Listening with your eyes

As you stare at a star, and if that star is still a star, then as long as you stare, you have made a connection as connecting as two tin-cans connected by kite string, yet your mind fills with wonder, with visible and invisible messages from that star, and perhaps, those feeling of awe are not coming from within, but from without, from that other tin can at the other end of that string of light? The whole universe beaming messages of awe to any eye that will listen?

All in your mind?

In the 1791 biography titled "Life of Johnson" the author James Boswell relates this story of Samuel Johnson's mock against the Irish philosopher George Berkeley's "immaterialism" (anti-materialism) -- subjective idealism. In a thimble this theory is summed up "Esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived).

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it THUS.' "

I do think that Johnson misses the point, the point being that POV (point of view) necessitates identifying both scale and sensors when attempting to create a reality that one's mind can understand.



Let us assume that the universe is a measurable size, independent of the observer. 



Let us assume we need a mind in order to observe and make assumptions about this universe. 



Let us assume we need a mind with sensors (eyes) to observe and gather data of this universe.



Let us assume that this mind can construct sensors (and computers) to extend the range of the human eye and mind. 



Now we have where we are today, humans using sensors and mind to observe and measure (in all forms) the universe. 



Now the kicker, scale. The human is of a particular size in relationship to all in the universe, so that this scale/relationship "creates a reality" that the mind understands as reality. 



Now what would happen if the human (and accompanying sensors and instruments) were shrunk down to the size of say, 50 microns (the height of the human, of course, standing erect). Now what happens when this "nano-human" kicks the stone that Johnson kicked? Well, I would think this nano-human would be hard pressed to see the stone, and more than likely, see a world as amazing as the deep-field views from Hubble, the "so-called" stone would be a maze of forces and molecules. Scale makes all the difference in the world of perception, of perceived reality. 



So now we enlarge the nano-human to the size of Pluto (that former planet, not the dog), and will this "mega-human" be able to see, let alone kick, Johnson's stone? Perhaps mega-human will have a mega-micro-electron microscope that will detect Johnson's stone, and I would think mega-human would then wonder, does this minute "Johnson's stone" really exist? 



Reality equals a mind with a point-of-view, sensors to feed the mind data, and the scale of the mind-observer in relation to the universe. Change any (mind/sensors/scale) and you create a new reality.


The center of the universe

Center, up, down. east, west, south, north, inside, outside, and each mind the point-of-view which becomes the center for our brief eye-blink photon gathering moment, but the center of the universe, that imaginary place in the center where that smaller than pin-point big bang did originate? But how could that be? All that is, originating from that center? If we voyage to that center will we discover the origins? But how could that be? Would the center be a magical place? Or just another place that once was not? So, when the time comes when those future astronomers measure the speed of every star and galaxy speeding away from the imagined center and then replay their calculation in reverse, will we discover the real center? That very place where every star and galaxy returns? And then what happens when the replay reaches zero, will there be but a center? With no more up or down or east or west or south or north? I wonder.

The bugaboo of superstition

If ... if only we could conclude that superstition was that which provokes humans to behave badly, we then would only need to eliminate superstition and goodness would rise to the surface. The other night Celtics Kevin Garnett in a moment of celebration and overflowing emotion, knelt to the Boston Garden parquet floor and kissed the image of an Irish leprechaun -- a bit of superstition that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Instead of writing what my fingers are itching to type, the horrors of the 20th century with enough evil perpetrated by religious and nonreligious alike, I will not repeat what we all already know. But, we are now in the 21st century and evil of the religious and nonreligious, the superstitious and non-superstitious, continues unabated, as Human Rights Watch documents, daily.

http://hrw.org/

And finally, listen to Lisa Simpson (episode: Lisa the Iconoclast) when she concludes that a myth (that she can disprove, but doesn't) may have value:

"The myth of Jebediah has value too. It's brought out the best of everyone in this town. Regardless of who said it, a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man."

