Category: The Mask of Maya

Rationality and the World

While the rock may cause an immediate pain, reality seems to be ultimately infinite. Conceptually the universe can contain no end, although modern physical theory may say otherwise. For the monolith to exist, it is fundamental that there exists an expanse for which matter may repose. Infinity is a hard concept to grasp, perhaps even impossible for our minds, which is limited by its own structure. Also, it might be the case that infinity cannot exist because it cannot be easily conceived. If this is the case then it cannot be conceived therefore it must be thrown out because according to the dictum “if it can be conceived then it is possible”, since it cannot be conceived then it is not possible. Looking at it as a syllogism where implication is necessarily false when the antecedent is true, and the consequent is false. In this case if we claim that if it is conceivable then it is possible. If we find something conceivable but not possible then the implicature is false, does this apply in our example of finite space and matter?

What is the conception of the finite? Can it be said to exist conceptually as the dictum requires? While we can conceive of the finite as existing in itself, for example inside Aristotle’s Celestial Sphere, what lies beyond this sphere and how is it limited and therefore finite? If space is finite and space is bounded, then what must exist beyond the space that defines it? If it is bounded, we are thrown up again a never-ending wall of matter. Regarding space, can we try to think of something that goes on and on like an arrow thrown which travels outwards forever? Perhaps this can be understood but can it be conceived? Something that continues outward without end? Are there other options?

There seems to be four basic options underlying the nature of matter and space. Matter and Space can both be finite, matter and space can both be infinite, Matter can be infinite but spirit finite and lastly space can be infinite, but matter is finite. All formulations can be considered inconceivable and therefore not possible.

If we look at the supposition that both matter and space are finite this seems to contradict the dictum where if it is conceivable it is possible. In a finite universe it would be easy to conjecture that matter is finite, but how can it be accounted for that the universe is limited in some way? If the universe is not infinitely large, then what bounds the universe? It seems that the only thing that can bound the universe is infinite matter, or other mixes of matter and space.

Some physicists may claim that space is curved. While this may be someone understood with a new kind of thinking (can something like this be conceived?) it does seem to contradict the dictum as something that can be conceived. If one takes off on a journey through space one will (eventually) end up where they started. In this case space must be somehow limited in scope. When talking about infinity this does not seem possible. One might circle around space and end up where they started but it could not say all aspects of space are infinite because our traveler would invariably came back to the origin of their journey. What would it mean if our traveler continued to make this loop through space except as some sort of containment?

Such a thing that is inconceivable but possible could be the idea of curved space. While it is not conceivable modern mathematics shows that this is the case. Something can then can be inconceivable but still possible. If something is necessary then it exists in all possible worlds according to Leibniz. Something necessary is also possible.

Some things can be inconceivable not possible such as square circles or married bachelors. These analytics statement must be false when understanding language. Also water cannot be frozen at 70 degrees and lead is firm at 70 degrees.

If something is conceivable and therefore possible does not show that which is inconceivable is not possible.   Our previous examples of curved space and married bachelors show that one is possible and the other is not. Therefore if it is conceivable only tells us what is possible, it does not tell anything about existence as being composed that which is inconceivable and what is possible. It is necessary to keep this narrow sense when examining the world. This idea is a sort of analytic analysis which veracity lies in the fact that something must be conceived in order to be possible. To conceive something implies that there is something that conceives. For example Descartes “I think therefore I am” is similar in the fact that to be something (to conceive) implies it is possible (may exist) although this approach.

Approaching knowledge in such a manner one needs to find if something is conceivable. If it is, then it is possible. An example can be arrived at by examining hypothetical statements with the goal is using this dictum to arrive at insight. In the following examples four possibilities are examined. First is the universe infinite but matter is finite. Also discussed is if the universe is finite but matter is infinite. Then the popular idea that the universe is infinite and matter is infinite.

This may not show much to the critical reader as it is almost common sense that the universe must be both infinite and matter is quite likely if no necessarily so to be infinite. The understanding of this idea is that foundationally nothing exists without space and nothing exists without matter. They are the minimum condition for existence. Our existence is predicated on these two constituents.

How about if matter is finite and the universe is infinite? First off there is the problem of understanding conceptually how the universe can be infinite. Also, as perplexing is how in an infinite universe can matter be finite? We see from the human perspective that matter and space are inexorably bound together. If matter is finite, then how are we and why do we have it hoarded in our parochial world? Also, this is inconceivable. If matter is indeed finite and the universe infinite, then ultimately at some point matter would dissolve into space and even cease to exist as dispersion approached infinity. There just would not be enough matter in space to go around. Even in an infinite degree is dispersement matter would seem to cease to exist at all. Matter that is necessarily a constituent part of space that then dissolves into space is inconceivable and therefore not possible.

Further what if matter is infinite and space is finite? Looking at matter in an infinite space, space would be filled and replaced by matter which ultimately too would be bounded by matter at its periphery and have matter expanding from the center infinitely. So it seems that matter cannot be finite.

Finally, what if matter is infinite and space is infinite. This perhaps looks the most promising of all the possibilities. In this formulation space makes adequate space for matter and matter find a uniform home. An Anthropocentric model can be avoided because there could be no center of the universe. But is infinite matter and infinite space conceivable? It might seem conceivable at first “glance” but is it? If the universe is uniform, then it is conceivable that infinite matter with infinite space is conceivable. Looking at matter and space in more detail and realizing that the variability in the possibilities of matter are infinite, then in infinity these material manifestations must manifest in infinity. Matter would not only vary in size, but in density, in magnitude, type (atomic variation), color, etc. When looked at microscopically the variation in size could be small, perhaps an inch, an atom or perhaps a quark. These variations in an infinite universe must occur infinitely large as well in all its particular characteristics. Since the possible variation in matter is infinite then it could not be replicated infinitely in an infinite universe. The case of infinite matter and infinite space then is beyond conception. Infinite space is not the problem, infinite matter is because the variation in matter seems infinite and cannot be replicated in infinite space. The variation would continue to be replicated both near and far, through possible other dimensions and other multiverses both of which too would exist infinitely. But perhaps like in mathematics, a series of numbers that approach infinity actually, do reach infinity. But is such a thing conceivable?

