The Great Questions.
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
(Virgil,
G. II, 490)
Who are we, and why are we here? What is our purpose? How can we
gain
inner security and faith? Do we have a soul, and what is it? Is death
annihilation? - - Vagueness and confusion is widespread about
all this in our modern world, probably because by a
reluctance to
speak about it, as well as by the opposite, a profusion of careless
talk. And then, we have the ideologies! They have not shown a
beneficent effect; on the contrary, we find an increasing readiness to
impress others with hate. Of course, this generates insecurity
and leaves many people
unprepared for a superior life that we could strive for. It is a
great pity because it is not so
difficult to think about these basic questions more deeply so that one
can get over the
confusion and understand a little better the most important issues in
our life.
The problem that the modern person faces is that Science by itself cannot give us helpful answers because
science is objective, which means that it tries to
eliminate
man from the picture. Otherwise, science would be subjective,
i.e., easily corrupted by idiosyncrasies. And yet,
we should know where we
stand because these questions concern our very life. During
millennia, people have thought intensely about the puzzle of existence
and now, we
find the public still in the grips of beliefs which have been conceived long
before science
discovered many of nature's features. We are stuck with the problem
that, on one side, our old beliefs seem to be in flagrant conflict with
obvious facts
of our world. On the other side we find that science cannot give us
answers that can give meaning to our existence and we find the most confusing and ill conceived opinions. Our existence
should be the result of an accident? This is not a useful base for a
good world view. Therefore we find no deep
convictions of
those who have lost their traditional faith.
Undoubtedly, we we need a philosophy that, while it cannot be part of
science,
must nevertheless be in conformance with it. Albert Schweitzer
has stated what we need: Our impaired culture needs a world view
that
is not in conflict with advanced scientific knowledge, which is most
widely acceptable, a view that is not materialistic but ethical and
optimistic [1].
What could this world view be? Science tells us how the stars and
planets formed and when on earth, after billions of years, the
conditions became favorable for evolution. But, these facts cannot
satisfy our emotional needs because where are we in these findings,
they
deliberately ignore us in order to be objective [2]! We need to explain
things in ways that relate to our
innermost feelings, which impersonal Science
cannot do. To meet this
need, our subjective side cannot be ignored, it must be
added and integrated with a solid scientific understanding which is
necessarily objective. The integration is necessary because we live
in the factual world, but have an inner life with
self awareness.
The first step in
widening of our intellectual horizon is to make us realize that we
are here
because
we
very much want to be here. The thirst for life [3] is our core, it
goes
through every cell of our bodies and drives us every moment - this is
why we eat, drink, and make love. What is the result of including this
view? It shows the world as the
result of our own wishes. Our beginning as an individual is the
direct consequence of the desire of the ancestors for life. This desire made
them spawning new beings - us. The life urge is so
absolute that we follow it even under the worst conditions. It is
elementary, prior to, and beyond, all reasoning. Our existence is
caused by this lust for life; we value and endure it, as long as our
bodies allow it.
When we switch to an objective perspective of our life, we find that our
mind comes from
the
sensitivity of
neurons that developed in the course of evolution from surface cells
that were directly
exposed and sensitive to the environment. These cells grew into the
incredibly complex system of the brain that processes the signals from
the sensor cells. The awareness of our mind has this origin; it senses
new experiences and compares them with the memory of past events. Our
feelings, desires and passions are the subjective experience of
the
electro-chemical forces and processes in the neural system of the
brain. These are the same forces that we observe objectively acting
everywhere else in nature, in
the
atoms, in stars and galaxies. If we
wonder what is the essence or “inside” of these basic forces of nature,
we can point to what we
experience
most intimately, to our own
inside, to our emotions and drives. There is nothing else that we
could know as intimately as ourselves.
In this way, we might even see the affinity
of
the chemical elements for each other, as the beginnings of
erotic
attraction. We must be especially aware at this point, conscious of the
fact that we are learning now to use two
very different ways to look at experiences, the subjective
and the objective. What objectively is the biological sex drive (if it
is
observed objectively), is
subjectively our
erotic attraction to another being (as we feel it as a strong emotion).
If we fail to
be aware
of the total difference between the two views and do not remain consistent,
we will be confused without being aware of it.