Oh yeah?!

We humans seem to have a "tribal reflex" in our genetic makeup, the "we" vs "them," "I" vs "you," even an "I" vs "me." It seems to be just beneath the surface, awaiting the opportunity to verify self by discovering like-self others. Of course "discover" all to often becomes persuade or convince which can become entice or lure or seduce, all in order to gather more like-self others to the tribe. Why? Because like-self are safe, predictable, even trustworthy, all providing the tribe with strength in numbers, and above all, comfort. Not comfort as in sloth, but comfort as in like-minded collaboration -- synergism -- that which glues the tribe/team/group/family together.

Atoms and elephants and really little stuff that is really big

In this age of excitement and the ever quest for evermore titillation, we become jaded to the ever uniqueness of our every breath and our every thought, without which common and ordinary and even unique have no meaning. The human mind makes it all unique, even if the composition of it all can be reduced to even a more common denomination than quarks and gluons, whatever that may be. Without a discovering mind and an inventing mind, everything just is. But with a discovering mind and an inventing mind, mere humans can get a glimpse of the Builder of ALL. First we discovered atoms. Then to our amazement we discovered a universe within each atom. Nucleons, the protons and neutrons that compose the atoms. Then even deeper within, that which we cannot see, but can detect, and we name them quarks. And this a zoo of "up" and "down" and a "chromo force" which we think even more minute and call gluons. And here we think we are, in the basement of matter! But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if this basement has a hidden trap door, and perhaps when opened, an even more and vast universe lay beyond?

We call this Builder of All, God. Yet, we are but humans, and even at our best, when we conjure up every description to describe what we acknowledge to be indescribable -- Omnipresent, Omniscient, Infinite, Truth, Love, Creator, Provider, Savior, Deliverer, Elohim, Adonai, Yahweh, Ehyeh -- we are doing our best with what we have, and that necessitates "projecting" our humanness, and the universe about us, upon that which is not. The creation is not the Creator.



I like what Isaiah says when describing God as the Potter and we humans as the clay, "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'He did not make me'? Can the pot say of the potter, 'He knows nothing'?"



"Eddington's elephant."
The astrophysicist Arthur Eddington gave an illustration of "an elephant sliding down a hill of wet grass." To the physicist the elephant is irrelevant after one ascertains it weighs two tons, and the hill is also irrelevant when one ascertains the hill is 60-degrees, and too the wet grass is irrelevant when one ascertains the friction of this wet grass. In other words the elephant has been reduced to mass and the hill reduced to angle of slope and the wet grass reduced to coefficient of friction. Now the physicist has something to chew on, a problem to solve and an answer that can be found. But in this reduction to certainties the poetry has disappeared and totally gone is that hill covered with wet grass with that zany elephant sliding down it. Irrelevant?

God is nowhere -- God is now here. The difference a little space makes.


The Starry Night Sky

The center of the universe is at the apex of the point-of-view of the one with such thoughts, the rods and cones of this observer stimulated by celestial photons of ages past are the translators, sending their electrochemical codes to the brain where the mind interprets these ancient bits of electromagnetic radiation, and there creates the entire universe, with the invisible mind at the very center.

Anything new under the sun?

Everything!

In this age of excitement and the ever quest for evermore titillation, we become jaded to the ever uniqueness of our every breath and our every thought, without which common and ordinary and even unique have no meaning. The human mind makes it all unique, even if the composition of it all (all as in ALL) can be reduced to even a more common denomination than quarks and gluons, whatever that may be. Without a discovering and inventing mind, everything just is. With a discovering and inventing mind, value is born -- how the mind positively and negatively value things and concepts -- which gives birth to concepts of good/evil, moral/immoral, all these invisible realities dwelling within the human mind that project into the natural world that recognizes none of it.