An argument might be made that universe is limited by physical laws and this would constrain the variety of variation that would occur; therefore, it could be said that the universe, with the constraining factors of the laws of nature could produce all of the variety that is possible. But if something is possible if it is conceivable, an unrestricted universe, in spite of natural laws would run up with problem of infinite variety compounding an infinite universe as was earlier said. The physical laws may be a constraint on variety, but such constraints are not limiting when one relies on the adage if it is conceivable it is possible which is not an empirical claim or something that is empirical in principle. Rather it is based on a rationalism.

Looking at the dictum, If it is conceivable it is possible” another objection might be that while if it is conceivable it is possible, can it be decided that if it is inconceivable is it impossible? Perhaps an infinite universe is such a place. While we cannot say that infinity is conceivable, although it may be claimed to be understandable, does that rule out a universe that is infinite? Are such things such as infinite universes, impossible to conceive, but can still exist? Previously the claim was to find what is possible, but the claim does not rule out all things that are beyond conception. Perhaps for example Einstein’s theory of relativity when light travel at the same rate from a source no matter what the movement of the source may be in relation to other objects. If it is true that something can be that is inconceivable and possible then our infinite universe might fit the bill. But this changes our requirements a bit for conceivability. While we can conceive of light as escaping from a point of reference at the same speed as from another point of reference, we cannot “understand” it, well at least I cannot. So, in this example such a thing is conceivable even though it may seem impossible.

While it is at least true that if it is conceivable it is possible, if it is impossible tells us little. Round cubes and square circles are impossible. Also, we can know if it is not possible it is inconceivable. But something that is inconceivable can be either possible or impossible. Round squares and circular blocks are inconceivable. Also unbounded space in the example of infinity is inconceivable too. Yet, the concept of infinity seems to demand such a thing so it cannot be ruled out!

Deciding on whether an infinite universe can exist depends on if it is conceivable. It seems not and most must take it on faith unless one finds reassurance in mathematical strategies which are privy to those with elite knowledge. Further can mathematical knowledge lead to a conception of the reality? Can something form a mental image based on mathematics? Even if one can is this available many or is it based on concepts that serve as illustrations of mathematic concepts (e.g. graphs of mathematics) or 3 dimensional construction (or four or five or more dimensions for that matter). Is such a thing conceptual. Does it serve as a picture, like a photograph, of the mathematical truth of is it simply a representation of it?

Can an infinite universe subsist with infinite variation? It does seem counterintuitive that infinity can exist in this matter but what other options are there? Perhaps infinity is being defined wrongly with our limited tools. Perhaps with our present tools we will have to find this formulation the most sustainable although it really does not stand up to scrutiny. Not only is an infinite universe not conceivable, even if it is possible, or possibly not, the crux of the matter is that it seems this formulation of the universe is reduced to a form of absurdity where infinity depends on only its nature of being infinite and nothing else, a sort of redundancy. Nothing about matter is important. It is reduced to a sort of flotsam and jetsam only existing to support infinite space. While perhaps an infinite universe and infinite matter is most promising, it fails to deliver. Yet still matter must exist.

Matter and Manifestation

A supposed order is brought about by the existence of humans in it. The history of the unfolding of the epistemology of space and consequently the universe includes, in alliance with medieval thought, an ever-expanding globe further and further radiated outward. Primally humans were the anointed ones, the creation of the world limited to several thousand years.  The ever-expanding knowledge of the universe became apparent under different guises be it the Aristotle’s universe, Ptolemy, Copernicus and so on.  Somehow somewhere humans were ultimately somehow positioned at the center. Only with Darwin was human primacy challenged. Also, Einstein seemed to demolish the idea that the universe is human centered when it was declared that the universe had no center.

A question that comes up in cosmology is, is there only one universe or are there many? If the universe exists as a singularity then it may be claimed, at least by some, that this is our universe, the only universe, that is home for Homo Sapiens! It should be noted this is a healthy debate, after all the foundation for knowledge rests ostensibly within our species itself and the accomplishments have been many and great.

While one might be content with the monolith occupying some “space” the problems of infinity continues to rear its ugly head. We have a human view of a human reality. We see things in our own idiosyncratic way as other humans see them. There is variation though. Those that are color-blind see the world differently from those that have an adequate distribution of the appropriate rods and cones. For those color-blind this is reality as a correspondence. Perhaps this is just a minor and unimportant difference. Referring to the monolith and space, such difference in eyesight would not alter our understanding of a structure which stands alone.  It must be considered though that other species have different sensory apparatus and cannot therefore perceive things as we do. A good example are bats with poor eyesight but excellent hearing. Who is to say which one’s perception is superior, a normative claim. Also who can claim what is the proper way of apprehending the world

It must be considered that at least within our understanding, although not conceptually, that the universe could be infinite. Not only can one look at the universe as an individual observer, but the universe could be looked up as homogeneous.  In order to attain this “birds eye view” it would be necessary to understand the nature of the universe as a whole. It must be asked, does space and matter co-exist at all magnitudes with similar properties? According to scientific theory it appear not. On a large-scale, gravitation is the dominant force, but at the atomic level for example electro-magnetic factors dominate.

