Chapter One

The Monolith

While it cannot be known whether the cosmos began in an eruption of fire or in a steady state of repose, it can be known that the universe does and therefore can exist. One can know this in many ways. One can reach out and touch a flower, smell its fragrance, or behold its beauty. Also, one can know their own mortality by vicariously following the lives of others for all those who struggle and are victorious.

No darkness dwells in midst of life and the inhabitants are illuminated with desire and hope. One reaches out in an attempt to touch the sky or less boldly (or more) stand on the earth. Choices are a mystery. Where choices come from can be rooted in emotion or judgement. While living this life one decides, as well as is followed by these choices. There is no rest for those who dwell on the present, much less the past. We stand rooted in the present.

Beholding the world that complements us, yet still confronts us, an attempt is made to find meaning in the universe, of the life of the world, and one’s sole existence. When looking outward to behold that which is becoming or perishes one must wonder where this thing goes. What mechanism determines this movement of the unfolding of time in our particular span of life. Can it be a mechanism at all or is it that which moves toward us then away as a top which twirls and whirls, slows down and finally falls or fails.

Where can those find themselves in this confusing mix?

At night when we slumber, we may be relieved of the suffering of the world for a bit only to wake and find ourselves again under the whir and whine of our present age. As one rises and exits their repose, they enter the world of activity of those like engaged. Staring at the machines which are a testament to ourselves it can be wondered how this technocracy came to be and evolved such. But from where one stands it is apparent that one is this ruler in its midst.

Such matter affords us a glimpse of ourselves and shows itself to us as something independent while this robot or machine really is our child. The metal was mined, honed in a shape and made to function to fulfill a need that the world seems to know. This matter exists in the earthly realm and is the result of the solar mass which in explosion rained its metallic deposits on us. While matter is driven by Homo Sapiens, Homo Sapiens are driven by matter too. Matter is fundamental in a world that depends on life, for a barren world must have no meaning to itself and would be devoid of any other. Not only does matter drive Homo Sapiens but matter constitutes them. It seems though that one must be much more than matter, for to be only matter could only be a life of illusion where people make decisions determined only by destiny.

Being human we stand and face the world composed of life: skyscrapers, farms, factories and all the creations of this specie. In beholding this world, it must be decided that we dwell separately from the matter that surrounds. Off into the distance we behold that which recedes into the horizon or that which becomes ever more apparent as it approaches. Much is in motion, but some objectified things stand as a testament to our becoming. These material things can stand before us in opposition or as a door leading to another vista.

Matter grabs our attention and demands recognition. If not given it then one may find oneself at matter’s mercy. In its solidity and structure, it can fall and crush us or power electricity for the teeming multitude. When we behold matter it stands before us, we can reach out and touch it or not, but it seems to exist all the same. If we circle around it, it displays its particular form. This monolith hides nothing. While it can be a barrier it can also be a door to a future that none can even dream. We are separate from this monolith and even standing beside it makes us no more the structure than the structure becomes us.

Our encounter with this monolith must be beholden at a distance. Perhaps this distance need not be so far but far enough to decide thou are not that (contrary to the conception of Brahman). In a more forgiving world one might find the contrary that thou art that, but this must be saved till later. Space surrounds this monolith and surrounds oneself as well. We as matter share the same limitations that lifeless matter does. While people are living and matter is devoid of life, all are surrounded by space. An individual could not exist without this space and so also could not matter.

To say simply, in the universe of things matter must have space to exist. This is an obvious and seemingly trite fact. In understanding existence, one must examine not only the things that are most obvious to one but also that which is most fundamental. On through examining the deciding factors that one holds so dear can one truly be free.

In the distance stands a structure. It stands against us, but not as an obstacle but as a form of measure. It tells us where we stand in relation to it. It provides a stopping point from here, but a starting point that lies thereafter, or beyond. It has a structure, a texture, even a point in time. It advertises solidity but may conceal its own fragility. This is the beginning of matter.

We may know of it if we perceive it or even imagine it. In the imagination we may construct it based on other forms we have perceived before, or we may know this phantasm by an innate acquaintance with the a priori nature of cognition. The object existing or the idea in itself can draw on each other for subsistence, but do not depend on each other to manifest Being. Obstacles must be beholden, for if not where would the individual dwell?