The
objective explanation is used when we compare things with, and
refer
them to, other features in nature. This is the way of science which
aims to overcome the
problems of the observer and to collect information of the world as it
is (ideally as if we did not exist).
In the
subjective way, we talk about our own inside and feelings, and our
relations with others and other things. If I say
I
have a tooth
ache, I state something that cannot be established objectively by
others, except indirectly and unreliably (if we complain which could be pretense). If we relate the
chemical affinity of two substances to erotic attraction, we have
interpreted an
objective
observation and relate it to a subjective experience of something not
ourselves
(admittedly quite a span).
This way we come to realize, that
the core of nature must be right inside us, where we experience it as
the
very center of our being. Hence, our core must be as eternal as all
forces of nature! This is a most important realization. We
can understand now that a supernatural world, in addition to our
mysterious world would be an unnecessary and arbitrary
assumption. We would not
know anything about it, whereas we do know our reality most intimately by direct
experience [4].
After reaching full consciousness, sooner or later we begin to search
for meaning in our life. We cannot remember to have wanted life
because
the drive comes long before we can have a conscious mind. But, finding
ourselves in this
world, what if anything are we to
accomplish in it? We find an answer if we ask what the other animals
have to do in their life ?
They lack the mental facility to do more than to follow their drives
and maintain themselves as well as they can. They are running around,
finding food, defending themselves against enemies, seeking a mate,
procreate, and die. There is nothing else they can, or want to
do. But man is very differently endowed, he happens
to have the means to
communicate and work collectively. Because of this ability, we
are the only animal on Earth which can become more than dimly aware of
its position in the world and can actually get off the Earth, even if
only for a limited time. As an individual, by using what we have
received through the bitter evolutionary process, surviving under most
inclement
conditions, we
can be much better off if we do not neglect our talents
and not wait for something to come to us, instead of striking out
ourselves. This is the unmistakable message of the situation in which
we find ourselves: be active, use your talents, especially your mind,
as
well as you can.
Unavoidably, however, life brings many problems and pain
which is easier to accept if we understand that it is in the nature of
things that hunger and pain, problems and suffering, are the price that
must be paid for
being a separate individual. Struggle is basic in life. Every separate
being must maintain itself against the demands of all the others who
also want to be separate and for this, they need my space and use
my material for food. This logical
consequence of individual existence entails struggle and pains.
If we think about it, we will
come to question whether all this immense suffering and the colossal
tragedies
in the
world are really worth it, could they ever be offset by the rewards
that life offers? As it has
been shown by Schopenhauer, the immense and universal suffering can not
be
compensated by individual pleasures. As he puts it, one
just has to
compare the pain and desperate suffering of the animal that is being
eaten, with the other animal's pleasure of eating it. Or, closer to
home, compare the pain and suffering of the people who suffer in a
catastrophe, with the "pleasure" of watching this on the TV screen.
Observing all this around us, we must conclude that the whole effort in
the world is but an
immense, a truly cosmic tragedy, kept going by the drives to eat and
procreate. The
culprit for this ubiquitous disaster is the structure of the
atoms that lets them congregate into life forms; and the chemistry of
the
hormones that produce the sex drive. Blind material forces acting by
necessity are thus "guilty" of this unimaginable cosmic process. One
has to
behold the cosmic enormity of this situation! It most likely exists
not only here on Earth, but in countless stellar systems, in countless
galaxies! --
Understandably, it is easy to fall into hopelessness, into negativism!
This world where
all
beings
suffer, a world of merciless physical necessity, driven by desire
from disaster to disaster in a stone deaf universe - is this not a
horrendous mistake?
In subjective terms, it is the unavoidable result of
being seduced by a totally irrational, a demonic,
urge.
This has
been noted by many wise men (foremost by Buddha), and in the West
already by
Aristotle (ἡ φυσις δαιμονια , αλλʹ
ου θεια εστι,
nature is demonic, he wrote, not divine). By seeing it this way,
everything
becomes very bad for us, we feel entrapped, resign in despair and waste
our
opportunity of living. Therefore, pessimism is a harmful
self-inflicted punishment.
But, we do not need to follow
this conclusion
into
total despair. If healthy, we can choose an active attitude towards our
life: either we
accept it with fortitude and
courage, or we resign in despair. It is best to be very clear about
this choice and the need for courage to persist, if only for a while,
in this chaotic world. With age the desires weaken and
reflection can be more objective. Then we find that by having accepted
life positively and having taken up the challenge, we have gained an
experience, a terrific
adventure, that has been
worth it (provided, of course, that we have done our share), at the
price of the pains of the vanquished.