While the answer to the question might or might not be no there is another consideration. While in the understanding things could be infinitely large, also conversely things can be infinitely small. Which is most real? Looking at the ever-expanding universe and galaxies rotating around galaxies rotating around ever greater black holes? Or is the true reality sub-atomic matter and other electrical forces or even something smaller? Which is the best perspective? It is important to ask, does the nature of space and matter, as well as their relationship with each other, change over different magnitudes.

One might argue that humans are best suited to examine the nature of things, because their way of understanding the world is superior. The assertion that our way of understanding things is superior can be based on many reasons. For example, our superiority may justify the assertion about the value of our way of  understanding the world. Our demonstrated prowess at manipulating reality demonstrates how in “tune” we are with nature building skyscrapers and such. It is with this spirit that I move forward.

While a single solitary structure, the monolith, delineates, carves out a place in space so does matter provide the origins for energy and spirit.

Matter is necessary for existence, for what could be said to exist without it? The nature of the manifolds of matter varies. This nature can be based on size whether smallness or largeness, perception (i.e., how it is perceived or understood and by whom), whether it is thought to be infinite or finite, also whether it is contiguous in this world or in all worlds (e.g., universes and multiverses).

When one looks at our universe, we see that all that exists is matter (or its corollary energy). Space can be said to exist as well but only in relation to matter. Without matter there would be nothing, or at least only infinite space where no one could be there to know it. How could such a thing as only space exist? Is it possible to have infinite space without a place to know it? Without such a vantage point can it even be said to exist. The potential exists for an observer but does this potential do enough to ensure it exists? A discussion such as this approaches nonsense.

Where could this potential come from except for some potential from God’s grace. And God accordingly from the monotheistic perspective is hard to define except by “his” attributes . As has already been discussed indiscriminate spirit and discriminant matter are unable to find a place to join successfully to assure existence.  So too is the problem of drawing a relationship between a transcendent God and humans in the world. For now, at least, it seems impossible for space to exist without matter. At the least conceiving matter-less space is impossible.

While it may be impossible to say why matter exists, it is the case that it must exist, or there is nothing either spatially or analytically without it. In any case it is clear as can be that matter does exist. Perhaps that it must exist is reason enough for it to exist. If it does exist, then one is compelled to ask what its nature is. The aforementioned monolith has a sort of solidity. But this solidity is not uniform across different types of matter. Even within matter depending on the magnitude this solidity varies.

Matter can be as dense as lead or as diffuse as steam. But at a certain temperature lead melts and steam becomes a liquid and then a solid. Finding an exact definition of matter can be difficult although it does seem matter must occupy space, but this occupation varies depending on magnitude.  From a human eyes view lead is one of the densest kinds of matter that can exist. But if we look at it at smaller and smaller magnitudes, we find that it is not completely solid but also is composed of space as well as solidity.

When talking about magnitudes one must consider the nature of infinity. Is infinity a concept without application? Does infinity even exist? Is it simply a play on words? If things appear finite how is one to find a place for infinity. The idealists such as Socrates has referred to the theory of the forms which is a sort of infinity type which all things share. For example, if there is a chair then this chair must share in the form of “chairness”. This type of infinity is a sort of generalization about what can and does exist. Yet does infinity exist simply as a sort of generalization as in individual “models” of the forms, or in a less ideal realm simply based on, like mathematics, infinity in numbers?

For example, what could be the last number in an infinite series or if one continues to divide something in half what is the last resulting dividend? Eschewing transcendental realms which lie beyond logic and reason will be left aside at this moment. Also, the ethereal domain of transcendental oneness and the Platonic forms of generalization will be left behind at least for now. Rather infinity will be looked at as a form of magnitude. Is such a position defensible? Can the infinite and the finite exist in the same realm? If this is possible what are the implications of such a possible truth?

Infinity shows itself in a perspective whether at a human eyes view or any other magnitude. Infinity exists not only at the human eye view, being infinitely far or infinitely close but at all magnitudes infinitely small or infinitely large. Infinity by definition exists without limit. On the other hand, matter is limited, delineated by its structure specific to different positions in space. The only way matter can exist in a uniform space is to have infinite positions, but since matter is limited, it is hard to find how the positions of matter could be infinite.

While it has been questioned, the existence of space without matter, it can be conjectured that differentiated space as infinite because space itself has no structure, but matter has an innate structure that can be quantified and categorized. Are there infinite number of round spheres and infinite square ones. What could be the ratio between the two since they are both infinite? They cannot be the same in number being infinite, so it seems they cannot vary in number or type.  Yet being discrete it seems the potential to exist variably in number and type is necessary. So once again the quandary, not unlike antinomy of matter and spirit which cannot stand together, stands out again in space and matter.

One may find repose in the fact that things need not be apprehended by logic and analysis but can simply be perceived. We can reach out and touch the monolith, feel its texture or where it has abrasions. You can kick it hard and if it has great solidity and strength it will bring pain to your foot. And when you kick it it might make a sound which you hear clearly. One can find consistency each time a like force is applied. You can also appreciate its color. These things regarding our interactions seem reliable. How the thing is apprehended seems to be the way the thing exists in the world. The beliefs about the interaction are reassuring.

Also, most importantly these perceptions enable us to interact with the world. The reliability of our perceptions demonstrate the utility of our interactions with the world. We are able to build great bridges and dams. The engineering of things show the manipulation and conquest of nature. We are able to build rockets that traverse the cosmos. Theories are put forward using the scientific method which show the existence of black holes, or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principles, now confirmed. As the saying goes the world is our oyster and we can do with it as we will.