Giraffes and Egyptians and seeing the future

The Egyptians used a hieroglyph that appears to the innocent eye as a giraffe, but to the learned Egyptian the image reads "foresee" or "predict." Yet I think it was innocent eyes that recognized that indeed, the long-necked creature could see into the future, for in the tall-grass savanna the human ambles along blindly toward a pride of lions, and it is the giraffe that watches the scene and if asked, could foretell the future of that present-sighted human.

Brevity

Science finds answers.
Philosophy finds questions.
Religion puzzles over it all.

How reasonable is reason?

How does one explain the unexplainable? How does one explain feelings of rightness (as opposed to feeling right)? How does one explain comfort when this body and mind have but a paper-thin armor of skin in an environment of sticks and stones and microbes and exploding stars? How does one explain feelings of security when fear and anxiety are a part of all humanity? Perhaps a mind evolved to think the irrational, rational, makes living possible? Or maybe evolved strategies to block out the precariousness of it all, saving the mind from itself, saving it from seeing what it actually sees? For me a former "experiment" with meditation upon nothingness produced unexpected results. I found that when one purposely peels away what evolution has taken forever to arrive at, one comes to a "sum zero" point when one equals one and no more or no less. I found it not a pleasant place, to observe everything as everything is, without a filtering mind, is as close to meaningless as I dared to go. I think reason a slippery word. We seem to want anything with meaning to thereby have a reason, a reason for being meaningful. I have a watch. The reason for having the watch is to tell time. Not only is telling time reasonable, but it is helpful in coordinating one's activities with others. The modern world revolves around a standard of time using watches and clocks. Yet the reasonableness of this becomes unreasonable and absurd in a world without modern humans. A watch left behind on the moon would immediately lose its value and meaning, yet may continue to tick accurate time for years. What I mean by all this rambling is that I believe a universe without reason and meaning can but yield all that exists within it equally without reason. Reason then is no more than a ticking watch on a barren moon. Even so, I understand the reasonableness of others in not accepting this conclusion.


Riding the arrowhead

I believe in a Creator. I don't know how the monarch butterfly navigates, as well I don't know how a Creator purposely (or not) caused the monarch butterfly to evolve in a way that navigation is part of the tiny package. But I think that that Creator has allowed my brain to evolve to a point that that brain became a mind, a tool of reflection and reason and imagination -- I can wonder, I can observe, I can experiment, I can do them all -- and reach an ever increasing understand of the truth of the monarch butterfly. Of course some can do all the same as well as deny a Creator. But for me I belief that a Creator made something out of nothing, made here and now out of never was -- that is the forever mystery. And all the nuts and bolts of evolution, the mechanics and laws of nature, and the timeline that I find myself riding the arrowhead of, all this the human mind is free to contemplate and observe and touch and even understand with infinite curiosity, for in this realm explanations abound. And if nothing else, the human mind hungers for explanations. And yet for some, the mind hungers for something more -- meaning.

Some Musings on a Darwinian World

I would think on a micro scale, when one's livelihood or life or home/land or lifestyle/tradition or beliefs are threatened with an "either/or" and nothing in between, then one either hightails to safer grounds, or stands one's grounds. And as history forever notes, the "either/or" choice quickly transforms into a "life/death" choice, for to give up ones "all of the above" is the same as death for many, so fight or war suddenly becomes that which even intelligent beings think the final hope of retaining one's life/livelihood/home/land/lifestyle/tradition/ beliefs. And our forever dilemma is that our imaginations can think a better peaceful way, yet our observations of nature reveals a frightening truth -- the banality of evil -- fight and warfare as natural as the tactics of the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus. And still, our minds rebel against the obvious.

And the obvious, that competition is the natural evolved survival strategy in all life-forms and warfare the social evolution of competition in humans as a survival strategy.

(Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871) “It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.”

