Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them,
“It is written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’,
but you are making it a den of robbers. ”
What’s wrong with them?
They know plenty and they have everything…
Yet they’re not even content, let alone happy!
The Universe has no other meaning
than that we attach to it.
How do we find that meaning? How do we make sense of things?
According to Schoppenhauer’s take on the matter, we make sense of the world by carefully (?) ruminating the “pictures in our head”. The information which has already reached our ‘inner forum’.
Which means that we should be very careful when letting something ‘in’!
When reading a text, for example…
‘You should follow science, not scientists. Because scientists can be sold.’
Logically speaking, the phrase makes a lot of sense. Right?
Practically… not so much.
Do we learn everything about medicine before taking the pill prescribed by the doctor? Simply because the doctor might have been sold to the big pharma?
Do we learn everything about microwaves before using a microwave oven? Simply because the physicist who had invented the thing might have been sold to the makers of household appliances?
Do we stop using planes because they are used to spray our skies?
Literary speaking, what do you make of “scientists can be sold to the highest bidder”?!?
Sold by whom? How can anybody sell a scientist?
I might understand the notion of a scientist being bought… of a scientist selling his soul, his scientific soul, to the highest bidder… but selling one… Is there a market for scientists?
only because it happens to resonate with something you are already inclined to believe.
‘Evolution is not about “the survival of the fittest”.
Evolution is about the demise of the unfit!’
What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayr
It’s not ‘what doesn’t kill you’ which may make you stronger.
You are! That guy….
But only if you learn enough from the experience!
The first ‘virtual’ tool invented by Man, language made it possible for humans to become conscious.
By sharing information among them, individual human beings learned to speak to themselves. To think. To evaluate their activity. To evaluate themselves. Their own selves.
Speaking to each-other, people have developed self-awareness.
The process is a work in progress.
Words are ‘stamps’.
Images.
‘Commodified snapshots’ of the thing we call reality.
Which reality is simultaneously a word and the place we live in.
A word/concept into which – like in all other words – we’ve crammed everything we know about the thing itself. Which everything is nowhere near enough to actually cover the entire thing.
Reality, the word, covers everything we know about the thing but the thing itself, the thing we call reality, is far wider/deeper than that.
Hence the problem we’re stuck with.
We instinctively consider that words are apt representations for the things we attempt to describe using those words. Which, most of the time, isn’t exactly true.
We – most of us, most of the time – consider that those of us we talk to understand the words we share in the same way we understand them. Which is never the case!
“Living organisms, in order to live,
need to ingest portions of where they they live.”
I’m not going to discuss the veracity of the above. Which is true, in the sense that this is how we determine whether an organism is alive or not.
My point being that in order to perform this, the organisms – each and every one of them – need to act as if they are able to make the difference between ‘in’ and ‘out’. Besides the fact that they need to discern between ‘food’ – which is to be ‘imported’ and everything else. Which everything else must be kept on the outside.
See what I mean when I speak about the difference between ‘in’ and ‘out’?
In this sense, organisms – from the very beginning – have a certain ‘dimensional awareness’ of the world.
Of their environment, more exactly.
And, as things have become more and more ‘complicated’, the dimensional awareness has become more and more sophisticated.
Plants act as if they know the difference between up and down, animals are indeed able to find their way when foraging.
The advent of consciousness has added a new layer to that awareness. Now we speak about ‘self-awareness’. We, conscious beings, are not only aware of the difference between our own ‘inside’ and the rest of the world but we’re also aware of our consciousness. We are aware of our selves. Our selves are aware about themselves. Our selves are able to think. To consider things.
Previous organisms have been able to react – according to ‘ingrained procedures’ which have been, in variable degrees, honed by ‘learning’ – while we are able, on top of our own reactivity, of careful consideration. Of making the difference between ‘fight’ and ‘flight’. Not only to choose one on occasion – all other ‘competitive’ animals do that on a regular basis – but also able to actively consider the difference between the two concepts.
Previous organisms have been able to choose between when to fight and when to flee in an ‘instinctive’ manner. For some, granted, those instincts have been honed by ‘learning’, but their decision making process has continued to remain ‘procedural’. Very little, if any, ‘active consideration’. Very little, if any, ‘originality’.
Consciousness – our ability to actively observe and then examine/discuss our own observations – has opened a vast field of opportunity. Being able to actively observe a situation and to actively consider the circumstances/consequences before making a decision adds a fourth dimension to the already ‘three dimensional space’.
Life, per se, has no direction. Evolution only helps life to survive. To adapt itself to adaptable changes in the environment. Life, per se, has no direction. No direction and no meaning.
Life, simple life, takes place in a space with three dimensions.
Three parameters. In/out, abundance/scarcity, food/poison.
An organism, any organism, continues to live for as long as there is ‘enough’ ‘food’ ‘inside’ it. And not enough ‘poison’ to kill it.