Not only can we manipulate the world, but we seem a prime fit to bend it to our will. Other creatures of the world, while able to enhance their survival seem unable to bring about a wholesale transformation. This transformation forever enhancing our world and extending its reach to make like accommodable for the human species. This application of belief, which also can be called facts demonstrate the reliability of our perceptions and the thoughts which we use to derive our manipulations of the world. While other animals can invade our space for example snails and roaches, but in no other species is there the ability to do a wholesale transformation of the world for our own benefit and in our own image. Knowing the world is established by our presence with the world.

But is this way of perceiving the world based in fact? Do the things that we see exist as we see them? Without discussing in detail what is called the veil of perception. It seems that things must exist as we see them because how could we so effectively manipulate the matter of the universe if this were not so? Yet the human eye, with its rods and cones, or the sensory nerves of the hands which touches or feels or the eardrum which vibrates and translates these vibrations into impulses all of which feeds information to the brain.

It is clear that the human senses are not the only effective and efficient way to know the world. The other creatures of the earth have useful ways of understanding the world. A dog while having sight, its most useful and sensitive sensory apparatus is its nose where it can effectively circumnavigate their environment. Sharks can see but have an acute sense of smell where they can smell blood for miles in the ocean water. Then there are humans with their acute eyesight which can perceive the light of a match in complete darkness miles and miles away. While all of these animals possess our ability to perceive and thus manipulate their world to thrive in the survival of the fit, the Darwinian theory, once again none so agile as hominoids in their perception to achieve this control in the objects of the world.

But what of this acuity of the other senses of different animals, why are these senses so able to be of service to the animal involved. Also, the way these senses are used the same as humans, or is what is perceived and how it is perceived the same as humans? While bats and dolphins rely on eyesight, their organs for circumnavigation are based on sounds given off which then these sounds bounce off matter and are returned to their apparatus for hearing. Even more telling is the fly who sees acutely, but whose eye structure is markedly different from. Its structure in a sort of alternative assemblage of perceivers in the eye clearly mark a difference in the way the thing being perceived is understood. Or take spiders who it has been reported can find different locations in which to inhabit by using the fields of radiation in the sky. We don’t perceive things in this way, but are these methods of perception any less valid or useful for survival in the survival of the fittest.

More importantly is that the flies’ sight or the shark nose tell us about not only about the world through these particular senses but tell one the perception differently. When we see something, it is not perceived as being the same as a fly perceives and when we smell it is not the same way that a shark smells. The perception is fundamentally different. Who is to say which is more efficacious and efficient? This is a value judgement, that is based on personal preference. Can one say since humans are the superior species that our senses too are more reliable? The human species has not always been dominant and before the expansion of hominoid population other species were very effective at dominating the world. How can one decide which is more reliable or rather which is more accurate?

The accuracy of our perceptions depends on the structure of the external world. If our senses delineate the world as it exists, then this sensory information if reliable. But who can say what species perceptions are reliable? The fly has a different visual perception of the world, and the different species of flies abound in the world. Is the world fungible with our perceptions of it? The world cannot be known only by our species sensory apparatus so it seems likely the way things are perceived must exist in many different ways. A Lockean sort of perspective can be taken that when the world is perceived, the way it is perceived depends on the nature of the perceivers particular sense organ.

Take the old argument that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to perceive it, does it make a sound. If we were present we could see it fall(vision), or have it throw dirt in our face(touch). If we are not there to perceive it then the outcome cannot be known unless someone is there to record the sound (hear), take a video(see) of it, or perhaps to take a specimen of the tree(feel). Although when we are missing from this event it is realized that the noise of the tree falling, or the sight of it falling or the sensation of its dirt are all based on electrical impulses in the sensory apparatus which impulses are sent to the brain. There is no sound, no sight and no feeling in the falling of the tree. There are only impulses which enable the brain to understand what had taken place. These impulses are translated into useful information by the brain to enable the humans to take action, or to just remember the experience for future reference.

This “vibration” seems to be unique to the occurrence in this case of the tree. It seems that however the thing is perceived it exists in the same way and when there is some event which somehow changes the environment this change is reliable too regardless of what species perceives or how this species perceives.

Not only is there a seemingly contradiction, when an analysis is done for the existence of space and matter in the context of infinity, also when looking at sentience the variety possible seems to be nearly if not unlimited.

The problem may not lie with understanding the nature of space and matter or that of the perception and the thing sensed but the confusion may lie within a seemingly confused notion of infinity.  Infinity seems to be at the root of the problem. What then is infinity?

Or is infinity, like in mathematics, where something that approaches a numerical value then because it is infinite it becomes that value? Is there a way to explain infinity? It seems to be beyond cognitive apprehension. When one may try to do an analysis of the nature of infinity it quite likely will end in bewilderment. Is this because the mind is limited so cannot apprehend such a thing or is it because such a thing logically impossible? For the sake of inquiry can an examination be made to explain the universe analytically?

Looking at the universe as being uniform such an assortment of matter seems to make sense. Unfortunately, the question arises then if there are different sizes and shapes of matter, is it possible for every size and shape of matter down to the atom able to exist infinitely in a sort of copy or replication? What about the different combinations of matter grouped together in infinite pairs where each pair is unique to itself but exists in these pairs infinitely. I am reminded here of the nature of cardinal numbers. Such problems await the investigator of infinity.