Existing in a world which is perplexing draws the mind into examination. Can we know matter? Does matter exist at our satisfaction, or for a point in time without a master? Does the world put itself at our disposal, or does it permit us to cohabit within? A stencil drawn of the human form elicits a matter of knowing, which the form has created, and the dregs left over, not essential to the form carved which is discarded.

Drawn to animation, like a series of drawing thrown into a row creating the illusion of movement, this stencil form too imitates life as it moves through the shutter of time displaying its independence from the stencil originally carved. Like Felix the Cat with the bag of magic tricks, these hominoids traverse the world, encountering other forms as objects of itself. This illusion settles on the fact that one sees the world as one perceives themselves.

As the objects of sensation depend on the perceiver, so does the object itself depend on itself for its own continence. To be perceived or to be the perceiver seems little different. The thing in itself knows only itself, except as it may know another as an object of itself, like the original perceiver's cognition knows it. All sentient things perceive other things and perceive each other in turn, nothing, almost nothing, stands alone in this exercise.

The one thing that stands alone is the monolith. This monolith can be found puzzling to sentient beings. Can one really know it to exist now? Can one show it existed before? Does any confidence exist that it will exist in the future? An even more important question is, can we know that what we perceived ever existed and if so, how can we prove it.

Does this monolith stand as a monument or a token that represents human ethics and conduct? If one knocks on this monolith to gain entry to a friend’s abode is this different from taking axes to an enemies dwelling tearing the wall down? How much of ourselves have we invested in this material entities and maybe even more important, how much of the raw stuff have we converted and molded to suit our own ends?

If we are made from the same stuff as the monolith, then when we mold this stuff into something else, we are changing our own nature to something else. Can one really separate one from the other? If the nature of the monolith falls victim, the vicissitudes of nature are we not affected in a like manner being matter ourselves? If a bomb blows up a home, doesn't it destroy our vitality as well if we dwell within this home?

Pure matter is a lifeless composite of stuff whose origin is from the exploding of stars and from the beginnings of time. Life, a sort of specie to the genus of matter, on the other hand can grow and become stronger, can heal itself, recover from catastrophe and celebrate in victory.

There seems to be certain necessary rules which the monolith must adhere to in order to exist. There are delineations that cannot be avoided in deciding that a monolith does or even must exist. The way of conceiving the monolith involves other structures, especially space or "the expanse". While the propositions that follow may seem obvious and in fact even trivial, these facts rest on how we understand the world. As argued later, when one investigates what one perceives, it can seem the facts are necessary and therefore are not mutable. It is important though to understand how perceived reality structures itself in understanding ourselves, according to what we perceive. Sometimes objective reality, if such a thing exists, may be counter-intuitive to what we may consider as fact.

How is one able to understand the relationship between matter and space? The domain of matter and energy has been passed on to the Physicists. The overall nature of the cosmos too has been passed on to the Physicists and also the Cosmologists. Matter and space has been looked at regarding electro-magnetic and gravitational forces, but little seems to be said about the relationship between the matter and space themselves. The relationship between matter and space needs to be looked at conceptually and analyzed using ideas. The existence of matter and space is a necessary condition for existence, for what would existence be without one or the other? This is not something that can be proved using the laws of science but find a home in philosophy.

It may be thought that philosophy would lack the necessary tools to do such an analysis, but it should be noted that only in modern times has cosmology become the domain of modern science where previously the study fell to the philosophers. The tools philosophy uses include analysis, dialectic and also and perhaps most importantly logic. Logic is not an easy thing to define. We still live in an age driven by the logic of the excluded middle which comes from Aristotle.

Using logic, claims usually from observations, we can draw conclusions about these claims. Most basic is the syllogism where for example

All Humans are Mortal

Socrates is Human

Therefore, Socrates is Mortal.

While this example which is most basic is not the only type of logic. Logic comes in all flavors and types which is beyond the scope of this work.

In my discussion of matter and space I will make one claim. If it can be conceived, it is possible. Admittedly this is a very wide claim but many things today that had previously been thought to be impossible have now been confirmed as existing. While this claim casts a wide net, it is dangerous to dismiss things out of hand. Such things that can be dismissed are circular squares or purple/red light. While these ideas stem from an analytic approach, claiming a moon is made of cheese has effectively been dismissed itself through observation.