It is a deep insight that all things in the world (and most
importantly,
the other people) exist by the same forces that we feel in our own
life system. Therefore, we are an
integral part of it all. This thought can bring us deep faith.
The
right sense of “faith” is confidence and trust, the sense
meant by
Jesus when He said to the frightened disciples: Τι
δειλοι έστε,
όλιγοπιστοι.
(Math. 8, 26). Why fearful are ye, O (ye)
little-trusting? Over time and translations, the meaning
of confidence receded and assumed more the meaning of a specific
belief. But, this is
confusion; it is best to keep the two concepts distinct: Creed and
Faith!
They are not the same. Beliefs as such can do nothing except if they
give us the life
confidence
and the trust (the morale) that we need in life. A creed, as an
ideology, may bring us faith, which is the important thing, and not the
creed, which is merely the vehicle. We know of many
creeds (A leader conveys faith to the disciples through his charisma -
what he actually says is less important and often dark and irrational);
but
there is only
one faith, and it is indispensable for leading a good life! However,
for
this to be possible, we must maintain ourselves disciplined, physically
healthy
and optimistic. To indulge in pessimism is weak and unwise because it
destroys our faith, which is really the health of our soul.
As said, we must not ignore the subjective experience, but it is also
too
often
overdone. Being confined in a too subjective view of the world, i.e.,
seeing
things almost
exclusively from our own narrow point of view, inevitably brings us to
what Woody Allen said recently about life, as he was
interviewed
in
France by LeFigaro about his last tragedy "The Dream of Cassandra". He
replied to the question
after comments on his work: Et la réalité
est...?
Absurde. Dénuée de sens. En cela, elle est
foncièrement tragique, avec des moments amusants, à la
surface. Il y a des gens qui ont de la chance, d'autres qui n'en ont
pas, ils voyagent dans des trains différents, mais c'est la
même destination. On devient vieux, malade, on meurt. Tout ce
qu'on a été, tout ce qu'on a fait aboutit au
néant. Bergman est mort, c'est fini.
Of course, the Universe as the
arena of purely physical processes cannot make sense; a machine cannot
make sense, either. This would assume
a lasting mind and it is obvious that a narrow egocentric view leaves
us with nothing because we have no evidence of such an eternal mind. As
Woody
Allen perceived it, this view of the world only offers us
hopelessness
and disappointment. To be disappointed means to have
expected too
much. A meaning of anything that would
last and extend into infinity, into eternity, forever, is physically
impossible.
However, our existence actually does have
an eternal meaning, we just have to understand our being as an integral
part of nature. We cannot expect meaning for our little
individual person, with all our weaknesses, problems, warts, because as
individuals we are practically nothing. Individuals are being produced
by the zillions everywhere. When we are
old and have the fortune to remain lucid, our mind (if we keep it open)
perceives strongly the
permanence of life and of the world, together with the greatly
diminished importance of our own, so limited
individuality. The importance of ourselves vanishes commensurate
as we enlarge our view of the world. If we keep the
Universe in mind, we are almost nothing - as long as we restrict our
view only to our own person. But if we see ourselves as an
integral part of the world, as a system of the forces of nature, we are
aware of the permanence of our core.
Therefore, if we accept life with
courage and fortitude, with Faith, we find strength and can help
others. This is immensely superior to a life in pessimism, with
complaints that are destructive for all. Optimism is really a civic
necessity! The question is how to get this faith. Moreover, we are not
animals who live mostly in the present. With memory and thought, we
have choices and must decide, which gives us the responsibility for
what we do. It is in this spirit that we should aim to live in a way
that allows the best choices for us. To restrict our
options, to lose freedom, prevents us from finding what is best for
each of
us.
The mind process seems to appear as the result of evolution wherever
the physical conditions allow it in the Universe. This belief is based
on the realization that having awareness with memory is
tremendously advantageous
to the organism that has it. The mind can defer action, or forgo it if
the memory has information about a past similar event. It is the almost
total separation of the living system from its immediate environment
that is so beneficial for survival. In other words, the mind frees the
organism from the danger of blind reflexes. Unfortunately, this also
brings pain and suffering into the world. An increasing degree of
freedom is gained in a bootstrap process during growing up in which
the soul matures by choosing and learning. Mind developed on earth by
helping the animals to find food, shelter, and mates. We can expect,
and do indeed find, in
nature a gradual transition of the various species from reflex to
instinct to reasoned
decision.