To further complicate the matter there is the aforementioned dichotomy between different magnitudes be they infinitely small or infinitely large. So not only do things find similarity from a human’s eye view but also from a molecular magnitude or even a quark, or the magnitude of the size of an Oort Cloud or a great Globular Cluster. Infinity exists whatever magnitude one examines. It exists no matter whether one examines infinity from smaller to larger and contrariwise.

A tree could grow strong but grow according to some blind force which allow for the change in particular to the tree. One could claim the driver of material change is the material forces of evolution. But the end of evolution is not the summation of the previous changes brought to the present. The change is always unique. The variation is always in a state of change. The complexity seems to defy observation of the causal factors. Perhaps one could call these evolutionary factors deterministic, but these factors result in the lovely flowers of the world, the blue skies, the variety of fish and the seeming ubiquitous of insects. These seem to apparently exist freely.

So perhaps there is room for freedom rather than determinism. With freedom we can love and fall in love and feel true passion. We can be angry and rightfully so. We can have laws and moray which order society to help keep society safe and productive. While one could face the death penalty for wrongs done, another could become a hero because of the great sacrifices they made. The meaning of life would return, the hollowness and the ultimate inhumanity would be gone. But is it enough to want freedom because it makes our life feel fulfilling, while if life is determined no fulfillment takes place with which it seems we cannot know? But what if we can know?

The question is is life determined or random? Perhaps there has been enough talk about determinism but not about randomness. What is randomness? It seems to be the opposite of determinism where “nothing” follows from something else. There are no precursors that drive outcomes. Is randomness what we are talking about when we refer to freedom? If this were the case if we were in danger would just sit pat in some situations as a random consequent but another time we might run for our life? Does God bring about freedom? If change is random then this again shapes the infinite number of outcomes that exist where were have only looked at the universe as static. Change further complicates things.

If the universe is a result of a singular great explosion where the universe continues to expand, then it seems all that is left at the end of time is the quiet whimper of what remains. As infinity would approach dissolution then all would cease to exist unless somehow the universe were limited in scope. In such a universe things would be limited, the case for limit in existence and the potentiality for individual structure which would not be replicated which would be distinct from an infinite system which knows no end. Mozart could then have written his masterpieces because of creative genius.

Yet then the quandary becomes apparent where the question is asked who or what created the universe and onward asking who created that which created the universe in an infinite regress ad infinitum.  Also, one could not argue for infinity because conceptually this seems impossible because what delimits space. Where is freedom to be found?

More can be said about the universe and universes in general. Since homocentric worldview dictates a singular universe which is the home of humans, with one God, commonly in the west as a theistic expression of Omnipotence there is little room for multiple universes. How could God rule the universe where we exist yet not rule others where we do not? Also, if God ruled all universes (if there were multiverses) why would we only populate a single universe. A predominate feature of God is he favors his most desired creations, humans. If God ruled multiple universes, then it seems he would have divided loyalties if other universes housed other human species. Is there a way there can be multiverses and still have God as our benevolent ruler?

Like Leibniz’s possible world semantics, all multiverses could exist potentially but the only true universe that could exist is the one we live in where God rules and humans serve. But in such a scenario those other potential worlds would not exist actually, and the presumption is made that a universe with God somehow makes that world the actual world. Could God the ruler exist without his(her) subjects? It seems once again that such a universe would be human centered, at least where humans dwell.

It seems potentially that universes could exist infinite in number. Talking about potential universes really adds nothing to the argument. The only universe that could potentially exist but doesn’t, is no universe at all. To avoid the hominoid-centric model it seems that it is necessary to posit infinite worlds as well as infinite universes. But if there are infinite universes then how can God give preference?

Without God there seems to be no freedom. God acts freely to create the world and to create humans as an expression of that freedom. But to find a place for God in the universe seems difficult. Are we automatons who if we repeated our actions a hundred times under the same conditions will have done the same thing? The varieties of possible existence would expand infinity into a new variable which would divine infinity and result in understandable and further infinite change.

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.

An Aside

Like every day in this life the sun rises and sets. We behold a shimmering of light in the morning, followed by greater brightness, and then finally the sun skirting the horizon at dusk. Across the nations, the beginning of day heralds those rising from slumber, to do one’s duty for one’s employer; or for the employers themselves, and their bosses, to map strategies to expand their influence and to prevail over others like-minded.

In this process of facing the day, one confronts certain realities, and different fears. Whether from want or plenty, all find the chill of the cold, or feel their perspiration from the heat. As the air is inhaled and CO2 exhaled, the respiration necessary for life enables our existence in the kingdom of life, as we, the most dominant species, prosper and flourish. Socially our cities stand as a testament to the species prowess, as individuals the palpitations of one’s heart yearns in desire for satisfaction in bonding with a loved one.

Age speaks to the circle of life. As one ages, another generation is born to lead on where the former may have hesitated or failed. In the present, parties are celebrated; anniversaries are marked by happy couples who have overcome adversity, helping each other survive, healthy and happy, till death when they part.

This circle of life continues with or without us. We are only conscious of it for what seems to be a brief moment, only to be cast aside by seeming cruel indifference. We pay homage to the Lord and God who gave us breath, who gave us birth, stayed with us and presides over our death. It is a short existence, but can seem very long too if one learns to appreciate the moment. As one moves on and on in the ever-quickening circle of life, infancy gives way to prodigiousness, prodigiousness to wisdom, and hopefully with apt mentoring, a better life for those to come.

Life seems real, ever so real. We feel pain and pleasure, often because of the action or reaction of ourselves towards others. Some assert karmic forces in determining our immediate condition, which affects our life, and as some cultures follow, future lives to come. With reincarnation, to be thrown here as a babe, seems an unjust reward for living one’s life in some different time or place, especially when a justification cannot presently be found. When one ponders one’s existence, one may find no justifications may in fact exist, but that things just are, and are so beyond all comprehension.

With fits and starts one moves on to the next challenge ever striving to overcome and to be better for it. This life seems painfully real and this stark being reminds of our beginnings and heralds our end. But at the core, worn away, a kernel appears, a diamond or a pearl that is shown, that presents a life well learned, and accomplishments earned; or perhaps finds nothing, a life that vanishes never to be remembered again.

Glory in the days of plenty, even if they are few, and rejoice in the life of wonder, however it comes, so that one can strive for a better life, a happier time and a greater ideal.

Introduction

It seems as if there is no firm basis for what anyone believes. People’s opinions vary depending on who one talks to. Perhaps one can accept this difference of opinion, asserting that someone else’s opinion is simply incorrect. One might say this is because, for example, their views are tainted by bias, or that it is simply because of the crowd they run with. Making these claims about others, one must believe that there is a certain truth that others are missing, ‘that if only they were more educated, or more open minded.’ In objecting to the others opinion, one might feel sympathy for their erroneous beliefs, perhaps bewilderment, or even anger.

While such differences of opinion may, at times, seem innocuous, such differences may turn out to have dire consequences. Wars can be fought not only over resources such as oil and gas, but also ideas. Ideas can often serve as the rationale for wars. Differences in ideology can turn into animosity, and animosity can turn into conflict, and conflict can turn into hatred.

Someone’s opinion may seem certain in their own eyes, but in fact these beliefs, while valid, could be based on false premises. Also, one’s beliefs could be the result of the persuasion of some orator who practiced some sleight of speech using the logical fallacies such as the Bandwagon Fallacy, the Ad Hominem Attack, or even the Poisoning the Well fallacy. The demagogue may also use such rhetorical devices such as the enthymeme [1. Frame, D., (1998) The Logical Nature of Aristotle’s Enthymeme. Master’s Thesis: San Diego State University]

Truth is most often thought of as a shining ideal. Perhaps there are some truths shown with opinions, but oftentimes these truths seem unreliable. Are opinions the only types of truths? It seems not. It seems most often one’s opinions are considered to be a truth by at least the one asserting these opinions.  How many ways are there to talk about truth?  In fact, there are many different types of truth.

There is the type of truth where there is a correspondence between what is asserted and the things it refers to.  Other types of truths include a coherence theory of truth, where beliefs seem to hold together by virtue of their composition. Also, there is the pragmatic theory of truth where if things work there is truth (i.e., a machine if functioning properly works).

The correspondence theory of truth is the most common type of truth easily accepted, understood and used in the world. When looking for a correspondence, one identifies what they believe is true corresponds with something else. If I say that I see a blue beach ball at the beach, and there is in fact a blue beach ball within view, and it is the one I see, then my statement is true. This sort of truth can be applied to opinions, facts, laws of science, and as well as all objects of perception. All of these truths can be observed. We can observe that the Democratic or Republican party is right, or that the sky is blue, or that some element has a certain atomic weight. We know all of these things through experience.

When talking about using sense perception, we are referring to what can be observed. When we speak of observation, we most often think of seeing with the eyes, but to observe something can arguably contain hearing sounds as well as including the other senses. Most often observation comes together with most or all the senses engaged at once. When using the senses for understanding of the world, one acquires empirical knowledge, making judgments about that which is observable based on sensory experience.

When we look at an object, we see that object in a certain way. If we look at it today, tomorrow or the next day it always appear the same. If it is blue it always appears blue, if it is coarse to the touch then it always feels that way. There is a certain constancy and therefore permanence in that which we perceive. We feel assured that things are as they are, and they will under ordinary circumstances, be the same tomorrow.

This sort of idea of constancy and resilience permeates our contact with the world. As the sun rose yesterday, it will rise today, and likewise will rise tomorrow. The decay of fall and the coldness of winter, the rebirth of spring and the gloriousness of summer, present themselves in reliable cycles. As we are born, mature, reproduce and die, this is the life and legacy of being human.

These things that are seemingly permanent give comfort to us and provide a sense of security. This reliability of existence allows us to be at ease, to revel on holidays, celebrate with friends’ successes, but also to find sorrow at another’s passing, knowing that you have yet survived. The unknown is what disturbs us most. The unknown is the stuff of stories of horror contained in movies and novels of ghosts and vampires, werewolves and demons. While one may enjoy the diversion of such a story, which releases us temporarily from the cares of the world, when the stories are over, we are happy to return to our adjusted lives.

 Living this life, with all its foibles and pitfalls, results in a greater understanding of ones’ self and the world. When we are a new-born babe, any event surprises us, because without experience we know not what to expect. With experience we know what to expect whether it be another day’s toil, or a holiday, or even a sedentary moment.

While even as one ages, one finds that one can take nothing as certain. There is that one day where the check did not arrive on time, or a day where one’s love did not arrive. Experience is a great teacher and individuals and society as well benefits greatly by knowing what to expect. Knowledge depends on the understanding, and one can only acquire understanding through experience. Most feel confident that experience is what can be relied on, and it is that experience that has enabled the human species to survive.

Although it is possible of course, for example, for a species to be an excellent predator and because of this has been able to thrive, but later finds itself without food because of the extinction of the species it feeds on. Nowadays the world has excelled in the production of increasingly destructive weapons and have been able to exterminate those less well armed. But now the nations that have triumphed face each other in hardened befuddlement. What are we to do now their leaders might wonder? One possible outcome, hopefully, is an age of cooperation.