Something that is possible may not be at all likely. Science has rooted out many historic misconceptions (e.g., the nature of stars, the celestial sphere, the structure of the solar system and so on). It is my claim that perhaps something can be found useful when using the approach of if it is conceivable it is possible. While this approach will fail to root out many if not most fallacious claims, it can serve as a guide to understanding things that as yet have not been solved by science. Perhaps this claim will be borne out and maybe not. One problem with reasoning and analysis is sometimes individual misunderstand the premises of an argument (perhaps an unexamined premise of one that has been excised erroneously. So, when one does the required reasoning the fact is discovered, and the nature of the argument may have been radically misunderstood and therefore the dictum if it is conceivable it is possible turns out to be useful. Therefore, how does this dictum relate to the discussion of the monolith and its implications and derivations?

The monolith does not stand alone. Delineating its shape is the expanse contained in space. While all matter has a certain solidity to it, space does not. Space defines matter. Without empty space there would be continuous matter, if such matter at all existed. Without space nothing is left to exist or to be thought about.

In theory at least, if the universe were bereft of space, then matter would necessarily compose all. This ignores the complication of atomic space in matter. A universe composed only of matter only would be a very lonely place. Such a place is beyond comprehension and ultimately impossible if for no other reason there would be no one to observe. Space delineates matter, matter cannot delineate itself. So, in such a world matter, like space, matter would be endless, like a never-ending solid wall.

If the universe were all space, then there would be nothing to talk about. Not only because there is no matter for space to mark its boundaries, but nothing could exist at all. Even if such an infinite expanse could exist no one would be there to perceive it. Whether something can exist without something to observe it is a different problem. It would seem so but could not be known. Because of the uncertainty regarding the nature of space, it seems impossible according to the Space-Time Continuum, to say what would or could be. Matter is needed for gravitational forces.

So, is that all there is, matter and space? While not being a physicist I think it is fair to state that in addition to matter and space there is energy. Is energy dependent on matter and space or one or the other? What is the source of matter? One primary source are the explosions of great suns which disperse their rudiments throughout space. Matter is not inert but in a constant state of change and flux. Einstein observed that there is a correlation between matter and energy and the proof of this is shown from the explosion from fission or fusion in a nuclear device and formulated by his E=mc2.

So, like the monolith, matter is central to all transformations that go on through the cosmos whether this “stuff” is a solid or pure energy. The geometry made possible by space, sets a place for matter to endure and this space enables matter to act in many different ways depending on this geometry. This geometry directs the matter toward gravitation that holds the cosmos together or as in the geometry of a black hole, gravitational collapse. It matter little whether matter is a manifestation of space or space is a manifestation of matter, they exist concurrently depending on the other.

The theory of “false vacuums” where universes seem to spring out nothingness shows a place for space prior to matter. Or also in Buddhism the theory of “dependent origination” where nothing is central in existence and all things depend on everything else to exist. If this were in fact so, then an integral part missing would cause the nature of Being to collapse leaving nothingness. In such a universe then, if the Buddha was right, then we live in a sort of perfect world with nothing more and nothing less.

There is more than space and matter and energy that manifests in the universe. Where does life figure in to all this? While life finds the necessity to have form in space. Also, the body itself is composed of matter. Finally, our constant search for sustenance with food and water to keep the body alive and moving forward.

But why alive? Plenty of matter has no life at all. Rocks, skyscrapers, the waters (except for the life within). Is there a difference between the coal in a coal mine and our own carbon-based life? The supposition is that we are infused with spirit. There is a life force which drives our sinews and enables us to think coherently. We are able to devise plans and act on them.

But where does this animus, this driving force originate. Is it the stuff which comes from the spark of life, perhaps from the dynamic of the union of the sperm and egg? Traditionally there is the idea of spirit where the material body lies subject to the demands of this spirit. This spirit enables a sort of cognitive space where the gyrations and perturbations and their resolutions occur. This is not often thought to be lying at the seat of matter.

Descartes found a place for spirit to enter the body through the pineal gland. While this may have been a simple explanation of the gland as a gateway to the body. But nowadays it is recognized by modern medicine that this gland does not possess the property to serve as such a transport mechanism of spirit. Where and how could such spirit enter the body?