An individual being can reach reasoned decisions commensurately better
as it
gains experience and frees
itself more from the immediate urge of the blind life
force. At the same time, this is also the beginning of seeing the world
objectively. It
is a rare accomplishment for
a mind to advance into such a degree of maturity that it can experience
the world as it
really is, instead of relying on reflex like preconceived notions (or
accepting blindly the opinions of others). Only
when it accepts responsibility for its action,
and does not look for external excuses (the devil made me do it), has
the soul become a “self-made” entity that can control itself, existing
as a true individual - albeit still limited by
circumstances.
I understand my body as a system that consists almost
entirely of various processes and functions of which I am not aware;
they are
represented in the mind as a general feeling with pains and
emotions. From
this sentiment, which entails liking or rejection of the causes of this
feeling, come vague urges that get
translated into specific
ideas which can be voiced in
speech. This process of translation from vague sentiment into abstract
notions and words is delicate and can be much
improved,
because finding and selecting a well fitting expression is an art which
is not simple. That is why people prefer simple, undemanding general
expressions that are not sufficiently
specific to allow precise communication (see the dictionary: how
many different meanings are listed under "get"?).
In any case,
this is one aspect that illuminates the difficulty of knowing
abstractly what our sentiment is. Therefore, it is a
great mistake to believe that we know ourselves and our decisions
before we have
experienced years of actual performance under stress. When young,
I had only nebulous ideas about myself (but strong drives to do
something), even though, my mother who was a very astute person, knew
exactly what was the right thing for me to do (as I found out years
later).
The real
chief and absolute boss in our Self is not our conscious mind,
but the other 99% of us, which appear to us as the mostly
subconscious "sentiment". The mind will follow the commands of
the
real boss and "bend" its functions to please this chief who (without
help from
the
mind) is actually mindless (stupid). This stupid boss appears as our
enormous
Ego.
It is therefore extremely difficult to be truly objective in
our
judgment because we will always drift towards the pleasurable. In other
words, we are not rational beings as it is generally
assumed, but see things only as it benefits the "sentiment", i.e., the
perceived
interests of the ego.
Rationality, on the other hand, is the capability
to consider things
objectively (as they refer to other things, and not to us);
it must be learned and practiced. It is an artificial tool for us that
we
superimpose on our natural way, i.e., looking at things solely for
our
advantage. We should cultivate rationality because it has
shown that it can be
of immense
value. All
of our modern world is based on rationality. The price for these
advantages is that by suppressing our emotional Self, we will appear to
be cold. The best way to look at this apparent dilemma is to see
it as an exchange of short term gain (the immediate satisfaction of our
Self), against long term benefits which can be much greater. For
gaining these long term advantages, we must be able to see the
situation as it is, without this stupid boss demanding his way right
away.
Mind is an electrochemical process in the neurons of the brain. There
is nothing supernatural about it, and it is not less amazing than the
body of which it is only a small part! Mind is not a thing or a
substance, but a systemic support function, a process that is
carried by matter in constant exchange with the environment.
The system process stays with its memory - it is comparable with
a stationary wave in a stream, or like a tornado that moves as an
individual
phenomenon which involves exchange of material in a dynamic process.
In our body, most of the material is being replaced every couple of
years in the metabolism. The difference between mind and body is that
the mind process is not directly physically visible; it can only
be subjectively experienced, whereas the body is what we can
objectively
perceive.
What happens when I die? When a musical performance ends,
the composition is not destroyed.
While it is always in potential existence for the next orchestra to
play, it cannot come to life until then. Other performances will be
slightly different. Nevertheless, we perceive the process as the same
composition whenever it is being played, even though it is not a thing.
In the same sense it is fair to state that the mind process does not
disappear when the bodily process of an individual ends; - or in
objectivistic language, the mind process as such cannot die, because it
goes on in uncounted conscious beings and must be, of course, the same
process everywhere - only the degree of awareness is different in the
different cerebral implementations. Mind only appears to be multiple
and
different in separate bodies because different memories support the
process with separate experiences in each case, but apart from this,
consciousness, the mind, the Ego, is the identical phenomenon wherever
it
appears. If we could transfer to us the memory of another person, we
would think we are this person. This is undoubtedly an objective
fact which only
appears so
preposterous compared to our subjective experience because this,
because
produced by a separate nervous system, is centered on
the experiencing subject. Due to this separation of the nervous
systems, the individuals must see themselves as separate, but it is a
mistake to take that beyond the separate memories which support the
separate awareness. The process in all these systems with
awareness is, as
such, identical.
The different strength of the drives, together with the
different performance capability of the body and also, because we have
been so conditioned during growing up - all these in their combination
are the reason why we think we are separate beings and, taken in our
individuality as persons, we are indeed different due to genes,
environment and what we have made of our talents, and how much we have
taken up the responsibility for our acts. However, these are details of
implementation, our attributes, whereas the
basic process and
feelings are one and the same in all. A unity of being becomes clear
to us if we enter into our innermost Self in silent meditation. The
fountainhead of our desires is a universal cosmic force. It is the
identical desire wherever an individual has it (or should we say, is
possessed by it ?). We cannot normally have
this
insight while we are immersed in the noise and excitement of the world,
but sometimes even then.
During a concert, new players could come and take their seats in the
orchestra, relieving others who leave. The playing continues. Or take a
commercial company. After a few decades, it operates at a new location,
with new employees, new equipment, and new management. Obviously it is
not a thing and it remains not materially the same. Nevertheless, it is
the same company and the owners are convinced that they own something
that exists.
Our own existence as a process is of the same basic kind, but vastly
more complex.
We
are a natural physical process and not a “thing”, and when we die, the
life process stops just in this body and we
are no
more in the
old incarnation. This is why death must not concern us other than that
it stops a particular life experience with its memory. Once this
happens, the dead body
can decay, it cannot replenish itself and is now completely worthless.
Without the life process, it has been reduced to a thing, it is refuse.
As we saw, the mind process, the core of the Self, is in its essence
one and the same where ever it comes into existence and therefore, we
must say that this Self cannot be a different, but must be essentially
the
identical process everywhere, with variations and attributes each time
it comes into being. The process as such is as indestructible as the
natural forces are of which it is a realization. It is as
indestructible
as,
e.g., the electrical force is indestructible. Because our sense of the
I, of the Self, is grounded on the one process everywhere, it is the
reason why we can sense
this metaphysical permanence, as Spinoza has it: we sense and
experience ourselves to be eternal (. . sentimus, experimurque
nos
aeternos esse).
The mind is in the same way a natural process as all the other natural
processes that
come into being whenever the occasion for them arises. Consciousness is
exactly the same, one and the same process we call mind, wherever it
occurs, in the same way as we see in the physical world a force as the
same
gravitational force that produces the orbits of the celestial bodies,
whether it is of the moon around the earth or the Jovian satellites
around Jupiter.
The details, the strength of force and the orbits are different. It
makes no sense to consider any of these phenomena of the same class
as essentially different when they occur: All basic phenomena of
nature, whenever they act, obey their specific laws. As we saw, mind
with its desires and emotions is the subjective “inside” of the world,
and of course, this inside is the same wherever it is perceived. We
perceive
this core identity unmistakably when we see ourselves in the other
beings - if they are in danger, if we are embarrassed for them. When
under the immediate impression of this identity, we help the other Self
in sympathy as much as we can, possibly all the way to self-sacrifice -
it is the basis for the highest moral action.
The non materiality of the soul gives it the time-less, ghost-like
nature that has often been interpreted as other-worldly. Of course, the
soul is not a substance in the usual sense but, as we must stress again
and again, it is a part of the world, there is nothing supernatural. It
is the result of the electro-chemical process of mind. We should not
conceive a plurality of minds because taken in its essence as a
process, mind as such is singular, but implemented with different
attributes in
each case. The detachment of the bodies with their minds in separate
brains and separate memories is the reason why, by seeing the
sharp separation of functions, the individuals think that they are
separate.
But, in the powerful urge to merge in sexual union, the individual
separation
reveals itself as a superficial appearance.