While we know experience is vital for species survival, being the nurture in the nature/nurture distinction, the role of nature is less clear. Like a driving force which leads one to act beyond or without ones understanding, this force evades consciousness, and therefore, like bias itself, is beyond comprehension. Socrates claimed that the only knowledge one can have is the knowledge that we don’t know. One cannot really know for certain the true motives for one’s actions. It might be thought by an individual that they acted out of love, or perhaps justice, but actually acted primally as our genetic ancestry dictates. The scope of consciousness must be necessarily unknown, because our genetic inspired drives do not rise to consciousness. How much is a true self-conscious motive is forever a mystery.

If we cannot know the extent of our conscious motives, we cannot really feel secure in these motives determining behavior at all. This is not to claim that the two, nature and nurture, cannot act hand in hand in the quest to survive. The relationship between these two is a very contemporary enterprise examined largely by science and philosophy and is especially poignant in the writings of Sigmund Freud.

While it seems to be true that our consciousness is limited to some degree, this does not rule out the usefulness of the human intellect. Certainly, great skyscrapers, elaborate mathematical theories, and human cunning, is unrivaled in the animal kingdom, points to a conscious determinate existence. When looking more closely at Socrates’ dictum it becomes clear that his is a call to skepticism, a call to avoid dogma. We are indeed thinking beings with the ability to scrutinize and hypothesize as shown by Descartes’ Cogito “I think therefore I am.” One can find a sense of comfort with this assertion. It seems we must live meaningful and robust lives. For if we are able to think, we must exist, and be a thinking thing at that, a free independent consciousness.

When one scrutinizes the nature/nurture distinction, only one can be confused about what is reliable, what can be known, but when looking at assurances that at least to some degree one is a truly free-thinker all trepidation recedes. Many would find it depressing if this great mind which humans possess only served ancestral animal instincts. We are then, at least to some degree thinking free beings, but the question may arise, as Rodney King after being beaten by the police, most famously stated during the subsequent rioting in Los Angeles, California in 1992,  “Can we all get along?”.

Preface

Understanding the world is a complex task. One must examine the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge, as well as what the meta-philosophical abstractions sublate. The fact of our reliance on our apprehension of reality, and how they bias our way of looking at the world, has dire implications for peace, and the threat to future habitation of our planet.

Our way of looking at the world is determined by this bias. Bias can manifest itself in many forms. One may see, for example, through the lens of individualism, where the world becomes little more than an objectivized plaything. People might see the world as a concrete jungle, where all must compete. Others might see it as a place where, through cooperative labor, the community can thrive. Or one may make judgements about others simply based on physical characteristics.

All people have biases. It can be argued that these biases are innate, where the mind categorizes the world to make sense of it. Yet many of these biases can and do go awry. Some of these biases include the isms: racism, classism, sexism, speciesism (among others). Certain biases are fundamental in our beliefs and distort our way of understanding the world. These biases are of other “objectivized” groups that can result in misunderstandings: animosity, hatred, antagonism, condescension, dogmatism. Yet sometimes it can seem like biases add a sort of equilibrium and permanence to the world, which is in a constant state of flux or even chaos.

When evaluating the peccadillos of human behavior, it can be found that many attitudes about others, and their concomitant self-justifications, are not justifications at all when looked at objectively. Humans find their attitudes in a constant state of flux. That which is considered true immutably, later on may be thought to be flawed and changeable. One’s dogma, that which one takes for granted, often later on changes to be a discarded and eschewed belief.

Life seems to be in a state of flux. Not only are our belief systems pliable, but the world around us is always changing. We are moving from birth to death, from pliancy to resistance, and then atrophy. Nothing seems constant, except the dogmas that we accept at a certain point in time, which eventually are discarded too for other more comforting, contemporary and convenient ones.

We reassure ourselves that we are conscious and aware beings, capable of making informed choices and holding coherent opinion, yet find our beliefs contrary to what so many others believe. Religion seems to form a sort of foundation in life that one can stand firmly on and feel secure. Yet religions often find themselves in conflict, and religions too are in constant flux, meaning one thing, then another in a later age, then perhaps to be supplanted by another belief system never seen before.

One might get the idea that the author’s intent is to find a firm foundation, or to present a case for a firm foundation to the reader. Unfortunately, this is not the case. To try to show or prove such a foundation one would find themselves locked into some new dogma which too would eventually be swept away.

Little can be known to be certain. As Socrates once said something to the effect that “To know not, and know not one knows not, this is wisdom. To know not and know not one knows not is ignorance”. It seems a meagre sort of knowledge to only know that one does not know.

Yet with this pearl one can bring to thought a form of skepticism that can serve one well throughout one’s life. That being said, must one assume there is no foundation for our beliefs, and are people therefore consigned to a form of nihilism? We must hope not. Being skeptical implies that there is something to be skeptical about. With skepticism one can look at the so-called truths of the world and decide whether they are worthy of merit, and if not, what would or could be a viable alternative.

The job set out here is not easy. When examining the history of philosophy, one soon can find many seemingly plausible arguments, that upon examination by another can be shown to be absurd. The history of philosophy is a sort of historical argument, engaged in dialectic, which subsequently results in different and unique knowledge. So, can one arrive at the truth if this attempt is made successfully?

As we ordinarily understand truth, it seems that when all’s said and done one should arrive at the solution, like a solution to a difficult math problem. One interesting thing about the dialogues of Plato is that sometimes it is unclear if a resolution to a problem is ever reached through the Socratic dialectic. What once seem true, becomes apparently false, and we then rest assured that the new truth is reliable. Yet later we find that this new truth collapses before even another argument.