But ‘simple’ organisms have no plans. No ‘future’. The more sophisticated among them display a behaviour we associate with ‘feelings’ – which apparently help them, evolution wise – but still no ‘future’.
Biological time is as bland as physical time. It flows according to rules ingrained in the already-existent.
A star will ‘function’ according to pre-existent rules, a microbe will live according to the information inscribed in its DNA, in the context of all other ‘natural laws’, while an orangutan will be able to add very little to the above. If you consider things dispassionately, there is a continuous chain of events from the shiny stars in the sky to the orangutans roaming the Indonesian jungle. And no individual agent was needed in order to successively latch causes into the chain which led to the present set of circumstances. According to what we presently know, anyway…
Until a short hundred of years ago… When Man ‘invented’ the palm oil. When Man had purposely invented the industrial process through which palm is transformed into edible oil.
When Man had used his agency to ‘improve’ his lot. And carelessly destroyed the habitat of the orangutan.
In this sense we may consider that the orangutan continue to live along a linear time – individually and/or collectively the orangutan remain unable to pro-actively determine their fate – but time itself is no longer linear.
Since the advent of Man, time no longer flows according to ‘objective’ rules. According to rules contained into the very fabric of things. Currently, and ‘locally’, the flow of time is increasingly influenced by the agency of Man.
Self-conscious organisms,
in order to satisfy their need for meaning,
attempt to make sense of what they are living.
To lead a meaningful life,
they need to ingest not only portions of where they live
but also as much information as possible about where they live.
As much information as humanly possible…
I’ve been watching this, on and off, for three days now.
And I still can’t make up my mind. Whom to admire more.
The one who performs what he believes to be normal. And somehow manages to include, into that
normalcy, the negative feedback he is been dished out by the most powerful agent in his world.
Or the other one.
Who pursues his side of normal. Who finds in him to investigate when he realizes the
two normals don’t fit. And the courage to make amends.
Thank you Elvis Naçi for this conundrum.
I’m a better person now.
Now that I’ve stated my impotence.
“I can’t make up my mind on this one!”
But maybe I don’t have to.
Regardless of our individual beliefs,
it would be rather naive
to consider there’s nothing but the here and now.
Internet wisdom
What have you done since graduating into awareness?
Worrying about tomorrow?
Welcome to being a human.
And how do you assuage your fear?
Put your faith into an exterior agent?
Trust your fellow humans to bail you out if necessary?
Make sure you’ll never depend on anybody else but you?
Each of these three strategies presumes differently about what happens outside yourself.
The more responsibility you transfer to the outside agent – currently known as God in certain circles – the more serene your life. You don’t have to change anything except putting your faith in the outside agent of your choice. If that works for you. Only by transferring the ultimate responsibility to ‘the outside’, no matter how hard you continue to do whatever you were doing before the epiphany, you embrace the fact that your fate is determined outside of you.
If you expect your mates to do ‘the right’ thing, you must prime them first. You have to behave in a manner conducive to ‘community’. You and those around you. The community itself has to behave as a community.
To make sure you’ll never depend on anybody else, you need to know everything that might happen to you. In fact, you have to know everything.
Each of these three strategies, or any combination thereof, mandates that there are things happening beyond here and now. Beyond what each of us might know and control.
Are there any other alternatives?
Let me put it the other way.
We make history.
We write history.
We read the history we wrote about the things we’ve done.
Then we keep ruminating about what we (don’t) learn from and about history…
Are we nuts?
But is there anything to be learned from history?
Yep!
What happens when we fail to learn from the mistakes which keep shouting at us from the history books our ancestors had written for us. Had written to warn us…
Some people argue that ‘truth lies somewhere in between’ while others maintain that ‘truth is where it is, not somewhere in the middle’.
Well, both sides are right.
Truth is, indeed, “where it is”.
The problem being that ‘that place’ is ‘out there’. Not necessarily ‘out of reach’ but definitely out of anybody’s realm.
Hence finding ‘that place’ needs a collective effort. In this sense, the truth is, indeed, somewhere ‘in the middle’. In the middle of our converging efforts, if our efforts are honestly targeted.
On the other hand, truth is not ‘somewhere in the middle’. In the sense that truth is not something we can negotiate. We can indeed pursue truth individually but we cannot negotiate the results.
We can settle for a less than perfect truth, if we’re not able to reach ‘the absolute’, but it must be a workable version, not a lukewarm mean.
The result of our quest, even if ‘only for a while’, must serve the goal we’ve been trying to reach!
If we settle for something only because that something titillates the ego of the majority amongst us… then our efforts have been wasted!
Allow me to conclude that the truth is not somewhere between us but above us.
It makes a lot of sense to thread carefully when trying to reach it – lest we stumble during our quest – but we nevertheless need to broaden our perspective. Lest the truth remains hanging just outside of where we’re looking for it.
nicichiarasa 