obviously in a natural, neutral, material, physical
world which proceeds by mechanistic laws, there is plenty about our existence that
can not be well explained by a materialistic and Darwinian theory of everything.
For example, we examined plenty of human behaviour which is driven by spiritual
needs – needs which we sometimes satisfy before, or even at the expense of, our
selfish genes. We also discovered and explored plenty of phenomena which were non-physical
and unnatural. All up, we found that, while we observably have an animal body, we
are not just that body because we, also observably, have a spiritual being – and
that being is “us”, our “selves”. Indeed, we found that the knowing that self, and
growing our self – until we are happy with who we are – makes for a “life worth
living”.
GOD?
Our
exploration along the road to Truth was not particularly looking for God, but
the implications of the phenomena we have explored leave the question of an
agency above physics wide open – a “D” Divine, perhaps – but one more amazing
than our ancient, pre-scientific, ancestors could imagine – a rational,
credible God, and visible without the rose-coloured binoculars of faith.
SOMETHING FISHY?
Our physical world is observably mechanistic,
a machine – which, according to our physical sciences, started accidentally, spontaneously.
But there is something fishy about it – it is a creative machine, that only operates:
“...by grace of some pretty felicitous arrangements … how are we to judge just how ‘fishy’ the set-up is? The problem is that there is no natural way to quantify the intrinsic improbability of the known ‘coincidences’. … What is needed is a sort of metatheory – a theory of theories – that supplies a well-defined probability for any given range of parameter values. No such metatheory is available, or has to my knowledge even been proposed. Until it is, the degree of ‘fishiness’ involved must remain entirely subjective. Nevertheless, fishy it is!”
–
The “coincidences” are the many laws (e.g. Thermodynamics), forces (e.g. gravity), and fine ratios between their constants which “felicitously” existed to enabled our universe to: (a.) come into being and, (b.) exist for the necessary length of time and suitable manner to produce life. But the greatest “fishiness” is the production of our non-physical, spiritual selves out of the factory which is our purely physical universe of atoms and energy. How could something: (a.) supposedly accidental; (b.) observably random; (c.) originally chaotic – be such a creative machine of something non-physical like our self without some higher agency?
THE HOLY GHOST IN THE MACHINE
The physical universe may indeed be mechanistic, a machine, but there is a ghost in the machine – the Self. And we discovered on our journey that this self often makes free choices in an otherwise causal world. “Free” because they are not causally driven by our bodily needs and genetic imperatives – free choices which are sometimes even injurious to our body and/or the survival of its genes.
FREE CHOICES
Many human choices are, observably, not free – these are “choices” made for us causally, unconsciously, by our body following its imperatives to feed, breed, and survive. But, just as observably, quite some of our choices are free. These are the choices we make for our selves – choices to do something which has no animal purpose but only serve to uplift the self, feed the spirit. For example: taking a bushwalk, going to an art gallery, listening to music, travelling overseas, skiing, horse riding, bike riding, scuba diving, hang-gliding, recreational flying – choices freely taken, many of which actually risk the survival of our bodies and their precious genes.
HAPPINESS, ECSTASY
Our journey also explored the phenomenon of human happiness. And we discovered that, to know the true self – and to know it to be worthy of our own love – was to be truly happy. We discovered that we can experience animal contentment and some passing happiness through our bodies’ senses and ego but, by raising our consciousness of life through spiritual evolution, we found we can en-joy life more – to the point of experiencing ecstasy. The phenomenon of human ecstasy can only be achieved by incorporating the spiritual into our physical/animal pleasures: by dining rather than feeding; making love rather than having sex; by enjoying the moment rather than rushing through it to “get” somewhere. We found that if we raised our consciousness of life and our fellow-travellers, if we looked at each other as fellow souls and lovers rather than just as competitors for food, money, power, fame and genetic dominance; if we looked at life as a spiritual opportunity rather than an animal struggle or a religious “test” – what a much more enjoyable experience it is – the answer to Philosophy’s main question: “how to best live”.
SO, IS MEANINGLESSNESS A LOGICAL DEFAULT SETTING?
The default setting for academic
philosophy is meaninglessness. But its default status makes many forget that it
is a speculation. Speculations are only as good as the evidence they are based
on, and this exploration along life’s winding road has shown that there is much
more evidence against the speculation of meaninglessness than for it. This
world is immaculately creative, how does meaninglessness become the default
speculation of such a creative world? This from
“There is no blueprint for the universe only a set of laws with an in-built facility for making interesting things happen. The universe is then free to create itself as it goes along … The very fact that the universe is creative and has organised its own self-awareness is, for me, powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all.” (Paul Davies, Bulletin Magazine [Australia], 17/7/1990.)