So I think that "warfare" stripped to its bareness is any struggle between competing entities. When a virus invades the human body, warfare ensues. From the human perspective the virus "violates" the body, and we consider any violation as an infringement, and when done with aggression, we call it violence. If one could take the perspective of the virus, then I suppose one could think of it as a mere attempt at survival. And as far as I know, the only realized potential of a virus is simple survival, for without a reproduction system, the virus must "violate" a living cell, or in this case, a human cell. 



Moving up the ladder a bit, we come to bacteria, which do have a method of reproduction, so when a bacteria invades a human, it is simple using the human host as a suitable environment to carry on its life cycle. From the human perspective, if the bacteria is destructive, such as some strains of e. coli are, then I think we can agree that "we" have been invaded, and warfare does ensue when the immune system detects the invader. 



Taking another leap, a big one, we come to Africa and a pride of lions stalking a herd of Cape buffalo. With stealth they seek out a likely candidate and when the fight ensues the herd fights back. But usually in the end a few lions are injured and one buffalo becomes their meal, a victim to the "struggle between competing entities." In this case the lions sought food for their survival, while the buffalo sought peace and to be left alone. 



And again, Darwin's statement, "A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.”



I can image in this illustration a peaceful tribe, as peaceful as the Cape buffalo, being preyed upon by a not so peaceful tribe, and for whatever reason or ambitions of the hostile tribe, the peaceful tribe can face the "struggle between competing entities" in various ways. They could scatter and run and leave behind their tribal land and possessions to the invaders. Or they could, as Darwin points out, rally those of the tribe possessing all that it would take to repel the invaders, and these courageous ones, would challenge the invaders, and even "sacrifice themselves for the common good" by fighting the invaders. And how would this bit of warfare change the gene pool? I would think natural selection would be in full force during and after the struggle. For during the fight those with the least fighting skills would be killed, while those with the most fighting skills would survive. Not only survive, but when the fight was over they would be the ones adulated by the surviving tribe, and most likely the ones passing on their genes to the next generation. 



Darwin thought the moral traits of those with "patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy" are too carried on to the next generation. So you could say that Darwin is using warfare as the mechanism of moral evolution. Hmm ... now that's a provocative thought.

Hand print on rock

Interesting, hand prints and hand stencils are among the oldest and most numerous intentional "signatures" and marks left by individual humans, they are found the world over, in the American Southwest are numerous examples of the "stencilled hand" created by placing hand on rock then filling mouth with colored pigment and either sprayed through pressed lips, or more creatively, using a reed as a straw, or "spray paint nozzle", and the pigment spraying controlled around the hand pressed to the rock. In South America are examples of hand prints, where the individual covers the hand with pigment and then presses the hand to the stone for the impression. And in Africa and Asia and Australia and of course the many famous European caves. And don't forget all those countless "hand prints" paintings found in nearly every kindergarten classroom the world over. I've always thought of these hand prints as the precursor to graffiti, the want (or need?) of some (or all?) individuals to leave some mark on the world, and for the powerless, it is this seemingly insignificant and anonymous, yet really most powerful and most personal statement, "I was here! -- I too once a living being that dwelled in and was part of this creation."

The problem with seeing is believing

The problem with Materialism is the problem with matter is the problem that physicists spend lifetimes musing and tinkering with, for the solidity isn't there, and the there sometimes absent too, when one can by the E=mc2 of Einstein interchange matter with energy, we come to see that what we grasp in our hands is but the form of matter that our senses can sense, and that what we can't sense does not deny the non-sensed, it just exposes our sensibilities, which are limited indeed, to a mere blink of the what really is.

A voice in the desert

Funny how I can imagine the workings of evolution, yet find it nearly impossible to imagine a Creator-less unguided evolution, or the natural evolution that some think not only possible when given eons of time for environment shaping factors plus the countless chances over that long span of time for positive mutations to occur, but find natural evolution a certainty. Today as I was hiking I was delighted to hear the sounds of many song birds, and that got me to thinking about humans and their vocal cords. I recall reading that the vocal cords in birds are entirely different than the "voice box" in humans, so I brought this up later with Bro. Clarence.

He said that the "voice box" is first seen in homo erectus about a million years ago. So I replied, that seems a long enough time for those forces of environment and mutation to go to work in producing a real, usable voice box. To that he only smiled. Then he took a forefinger and thumb and touched his throat and said, "If only evolution took place here, then an easy trick it would be." By my quizzical expression, he resumed, "The blueprints. Change must take place in the blueprints for the physical change to occur ... DNA, your genes!" And then as though speaking to a child, he began gesturing with his hands, like painting the picture in the air so that I would get the point. "The FoxP2 gene is called the 'language gene' because when there is a defect in this gene, then a child will not develop vocalization, even though the child has a perfect set of vocal cords. So you have this complex system of interaction between brain and all the parts of the voice box that originate in the genetic blueprint. So when you think evolution, you must understand that the blueprint, the DNA, must be mutated in a way that the pre-homo erectus throat suddenly finds a growth that isn't simply a tumor, but a structure with potential, a structure that will benefit this new baby that has the mutated gene. And further, you must understand the complexity of the voice box or larynx, the orchestration of all the components, from lung that provides wind, to tongue that provide articulation, and all the 'mutated' pieces -- vocal cords and the various muscles that provide the intricate movements of the cords. But then we have to figure out how that primitive voice box provided any useful function while it was developing into a useful organ of language expression."

He paused while I marveled at the complexity of it all. Hurriedly I scribbled more notes while thinking that even when given eons of time, I just couldn't grasp it all working out so precisely without a guiding Creator. Again I tried to imagine how simple unguided natural evolution could orchestrate the sub-microscopic changes in the DNA along with the developing circuitry of the brain along with the flesh and muscle construction taking place in the throat and a host of other "things" that had to move into place to make this "voice box" not only successful, but useful, things like self-awareness and the "need" to communicate abstract thoughts to fellow beings. I could only blurt out, "Wow!"

With that Bro. Clarence rose from his seat and said he had to get back to work (as he always says when he realizes that a dialogue has become his monologue), but before departing he left me with this, "The universe is creative and the laws of nature guide matter and energy to organize, self-organize, to grow from simple to complex, all the way to here (he tapped his head with his forefinger), complexity to the point of life and consciousness. In the beginning God created ... created a creative universe!" And with a cheshire smile, he headed straight for the trail into the desert. I remained under the cottonwood tree, still seated on my favorite wicker chair with pencil trying to make sense of it all on the blank pages of my journal.

Thank God for fanciful thoughts

I suppose the most troubling aspect of life is that fight, kill, struggle, are as common and ordinary in life forms as violent transformational change is the commonness of the inorganic universe. And here we are, self-aware being with minds that can imagine a nonviolent world, yet forever floundering until foundered when attempting to create this imagined world. Yet we try, as "good wars" can attest, and using the commonness of the universe is always the luring tool, violence against the "evil" seems the expeditious means, whether Nazis or a disease of the body. More often than not "killing" the cancer is the only choice, other than submission to the cancer. The last of the strategies for an imagined nonviolent world is the practice of nonviolence. Turning the other cheek has always been a tough concept to imagine practicing in anything other than personal affairs. Possibly in a somewhat civilized world a Gandhi turns the other cheek to the "civilized" British and makes it work, but as history knows it is certain death in those times and places of uncivilized brutishness when humans are but human in appearance -- how many Jews turned the other cheek to a Nazi at Auschwitz? If there ever was an image of peaceful sheep going to slaughter, it is those newsreels of box cars arriving at the death camps, and out come the peaceful sheep: old men, young men, old women, young women, and all the children, and all the babies. Now if only those Nazis were human, and could see, and recognize the holiness of all those precious sheep. So what a conundrum we live in, the exterior world where violence is but a paper-thin distance away, the skin our shield from the abrasions that every child knows so well -- the hard world skins our knee -- yet within the skin, and even deeper within, in that mysterious interior of the brain, the mind, fanciful thoughts of peace and nonviolence are as common as our next breath.