On the other hand, the functional separation has the fatal consequence
that it sets being against being. The separate needs of the individuals
produce the troubling irrationality with strife and ubiquitous
contention in the world at large. Only we, and nobody else, can
alleviate this with reason, with courage, with modesty, and with
self-control. Our
work is part of the total human enterprise, which gives it a
meaning for our culture as benefit of all. This sets our values
and is the basis on which we distinguish good from bad. It is why we
hold in
high esteem the hero and the saint, but also the artist, the engineer,
the mason, the teacher, the defenders of freedom and all the other
positive and productive contributors. Opposed to them we find
instigators of hate, of
strife, of discontent, the parasites and those who obfuscate truth. We
have every reason to treat them as destructive forces of evil. We must
urge them to adopt better ways and, if necessary, we must overwhelm
them. We cannot and must not tolerate evil.
The philosophy outlined here is in its core a very old idea and, over
time, it has appeared in one form or another, more in the East, less in
the West. If we have to use labels, we could name it Naturalistic
Mysticism. Mysticism is commonly assumed to be religious in the
Mosaic sense,
signifying an
intimate experience of a union with God as a person; but this
identification with a personal God is traditional only in the West as
the heritage of the hebraic myth. In
the world view as
presented here, the use of the two terms in combination has a wider
meaning. Even in the West, e.g., Maine de Biran (d. 1824) stressed the
fundamental importance of the internal experience of the Will and
described the
human Self as developing through an animal phase, the vie animale
(animal life), to a phase of freedom, the vie humaine
(human life),
culminating in experiences that transcend humanity, to the vie de
l'esprit
(spiritual life). In conformance with his own culture and habits of
language, he suggests that
God may be in these internal experiences for those who have it this
personal way.
Our thoughts as they have been presented here are based on a
naturalistic world
view.
Remarkably, this leads to the same core idea as Spinoza's (d. 1677). He
did use the word God, but his use is exotic without an implication of
a person. He did that to avoid persecution. Other examples of
essentially the same basic idea, but in each case developed
differently, are by the famous physicist, the Nobelist Erwin
Schrödinger (Meine
Weltansicht, 1963, Fischer No. 562), and the remarkable work by the
theologian Alan Watts (The Book. On the Taboo Against Knowing Who
You
Are, 1972, Vintage V-853). The core idea has been explicated with
peerless erudition as a philosophical system in the work of Arthur
Schopenhauer (d. 1860) which,
of course, must be somewhat "transformed" when
we read it
today, brought up to date against
the
much more developed
scientific background and general culture.
I should express my debt to Schopenhauer (more . .) as a superior educator.
Unfortunately, he
became
only known for his pessimism. This cannot do justice to his formidable
achievement and profound cultural influence (Wagner, Nietzsche, Freud).
He deals
in
corresponding detail also with the alternate choice, an optimistic
affirmation of life, an option which we must prefer as a pragmatic
social necessity! The nobelist Thomas Mann interpreted
Schopenhauer in modern terms in his excellent work Schopenhauer
(Bermann-Fischer, Stockholm 1938).
Several popularized versions of our thesis appear from time to time,
and it
is easy to be superficial and lapse into a fiction of the supernatural
kind! Whenever this
happens, it is a sure sign that the essential idea has not been
understood. We have no need to postulate a supernatural world in
addition to the inexhaustible reality and vast mystery of the Universe.
Such
claims, such deviations from the reality that can be experienced by
anybody, create confusion with the great danger of useless strife
between
different teachings of pure inventions.
If we can see the world and ourselves in the naturalistic vision
presented here, it will be good for us. Its unique merit is that by
staying entirely within our natural experience, it is available to
anyone, at any time; we do not depend on myths and a delicate exegesis
of ancient
texts with uncertain translations. Recognizing that the core of
our Self is
acting everywhere in nature and throughout the Universe, produces an
immense widening of the soul, a cessation of hostility toward others,
and a gradual replacement of the narrow ego worries with an awareness
of our most intimate connection with the non ego. This insight spawns
the firmest possible morality because it comes from deep understanding
(equivalent to "you do not hurt yourself") - which is a more reliable
guidance than
commands and fear. It is a genuine morality because actions taken under
a command or out of fear are not moral at all. And nota bene, this
insight also corrects our relations with man's higher animal relatives.