While this may seem like an important question a more fundamental problem occurs. Spirit is understood by most to be atemporal, aphysical and aspatial, while matter, in this case our physical body, is temporal, physical and spatial. How can these things that are dissimilar and really diametrically opposed by nature exist together and even more important how can one act on the other? So not only can this sort of effluence not find a place to enter the body, but it cannot even find a ways for the one, the material and the other, spiritual, interact.

It seems clear that if our definitions are correct about the physical and the spiritual this theory of a sort of emulsion or mixture between the two is difficult or impossible to conceive of and therefore cannot be an explanation about human motility and mobility and even more basic does nothing to explain anything at all.

Yet exist we do and exist we must. So, while we lack a reasonable explanation the evidence shows that there is a relationship between matter and cognition. Can it be said that there are the basics for intelligence coming from inanimate being? It not at least the potential must be there. So, what is life? Sometime in the distant past some amino acids in a seemingly random act achieved passing on the ability to continue to replicate itself. Further development occurred through mutation and natural selection. But is this the whole story?

All matter possess’ an atomic structure whereby atoms and electron and the other constituent parts of matter interact. Not only is there interaction between these elements of matter but there too lies space between electrons. Existence again showing the primal dichotomy of matter or substance and space. From the most diffuse gas to the must dense lead lies space and with this space the electrical charges which compose the nature of the element.

If one examines a rock, rolls it over or even throws it, if it is solid, little change will come to it as it lands in the field of matter. Depending on the composition of the element determines the nature of the outcome of this throw could vary if it is not solid but if water it while be absorbed into the fertile ground or splash to form a layer of dampness. Or if its oxygen it will not be beholden at all if released. But in each, rock, water, oxygen, have specific constituent elements which determines its function and the way it acts with the world. This all of course is common knowledge.

When looking at the rock, or water or oxygen we still do not find life but when the constituent parts of the world are thrown together in the primordial stew something magical results, or does it? How can life be created? Is it from the infusion of the breath of God? What is this God? How is such a thing accomplished?

The answer to how this sort of thing could occur with God in its omniscient, omnipresence and omnipotence. But we are not talking about the physical incarnations of Gods from Mount Olympus but rather about our God (or their God or another’s God). In the monotheistic tradition most prevalent in Occidental culture, like spirit, perhaps and infusion from God; this God too like the spirit it possess is aspatial, atemporal and aphysical. So once again we are thrown up against the wall which separates spirit from matter.

While we may be unable to explain, some may find from the literal text, The Bible, an explanation how such a thing is possible. The bible to some is inerrantly true and correct. This sort of knowledge depends on faith and has little to do with the dictum if it is conceivable it is possible. Even if biblical evidence were warranted in this discussion it can be asserted that God being all powerful, would not deny the ability of his most cherished creation to not have the ability to evaluate these facts by using the divinely inspired intellect. The position of the church fathers during the middle ages was that philosophy was the handmaiden of religion. That is, while the words of the bible was inerrantly true because it was a creation of God, importantly these facts could be buttressed and even validated by philosophical arguments. Nevertheless, philosophy was not considered a necessary condition for knowledge, especially biblical knowledge.

If we cannot find a way or a place for Geist to enter matter what other options are there? The only remaining option seems to be that there is a sort of animus in matter, perhaps from the actions of the atoms with the electron and positrons flying about. Or perhaps within all substance is the potential for life and spirit simply because it contains much of the stuff of life when a certain threshold is met or a sort of gestalt life and its apparent spirit springs forth.

While the exploding of the galaxies, stars as well as the assimilation of matter by black holes, shows matter always on the move, changing itself and radically manifesting its current or future changed characteristics. How far from all this activity is the beginning of life?

If that were so where could one find a place for life? What is life? In all life there is an animus which drives matter. If you are a philosopher that is a hardened materialist, then to talk about a world bereft of matter and the most essential thing is spirit, can only refer to figments of imagination including such things as unrepentant ghosts or goblins. According to the materialist, that which is most fundamental is matter, unlike the idealist that takes a contrary position.

Space and matter are inextricably bound. They are bound together by the eye and all other senses. Not only does the monolith have reliability to the senses, but also one can sleep comfortably when one after a good night sleep wakes and beholds a world little changed from before.

When one sees a rock and they kick it, depending on the size of the rock, the rock moves and may cause intense pain in one’s foot. When the space is exhausted between the foot and the rock, contact ensues and the proof of the solidity in the rock is affirmed, or at least one might think.