Joshua Tree forest

I borrowed Bro. Clarence's digital camera so that I could take a picture of the forest in bloom. And being a bit tired after the long hike, I will reprint a previous post about a most interesting relationship.

God, Joshua, and Tegeticula yuccasella

Here in the desert a most interesting relationship exists between Joshua tree and moth, so striking that science calls it coevolution, for Joshua tree (a type of yucca) is dependent on moth, likewise moth is dependent on Joshua tree. Bro. Clarence, with his ever ready field guides, sought to explain this relationship, or more properly 'mutualism,' as we ate our noontime meal. Of course many insects pollinate flowers, yet most are sort of accidental pollinators, a bee seeks nectar and in the process, and with no intent on the bee's part, the bee comes into contact with pollen and the pollen sticks to the bee and the bee moves to another blossom and pollen is transferred. This as Bro. Clarence says is a sort of accidental, yet beneficial, happenstance to both the bee and the plant. But with the Joshua tree, neither accident nor happenstance takes place. In the still of the desert night the white female yucca moth (Tegeticula yuccasella) seeks the Joshua tree and enters a white flower and gathers the sticky pollen (a pollen that cannot be broadcast by wind or bee). To gather the sticky pollen, the moth has a pair of long, curved, prehensile appendages near the mouth, specialized tools to collect and form the sticky pollen into a ball, of which is held 'under the chin' so to speak. And off the moth goes to another Joshua tree, where she enters a flower and uses her specialized egg-laying device (called an ovipositor), inserting it through the ovary wall and depositing an egg into the ovule chamber. Next comes pollination, the moth moves to the top of the ovary and still carrying the sticky pollen ball from the previous Joshua tree, she presses the pollen into the ovary, thus completing the fertilization of the flower. Now, as the seeds develop inside this particular ovary, they will provide future food for the hungry moth larva. And so it goes, without the Joshua tree flower, yucca moths would die off in one generation; without the moth, the Joshua tree would never be pollinated, for no other moth, bee, insect, or even wind, seek out the sticky Joshua tree pollen.

This provoked Bro. Simon to question if God has a blueprint for all these minute details of creation, a kind of grand master blueprint of all creation, a blueprint so grand that included would be details of the yucca moth's 'prehensile appendages' and programming for the yucca moth's tiny brain with not only instructions for identifying Joshua trees, but where exactly to insert 'ovipositor' and on and on and on. Bro. Clarence thinks otherwise, he imagines that God has blueprints for all the 'laws of nature' yet God delights in setting things in motion, and within some sort of unknown to us boundaries, allows life to blossom within these boundaries -- perhaps even boundaries withing boundaries within boundaries. Bro. Sedwick thinks not, for God is timeless, exists (if that word can be used in this instance) outside of time, so God views our universe as past and present and future, all at once. Of course this brought protest from Bro. Juniper, he thinking that even though God be outside of time, but when interacting with His Creation, God chooses to enter our time/space, for this would be the only way a relationship with humans could be possible. Bro. Sedwick thinks all this speculation far too simplistic, for a Creator of the Universe has far more tools in His toolbox than our tiny minds can ever imagine.

With that I excused myself in order to gather my rucksack, I want to pay a visit to a certain Joshua tree tonight, and perhaps, I too may witness a miracle.

Joshua 23:14
“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one thing has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you; all have come to pass for you, not one of them has failed.

Musings written by pencil onto paper

Musing 1: Pencil onto paper when I rested seated yesterday afternoon atop a boulder surround by countless purple lupines

Perhaps the prelapsarian Eden was that state of the Earth sometime between 5.4 and 6.3 million years ago, that time when our ancestors parted way with those who followed the Chimpanzee tribe, those who remained in that world of innocence, a world where thorns are thorns and thistles are thistles and pain is pain and sweat is sweat and life is life and death is death. For that Eden was lost to those with a brain that became a mind that could conceive of a lapse -- a fall from grace -- that moment when suddenly guilt and blame sprang to life as the next universe-transforming event took place -- the birth of self-awareness.


