Archives for category: teleology

Tao, Karma, Future

Time, like everything else human, has two sides. Like a coin.

A ‘base’ and an interpretation.

There’s no interpretation without a base – even hallucinations are based on ‘something’ – and there’s nothing which has penetrated human conscience and ever managed to evade interpretation.
In fact, human conscience needs to interpret, to assign meaning to, everything it ‘sees’. Everything it perceives.
Anything which is uninterpretable, which has no meaning, cannot be controlled. It is, hence, dangerous.
If you don’t know what’s going to happen next, you can assume anything. And since assuming the worst – and preparing for it – is far more useful towards survival than sleeping over it, we are biased towards erring on the side of caution. And towards relentlessly searching for meaning.

Time, like everything else human, is both a phenomenon – it happens – and a concept.
The difference between the ‘time’ of a star and the human time being that ours has a name – given by us – and that the star cannot do anything about it. While we do!

We can do things to and about time!

We named it, we measure it, we attempt to interpret it…. and we try to do the best of it!
We try to do, while alive, what we consider to be ‘the best’.

The best (?!?) for whom?

Tao.

The ‘road’.
If everything flows, it has to flow ‘somewhere’.
Not only from the start/spring to the ‘end’ (?!?)/never tranquil sea. Everything flowing needs a ‘riverbed’ to flow ‘through’. A plant needs soil to sprout, grow, bear fruit and ‘return to nature’. Even a star needs an Universe in order to shine… besides enough ‘fuel’, of course!
I have started this post by saying that there’s no interpretation without a ‘base’ and that we, conscious human beings, need to attach meaning (a.k.a. interpretations) to everything of which we become aware.
Same thing here. For anything to happen, a venue is needed. Some wise people in our past have used ‘Tao’ as a name for THE venue. For the venue where everything takes place.

Karma.

At first, when conscience had dawned on us, we were alone in the ‘dark’. And afraid about what was going to happen to us. To assuage that fear, we have identified God. As the ‘the meaning’ of the world.
At first, when both the world and time seemed to be endless – to us, consequences came from God. We had to behave. Or else…
God was there to punish each and every transgression. Sometimes using one of us as his proxy.
After a while, some of our ancestors have learned to write. To reliably transfer information over generations. Very soon, those ancestors of ours have learned the link between cause and effect. Between behavior and consequence. Very soon God had become an outside observer. Or was out-rightly forgotten. But Karma survived.

Future.

I keep hearing that ‘evolution has no purpose’.
Like many other human utterances, this one conveys far more information about the utterer than about the phenomenon described by the utterer.

‘This wooden table has 4 legs’.
We learn about the table that it is in front of us, that it is made of wood and ‘has’ 4 legs.
We learn about the utterer that:
It was conscious when uttering those words. Only conscious agents are capable of ‘speaking like a human’.
It has, at some point, learned to speak. English, and possibly other languages.
It has, at some point, learned to count. At least up to four. And it had conserved that ability up the moment when it uttered those words.
It was capable of identifying ‘wood’ as a material.
When uttering that phrase, it was in a ‘casual’ state of mind. A ‘scientifically minded person’, a ‘grammar nazy’, for example – when in that mood, would not attribute human ‘abilities’ to a table. Which table is a mere object and objects cannot posses other objects. Tables cannot ‘have’, hence that person was speaking colloquially.
Or, given the current ‘technological’ developments, those words might have very well been uttered by a statistically ‘minded’ AI application…. A man made ‘parrot’!

See what I mean?

Let’s go back to the presumably purposeless evolution.

Evolution is a phenomenon. Like a thunder. It takes a lot more time to unfold than a thunder, it’s about as hard as a thunder to predict the exact point where it will ‘strike’ but we know enough about both to be able to point out, quite reliably, a few ‘rules’ about how both phenomena take place. About where, when and how they will unfold.
What’s the purpose of thunder? To ‘close the circuit’? To discharge the energy pent up in the cloud?
I’m afraid that attributing purpose to thunder is akin to allowing tables to ‘have’ legs. What we have here is a ‘figure of speech’. An ‘implicit’ figure of speech… so implicit that it’s not even considered as such…
Same thing when it comes to evolution.

Which evolution is paramount to survival.
Just as no cloud can accumulate ad infinitum electric energy – hence thunder – no living thing ever – no species, more exactly – has yet been able to survive ‘everything’. Everything mother nature has thrown at it.
Hence ‘evolution’! Which is a mere process which makes life possible. In certain conditions – in a certain Tao – after it had sprung up. And, again, attributing purpose to evolution is akin to allowing a table to own legs.

Then what about ‘future’?
If God no longer decides for us – the God we have identified – and if evolution is ‘pointless’… then ‘future is blind’?!?

Not so fast!

Question: Where was God at Auschwitz?
Answer: Where was man at Auschwitz?

Could any of those present at Auschwitz have done anything to fundamentally change the outcome?
Probably not.
Could we, as a species, have done – have behaved, actually – in such a manner as to avoid Auschwitz altogether? Specially after the Armenian Genocide had already taken place?
Should we, as a species, have done differently when so many Tutsi had been killed in Rwanda?
When 8000 Muslim Bosniak men and boys had been murdered in Srebrenica?

See what I mean?
About the future?
About our future?

What do we have here?
“Eternity and endless return?”
Or past mistakes haunting us through time?
Until we figure out the way forward? Or else…

What happened to our capacity to compromise?
When did life become nothing but a zero sum game?

Our capacity to compromise – in the good sense of the word – has diminished when religion – the thing which keeps us together – has been split into religions.

And it completely drained out when we’ve become too confident in our ability to think things over.

We’re so confident now that our solution/decision is not only better than any other but the only one possible that we’re no longer capable of considering a compromise.

While religion taught us to respect and trust each-other, religions have split us into factions.
Our intellectual arrogance has done the rest.

and, too often, disregarded!

Well, last time I checked, there were more than a dozen onions in my cellar.
And since my cellar is orbiting the Sun… along with the rest of the Earth…

As for who says what about who made what…

This morning I had to shovel some snow. I live near a kindergarten so the sidewalks should be clean.
Along with the snow, I also had to shovel some dog turds.

Snow coming down from the sky and dogs dropping turds are natural occurrences.
People shoveling snow so that other people may walk on the sidewalks is de rigueur. Also de rigueur is to pick up the turds dropped by the pet you take out at least twice a day.

People have a clear idea about who is responsible for the dog turds on the side-walk.
Even if they were dropped by dogs, the responsibility lies with the owners.
It’s the owners who have raised the dogs, who take them out to poo and who ‘forget’ to pick up the droppings.

In the last couple of centuries, people – well, some of them – have also developed a rather clear understanding regarding the snow. Regarding the water coming down from the sky. About evaporation, clouds, condensation… etc.
God is no longer held responsible for these matters.

Which brings us to the real subject.

There is a guy, Richard Dawkins, who tries to demonstrate there is no God.

And here we go again… I have at least a large china teapot. And since my house, along with the rest of the planet, does follow an orbit in the solar system…

More about who made what, if you care about the subject, can be found here:

https://nicichiarasa.com/tag/god/

“Twelve-year-old Carly Nix of Lakeland
says breaking the wishbone from the turkey is a silly tradition,
but that won’t hold her back from testing her luck this year.”

I have to start by confessing that until yesterday evening I’ve never seriously considered this possibility.
Why would anyone bother?

Then somebody – thank you, Jeffrey Mercer – introduced a whole new twist into this conundrum.
‘What if this whole (computer) simulation thing is nothing but yet another attempt to make sense of the Universe?
To attribute sense to the Universe?
Which whole thing, if anything, is the epitome of anthropomorphism…’
I took the liberty to rephrase Jeffrey Mercer’s words. To make them more ‘suitable’.
To fit better my preexisting answer. Yet another ‘anthropomorphic’ thing….

My immediate answer was ‘our world is indeed a simulation. Or maybe not as much a simulation as an artifact.’

Before delving into the matter, I’m going to formulate two questions. Hence ‘the furcula’.
If we live in a simulation, what kind of world does the simulator live in?
Why would anyone bother? To study us responding to its simulating our senses/minds? Why doesn’t it study itself? Its own self/persona?

Coming back to my initial answer, I have to point out that the key word here is ‘our’.
We’re speaking here about ‘our world’. The world we live in. Our reality!

We, the ones trying to make sense of this world/reality, have a few characteristics.
We’re made of matter and we have, each of us, a conscience.
Having a material nature introduces certain limitations and being conscious widens those limitations.
Us being conscious widens those limitations, by introducing a ‘new dimension’, but this doesn’t mean those limitations disappear. A bucket is ‘wider’ than the circle at its base – the bucket has height, hence volume, while the circle is ‘flat’ – but the bucket itself continues to have limits.

Let’s examine the consequences of us being conscious agents of a material nature.
Limited conscious agents of a material nature…

Us being conscious means us being aware of our material nature. Of our limits.
Having a material nature means the most powerful instinct we have is our ‘need to survive’.
Both as a biological organism – a.k.a. animal – and as a conscious agent.

Our consciences – I’m speaking about the individual ones here – are very crafty ‘devils’. They can accept our individual material fate – death – but have a problem accepting their own dependency on the ‘bodies/brains’ they need to inhabit.
Hence ‘the soul’.

Which ‘soul’ has been invented – by our conscious selves – as the first step towards building a sense for this world. For the reality we inhabit.
Which soul is the building block for all religion. For all religion known/built to/by man.