One of the main contributions of philosophy then is not simply to solve problems, but to provide tools for analysis, often dissecting arguments, and perhaps generalizing what is left to make new truths. Can truth be found? Perhaps – but a dogged pursuit of the truth using only adequate tools makes drawing conclusions difficult. Perhaps immutable truths may not be arrived at, but new insights may be gained, including any new questions that may arise from the new propositions.

Truth is not finite so one cannot hope to ever arrive at the ultimate truth

One person’s truth seems to be another person’s lie. People can be so contrarian in what they believe. Who can judge the truth? Does only God know the truth? Individuals seem unreliable when making suppositions about truth.

In order to know the truth and speak the truth, people must be autonomous beings. Without freedom a person cannot make what seemingly is the right choice. To be “truthful” is a very human endeavor. The question continually comes up about whose truth has merit, which truth is reliable. The problem with an assumption of truth is even more complex than people might think.

In order to hold a truth people must think freely. People often assume that they think freely and are fully conscious beings. Unfortunately, studies show that people can act upon impulses not associated with conscious thought[1. “The work on people’s lack of introspective abilities again points at the importance of the unconscious, but also at the fact that human behavior does not necessarily follow conscious intention or conscious goals”(Page 233). Handbook  of Social Psychology: Fifth Edition-Volume 1. Edited by Fiske, S., Gilbert, D., Lindzey, G., Wiley: New Jersey.] . There seems to be a discongruity between those behaviors that are innate, and those that are freely chosen. It seems even more so that one can be blind to this difference.

It is critical to know what constitutes our instincts, and what comprises our free will. If not, how is one to know when they think in an objective manner? If one does not think freely, then they cannot claim to live a completely autonomous life. Without these attributes of  reliably free cognitions, one might cease to be fully human, and must be no longer inerrantly an ethical beings. To be an ethical being one must be able to choose what the right choices are. Without autonomy, one may not be immoral, but one must be “amoral”.

A more practical reason why one would want the human species to act freely, is that one can have a well-ordered society, based on good principles of behavior. Without autonomy one cannot have this. On a larger scale, not only must autonomy be beneficial for the individual, but it is necessary for a well-ordered society, and hopefully someday a world at peace. Of course, all this falls asunder if freedom cannot be reliably asserted.

It is clear that peace must be a goal of all peoples, even with the great distrust that exists between peoples. While in a more enlightened age, one country might not covet the resources of another, but rather share them, an autonomous being could (if they so choose) make such a thing reality. While this might be dismissed as claptrap, it is important to remember the fate of rulers in the past who have ignored the “other” after which the ground shook from unrest.

Identifying one’s dogmas are vitally important for social cohesion. From evolutionary theory, one knows that when traits that are passed on, they can survive into successive generations. This innate nature of Homo Sapiens, and all life, may be biased to enhance one’s survival, even to the detriment of others. This orientation may have worked well in agrarian societies, but in our large urban centers our instincts can often get us into trouble. One only needs to look at the prison statistics in the USA for example.

While it may be a tall, and perhaps an even impossible order, one must endeavor to understand one’s innate nature that hovers right behind their consciousness. In order to identify one’s dogma, one must be critically aware, not only of themselves, but how one understands the world. For the way one views the world (i.e., Weltanschauung) can tell us how individuals understand themselves.

In order to change the way one looks at the world then, one must look intimately at the way the individual looks at themselves. Most people are confident they are “good people”, that they are morally upright, and act according to principle; although one may be marginally conscious, if at all, of how self-serving this principle could be when based on an innate need.

How can one remedy this situation in which people find themselves? If there is no immutable truth, then how can one decide if one is right or wrong? Unfortunately, different people attach different meanings to truth. For example, it might be true that the Democratic Party goals are more aligned with the working people. It might be true that the Republican goals ultimately enable others in society to thrive if they so choose. It may be true that the Socialist believes that all wealth should be more equitably distributed, for a more stable society. Or it might be true that the Libertarian values liberty over all others and such a society would be the best.

How is one to decide what is the most desirable of all goals? How is one to decide what belief system one adheres to for a firm foundation and growth? In order for people to find what is wrong about the world, people must know first what is wrong with their own way of understanding this world. People often have different views and may even change radically their views over a lifetime. Understanding is necessary to examine these dogmas.

In order to examine dogmas, one must suspend one’s beliefs. If one is interested in stamp collecting, and they are reading this, this person will likely move on. Or if one wants to understand the Hubble Constant, one will not look here, but will look into the discipline of Astronomy or Cosmology. Yet, when one considers; the stamp collector and the astronomer both have a stake in what is said here. The stamp collector might dismiss this missive because it has nothing to do with commerce. The astronomer might dismiss it because it has nothing to do with science. The stamp collector and the astronomer can both benefit from this appeal, being subject to the human condition. Dogma enters all lives. Bias manifests based in class, status, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, species and so many other innumerable ways that touch all.

It is through this understanding, through our perception, that the world can prevail as it is. Some think of the human race as sheep, choosing whatever path the leaders choose. The call to arms, the making of treaties, the resumption of ties, all happen while one lives their lives, make their decisions – whether good or bad – and after, if one is so fortunate, take themselves safely to their graves.

The goal of this book then is to pierce beneath the façade, to ennoble those among us that can search for the truth. This is for those who will take up the mantle of Socrates and more. For whether one finds the truth or not, nor is even able to do so, that is better than not knowing the truth, but being deluded. If there is no truth to be known, how can one know this if one is not willing to search for it?