Musing 2: A goose that called Konrad his mother

Interesting how the developing brain of a child has a myriad of short windows of opportunity for imprinting, and once the imprint takes place, then that is what the mature brain is left with, or has to deal with, as in the case of the young geese that Konrad Lorenz raised as their "mother." The infant geese knew no one other than Konrad, the one that fed them and protected them and taught them, and so they followed him as mother goose, and forever more Konrad was mother goose to them.


So here we are, all of us with our own imprints seared many years ago into our developing brains -- some "natural" and others "unnatural" -- perhaps early imprints of an infant religiosity that has since been modified by the learning gleaned from systematic knowledge? Could it be that when we try to reason away that infant religiosity with a mature religiosity, the seared part of our brain rebells, clinging to the imprints of infancy, unwilling, or unable, to let go?





Arrows in flight

With a computer that is flaky, I've returned to pencil and paper, spending more time on walks and hikes, and less time at the keyboard, now tapping away on Bro. Clarence's iMac, which I must admit, is a flashy bit of machinery, but of course doesn't have the feel of pencil to paper. So seated on a boulder just before sunset, I was thinking how orderly the universe appears to me, the structure, or I should say, what we know of the structure of the material world, seems to exhibit a direction from lower to higher orderliness, and when we include life into the mix, then from lower to higher forms of life and intelligence. And why is that? Does it have to be like this? If we consider "life" for example, then the forever time from the Big Bang until the first spark of life appeared on Earth makes me think that this forever timespan was the necessary preparation, the necessary incubation, if you will, for life to get started. And once life got "started" (again, the universe is anything by static, everything seems to start or end, but mostly is in process, or all the between of starting and ending), we see a continual growth in complexity of life structures, and as far as we think we know, the human brain is by and far the most complex of life structures. Of course the mind/brain is a bit boastful in these matters, even thinking that it (brain/mind) is the tip of the arrow that was launched with the Big Bang. A moving arrow. Moving in time. Moving in space. Moving in complexity. Moving in self realization. And moving to? Going where? Or is the arrow forever in flight? And to think the entire evolutionary process has this human brain/mind with the power of reflective thought at the very tip of the longest branch on the tree of life. And here I am, the sun now setting, but enough light to continue my writing, and yes, I must admit that I cannot get outside of my own experiences. My brain/mind use my eyes to watch the outside world, yet is this boulder that I sit upon really just that, a big solid rock? Of course I know from science that the big rock is not so solid as my eyes tell me, so if I could shrink down into the micro world I would see that the atoms that compose this big rock are really not very solid at all, in fact when we get down into the world of atoms and protons and electrons we really leave the world of matter, the matter that we ordinarily think of, like solid rock or the wood of a table top, and find ourselves in a world of energy. And too the mind, a bundle of energy, and to think that the human mind is a product of the very nature that produced everything after the Big Bang, that by being a product of nature, the mind is part of this nature, and so shouldn't the same principles of rational order that we see in the outside world, exist also in the inside world. Inside the brain. Inside the mind? So I sit here and think rationally because I am a product of a rational universe, composed by the same energy that constructs stars. And now I watch another star, setting in the West, coloring the sky with streaks of reds and oranges and grays and purples, and here we both are, the sun and me, two arrows sent on their flights at the moment of the Big Bang, one landed just over the horizon, the other landed atop this big boulder that I sit upon. And it's hard. And it's getting cold. Time for this arrow to move on, to continue the flight, the flight that I think will take me all the way around and back to the archer. And when I arrive and meet the archer? I have a funny feeling that the string on the archer's bow will still be vibrating.