Are you still here?
I have to make a pause here. And to mention the fact that I’ve already cut a few corners… A lot of corners… What I say is probably rather hard to follow. Mostly because I don’t have time/space to explain myself. Not now but certainly in due time.

And yes, what we call ‘religion’ is of our own doing.
The Bible itself has been written by us, regardless of the origin of the ideas mentioned there.
It doesn’t matter whether we have been the interface between (a) God and ‘the world’, we are the ones who have written the Bible. And all other sacred texts.
We have written them, we have believed in them and we have shaped the reality we live in.

We have done all that according to how we have interpreted the teachings we have inherited from our forefathers.
And we continue to.
Even those of us who consider themselves to be ‘free of religion’. We might not believe but we continue to act as if. Believers and nonbelievers alike hold the same things as being valid. Don’t kill, don’t steal, respect the values which keep society together…

What about where we started from? What about the ‘original’ simulation?

One moment please, I haven’t yet finished with ‘God’.
If (a) God made us who/what we are, then who made God?

If someone took the trouble to build the simulation we consider to be ‘home’, what about the ‘real’ world? What about the reality harboring the simulating agent?

There’s no need for an outside agent?
The world we live in, our world, is the world we have built for ourselves? Using the things which were at our disposal and the information we have gleaned about how things work?
Maybe not always fully aware of what we were doing?

You got it! That’s exactly what I was trying to say!

If you’re still interested:

Are you living in a computer simulation by Nick Bostrom

Confirmed! We live in a simulation. by Fouad Khan

Of course we live in a simulation by Jason Kehe

“Only in silence the word,
Only in dark the light,
Only in dying life:
Bright the hawk’s flight
On the empty sky.”

Ursula K. Le Guin

4,000 years ago.
An alien probe examines the Earth and determines there are two ‘species of interest’ on the planet.
‘Interesting’ in the sense that both had already discovered ‘exploitation’.
Ants farming aphids and humans farming sheep.

4.0 seconds ago.
The same alien probe checks back and determines that both ants and humans continue their respective farming activities. The only difference between now and then being the scale of the respective operations.
And the consequences to the environment…

The probe is a robot. Which robot has no feelings. Doesn’t care. Does what it has been instructed to do and that’s it.
The data is being transmitted to those who had commissioned the robot.

‘The ants are practically the same. Individuals transported through time would fit perfectly in either situation.
The humans have evolved in a certain manner. They live longer – on average. They have thoroughly transformed much of their environment. But they have maintained the ability to survive in either situation. To thrive, even, if the individuals are transported through time very soon after birth – and if they are well taken care off at the receiving end of the journey’.

The received data is deemed ‘baffling’ by the agents whose job is to make sense of it. To analyze it.
To determine whether each planet checked by the probe was inhabited by a potentially autonomous species. In which case the planet was deemed ‘off limits’.
Or not, hence open for colonization.

The procedure to determine the outcome is simple.
Is there at least a species which evolves faster than the rest? Is there at least a species concerned with the well being of the environment it depends upon?
If only the first condition is met, the planet is scheduled to be checked again later.
If both conditions are met, the planet is considered off limits.
If none are met, the planet is considered ‘open for business’.

The present situation is unprecedented.
During their entire recorded history, this is the first time the analyzing agents have come across such an occurrence. An intelligent species who has achieved so much yet still remain driven by desire. By emotion.

A species perfectly capable of thinking yet still prone to judging.
A species comprised of individuals who consider perfectly acceptable to rationalize their own wishes while entertaining a low opinion on others who do the very same thing. Find excuses for indulging.

This find generates an ontological storm among the analyzing agents.
Being the first time when they no longer have a complete grasp on what’s going on, this whole thing compels them to reconsider.

To reconsider everything.

Segue

The key word here is ‘anger’.

Had we been less angry, maybe our reaction would have been more ‘efficient’.

Instead of being angry with the sinners, we could try to convince them. Those of them who can be convinced…

After all, a sin is but a possibility. An ‘opportunity’, not a fatality.

Does it really require an understanding of the principles?

Very good question!

Maybe not.
If all you want to do is to light a fire using the same kind of implements as those gifted to you by your teacher … then no. All you have to do is to remember how to build a new set of implements when the old one is gone and follow the instructions. To a T.

But if you want to make one step forward… to improve the implements… to rise to the next level…

“When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive.
It’s that simple.
We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy,
because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth.
Reproductive freedom is for *every* body.”
@reproforall

– What’s wrong with these people?

– What do you mean?

– They consider themselves to be reasonable.
Their ability to ‘reason’ is mentioned, by their thinkers, as the single thing which separates them from the rest of the animals. Sets them apart from the rest of those who inhabit this planet.
To me, reasoning is how their consciousness operates. How their consciousness manifests itself.
The real difference between them and the rest of the animals being the fact that their consciousness is far more capable than that of the ‘mere’ animals.