One of our universe’s avenues of
“self-awareness” is, of course, humanity (star-dust observing the stars – in
Humanity is a strange product. Through evolutionary theory, science understands how human bodies evolved, but its efforts to turn evolutionary theory into a “Theory of Everything” is hopeless. Trying to describe human beings solely in terms of our physical bodies is like trying to describe a book by only referring to its paper. You can do it but you get an inadequate, incomplete picture. If our journey has shown anything, then it has shown that it is impossible to explain all of human behaviour solely in terms of the survival and genetic imperatives of our bodies.
IF IT SWIMS LIKE A FISH...
At what point do we decide that
our existence – the “set up” as
“By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts.” (Autobiography P. 94)
“By degrees” is slowly, evolutionary; “higher” impulses are higher than our animal “sensuous passions”; “rendered habitual” is taken unto our selves as our usual behaviour. “By degrees ... higher impulses ... rendered habitual” is our selves’ spiritual evolution. The purpose of anything is what it does – and this, according to the Master, himself, is what life does.
But there remains an elephant in this living room – the ultimate question – “WHY?”
WHY?
We’ve been on our road for a while now and only one hill remains in front of us to climb. The glow we previously noticed up ahead is quite bright now, and seems to be emanating from just behind this steep hill. Is this glow behind the last hill on our road to Truth, the “T” Truth – or have we, by examining life’s non-physical mysteries, just created for ourselves a larger question? Have we torn down the “IF” we encountered at the very start of our journey, broken it up, only to find we have forged, in the heat of the moment, a massive “WHY?” It is one thing to observe that the ultimate purpose of life is spiritual evolution – because that is what it so observably does – but, why?
Maybe the glimmer up ahead is not the shinning light of Truth but the bright, rational sun of our post-modern era glinting off this ultimate, and obdurate, WHY? question?
So, gamely, in an effort to obey
As we slide and clamber down the other side we see, ahead of us, indeed, a giant WHY? – bathed in, and glowing from, the unremitting sun of a rational age. And beside it, we find a guard – a Goliath – a giant made from the evil men do, carrying the protective shield of religion, flanks hidebound by philosophical ideology, and armed with disbelief’s sharp spear of doubt. A monster of meaninglessness and the arch-enemy of humanity’s survival – one day we must slay it or it will slay us. Time may be running out for humanity, having come face to face with our nemesis, we should confront it now.
So, up we walk, brave but
trembling, to stand before this enemy of meaning and purpose. And we have every
right to be afraid, for we are facing the Absolute armed only with a mind born of
the relative – facing
Examining it quickly to see if we have selected a missile suitable for slaying such a giant, we find we have picked up a large and perfect diamond – a thing of incredible beauty – and our eyes are drawn into its depths. Within we can make out some amazing things – natural beauty in all its forms: the smell of a rose, the taste of a peach, the sound of a nightingale’s song, the touch of a lover, the sight of a dog, the wag of its tail, the kiss of a friend, the smile of a stranger. And we can see the beauties of our human arts: music, poetry, architecture, dance, sculpture, painting, literature. We can also clearly see the human dichotomy of being stardust, yet able to observe the stars; of being just atoms and energy yet able to understand the mathematical language they are written in and the laws and forces which govern them; of becoming a creator of our world while still its creature through this unnatural understanding. And there is our unnatural selves – with unnatural notions like right and wrong, virtues, dignity, shame, and humour. Further we can see the spiritual factor of the human equation which drives us to risk the genes of our physical factor when we dive a sea, ski a mountain, walk a track, ride a trail, fly a sky, surf a wave, stroke a tiger. And the phenomenon of ecstasy – only available when the body and soul are satisfied together. We perceive the immaculate creativity of the random but ordered, dangerous but delightful, thrilling but killing, relative reality that is our world – and especially notice its creativity of our self and the primacy of love in that task – that love is humanity’s deepest need; that truly loving our self is the key to the unique human need for happiness; that love from others is the only path to true self-love and respect, and that love from others can only be achieved by loving them. Finally, within our missile we can clearly see the Truth of the message of human unity – and brought to us in such a way – that we should love one another, forgive even our enemies, and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
In an instant, we know we are well armed and quickly load our sling. Raising our eyes to take aim, we find that the monster of meaninglessness has gone – faltered and fled, turned tail and run – the massive “WHY”, left unsupported by the Goliath has fallen flat – to reveal the Truth.
We have it in our hand.
EXAMINATION OF THE HOUSE OF GOD
EXAMINATION OF
THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF