Things happen.
The consequences of which
reshape what we call ‘reality’.
‘Things happening’ is how ‘reality’ works.
Is how we came about…
Believers and nonbelievers alike, all of us are consequences of ‘things happening’. ‘Naturally’ or ‘as commanded by God’.
‘Reality’, on the other hand…
What we call ‘reality’ is determined by ‘us’.
(What we call) reality is the consequence of things happening inside itself.
Consider a huge cauldron full of ‘events’. What’s going on inside that cauldron, each stage ‘reached’ by its content depends on what happened inside that cauldron. And to that cauldron if we accept the ‘god’ hypothesis.
Which ‘god hypothesis’ only compounds the reality. Which can be construed as being simple, evolving in an unhindered manner, or being run by a (bunch of) god(s).
Examined in this manner, the existence of a putative god doesn’t change much, does it?
Reality being shaped by what’s happening inside it leads to further considerations:
We, humans as part of this reality, have had played a role in all this. And continue to contribute to the process.
We, humans, as part of this reality, are one of the many consequences engendered by this whole ‘evolutionary’ process.
Another way of looking at this produces another train of thoughts.
Until we had reached the conscious state, things had happened exclusively in a ‘natural’ manner.
Furthermore, until that moment there was no difference between ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’.
For the simple reason that there was nobody to make it…
Nobody able, let alone willing, to make that difference!
The gist of today’s post being the fact that we are shaping reality according to our wishes.
Not entirely, not fully aware of what we’re doing, yet our actions have more and more important consequences.
Let me give you an example.
Until not so long ago – historically speaking, all empires – most socio-political arrangements, usually known as ‘states’, functioned as authoritarian regimes – used to crash under their own weight, had been crushed by the competing empires ‘happening’ in their vicinity or a combination thereof. The Western part of the Roman empire, weakened by the mistakes perpetrated by its rulers, had been ‘dismantled’ by the nomadic people who fancied the riches accumulated inside its borders.
The process had many iterations. An aggressor, a would be ‘imperator’, noticed an opportunity. What he considered to be an opportunity…
Mounted an aggression. And was either successful or defeated…
Until Napoleon Bonaparte had stirred so thoroughly the hornets nest that enough people noticed what was going on. Were aggravated enough to spring into action.
So they banded together, twice, and sent the initially successful aggressor where he belonged. In exile!
For the first time in modern history – as far as I know it – an aggressor had been ‘tamed’ by a ‘coalition of the willing’.
The same process had unfolded during WWI, WWII and WWIII. Otherwise known as the Cold War.
The only other example which comes to my mind – but I’m no historian – was the Persian Empire being defeated by a coalition led by Athens. Some 2500 years ago…
What’s keeping us from understanding this simple thing?
That unless we band together, we’re at the mercy of whoever puts up a fierce enough aggression?
nicichiarasa 