– ?!?

– Just look at them!
Is there any difference, any real difference, between a 3 days old human infant and a chimpanzee of the same age? Or even between a 3 days old baby and a 3 days old foal? Except for the foal being able to run?

– The baby will eventually learn to speak. Will develop consciousness and the ability to think. You said it yourself…

– WILL!!!
Will eventually… if everything goes right!
If that baby is raised by responsible people. Who speak to the future human being. And teach them to be human. Help them develop a functional consciousness.
Children who have no significant interaction with other human beings and fail to learn to speak – or other form of language, until they reach puberty will never be able to ‘recover’. To accede to consciousness.

– OK. But I still don’t understand what has flabbergasted you!

– Not you too!
What drove you to copy them? To misuse language so horribly… “what has flabbergasted you”…

– But it’s so funny!

– Until it no longer is!
Look at them. Just look at them.
20 years ago, they made a movie about a man getting pregnant. A comedy. Everybody laughed.
Nowadays they take sides on ‘pregnant people’
OK, language can be used ‘artistically’. ‘Stretched’ to obtain something. To explore new meanings, to express emotion, to make fun.
But does it make any sense to use language in order to seed confusion? To cause people to fight each other?
Rather self-defeating, isn’t it?
How much sense does this make? To misuse the medium which made you possible in the first place?

How sensible is it to weaponize language?
Who has anything to gain from this?
Other than a few, very short-term, perks?

The times when it might be appropriate to use “pregnant people” is when you were talking about the universe of people who can get pregnant, some of whom are actually men, trans men like me, and some of whom are non-binary people who don’t identify as men or women.” (Evan Urquhart, Slate, 2022)

Because neither has any damns to give…

They call it Cuetlaxochitl.
They used to call it that way for a very long time.
And it was they who had associated it with the Winter solstice. With the Winter solstice, not the ‘Aztec’ solstice…

We, or rather I, don’t know how they used to call the mistletoe. All I know is they used to associate it with their ‘spells’. Performed, again, during the Winter solstice.

At some point, we – or rather after the Christians got in contact them, the mistletoe first and poinsettia later – have associated both with our manner of celebrating the Winter solstice.

In fact, we have appropriated both the celebration itself and the plants associated with it!

I’m not going to discuss whether this was a good or a bad thing.
It had just happened. And we have to live with the consequences of all those things having had happened in the past.

All I’m going to discuss in this post is their association with Christmas.
With what the Christians consider to be ‘Christmas’ and celebrate it as such.

But is there anything to be discussed about the matter?!?

They have associated each of these plants to their celebrations.
We have associated both to one of ours.
What is to be discussed here?!?

Do we feel bad for what we – our ancestors, actually – have done to them?
And want to atone for what had happened? And for the consequences of what had happened? Which consequences continue to unfold to this day…

We want to make amends – and to get rid of our guilt – by giving them back their plants?!?
Really?

How will any of this benefit them?!?
‘Cause this is about them, not us… right?

How about we stop buying the drugs coming from there?
Making it possible for them to shake off the drug lords which make their lives miserable?

How about we stop patronizing them?
How about we start respecting them for being our ‘brethren’? As in equally-fledged human beings?
Instead of we acting as if they were immature children. Liable to feel hurt that we have borrowed their ‘toys’…. For the sole reason that we think that giving them back their ‘sacred’ plants will cleanse our consciences….

The world doesn’t belong to leaders.
The world belongs to Humanity.

Proper = As it should be. As expected. ‘Clean’.
Property=Something which belongs to someone.
A mutually respected arrangement among the members a certain community which establishes boundaries. Which members have the right to go ‘there’ whenever they want while all others have to ask for permission before crossing that ‘boundary’.
A convention among the members of a certain community about what is the proper thing to do in each ‘patrimonial’ situation. A convention about who has the right to do what to the things which happen to co-exist with the members of the above mentioned community.
The above mentioned ‘things’ include the place where the entire community happens to live. ‘Their’ land.

Which brings us to who owns the world.
The leaders? As many of them assume?
Or the humanity, as Dalai Lama has reportedly said?

How about neither?
My point being that we are nothing but guests in this world.
We come empty handed and we leave empty handed.

Yes, we need property while dwelling on this planet.
But only in the sense of who can do what where. And with the limitation that the ‘what’ we do has to be ‘reversible’.
Just as we leave this world with nothing – we leave even our hands here, our presence on the planet has to be ‘discrete’. Has to produce as little disturbance as possible and all that disturbance must disappear in time.

We need to keep the world a proper place.
It’s the only place we have.
No other home for our children.
No other place to spend our last days.
Properly.