From abundant evidence we know that these beings have an inner life
that is in its essence not different from ours. They have emotions,
feel pain, fear, and joy, not less than we do even if they cannot
express them in words. Of course, we must give them humane
consideration and protection, if not love. They repay manifold!
Many views about life and the world are possible. However, we must not
get excited over the differences. We must respect other beliefs
provided they
bring genuine faith to their believers, and must do our best to avoid
adding to the
natural tendency among people to start harmful strife. Our motto is
Chacun à son goût! (with the
preferences different
according to upbringing, custom, and habit), provided that
these
teachings do not promote hatred between people; or endanger the
well
being of others (as they will when they become fanatical, affect public
policy in unwise directions, and incite hatred). If this happens, the
necessary separation of religion from the state has been disregarded
and
the offending organization has to be firmly opposed as a danger to all.
The wisdom of avoiding a meddling into secular affairs has been firmly
and
clearly stated by Jesus (Math. 22;21) and it is hard to understand
why so many of His "followers" ignore Him in this. To oppose offenders
is, of course, a most regrettable need, but it is impossible to
tolerate such an infraction without destroying the freedom of belief
for all
others. In our modern world, we must aim to overcome all fanatical
certainty and we must never forget that hate is not only a grave sin
that denies and sabotages the Unity of all Being; hate is the
arch
enemy of mankind, right next to pride and arrogance.
The fear of death is a life necessary instinct. Beings without
it
cannot exist. On the other hand, the price for this
life preserving force is that for us (i.e., subjectively), death must
appear as annihilation
while objectively, we have really nothing to fear, our core,
the life
process with consciousness goes on wherever conditions permit. Each one
of the new individuals knows that he is the "I", the center of the
world, in the same way in which we remain the same "I" from infant into
high age,
only with more experience!
The new individuals push into life with every moment. Therefore,
death is not too different from deep sleep, we just do not wake up as
the same person, mainly because without the same brain, we have
different
memories. This is why every individual has to go through the same
learning and maturing process in which, with effort, a higher
personality can be reached. Of course, this is also why we
should help our young fellow beings. The major problem is that the
young cannot so easily understand that they need and can accept this
help to
their own benefit. They might ask, but how can we distinguish the
fools
(which are everywhere) from the wise? The answer is:
listen
with
distinction and judgment
(see Essay 1). One has to be guided by reason and reject any expression
of hate or incitement to violence because a higher humanity and a
better human community can only be gained if these primitive urges can
be controlled.
In death, we return to the state in which we have been before the
forces came together to start us as a new being. Of course,
individual memory, and with it our identity, is lost when the process
of
the mind stops, i.e., when we die. We lose them with all other details,
warts and everything that we acquired in our individual existence.
However, none of this affects the core and essence of the Self, a
process which is time-less, as eternal as the cosmic forces which we
experience as our subjective “inside”. Those who can overcome their
primitive excessive subjectivity, and see themselves objectively as an
integral
part of the world, gain an unshakable faith that supports them in
leading a superior life. They can also lead others with confidence
- they know that nothing can really happen to them.
Nevertheless, the identity of our core with the core of all beings
includes also all those others with whom we become angry at times! But
angry or not, we cannot hate, we will not be malicious if we envision
this core identity! What we must learn is to see things truly and
objectively as they are because it is only in the narrow subjective
view that we appear as the totally separate and so valuable beings for
which death is annihilation. It is the objective world that keeps
generating an endless multitude of subjects. There are even
reasons to consider the flow of time itself as a subjective
experience. In this view, there is no real annihilation, we are
all existing in a timeless
fashion [4] in which, for inescapable reasons, we cannot communicate
across
large four-dimensional
distances.
But, would it not be great if individual life could continue? Why must
it come to an end? It is only natural for young minds to think so, but
the mature answer is No! It is really not possible and also not
desirable for individuals! There is no permanence in the world, and
change is the universal process. A continuing existence with
memory is not only physically impossible, it would become unbearable,
as one can understand if he has lived a long life. In the world of
constant change, we would be crushed
under
heartbreaking grief about the losses of our loves, of our friends, of
our little world; when every thought evokes nostalgia and produces
grief that inexorably accumulates with time the sadness in our memory.
Change is
not only the basic process in the Universe (in the
subjective experience of our tiny brains); it is what existence
means, because a still picture is not life. Nothing can last, while
everything
comes into being and ends again. Moreover, we must expect that,
for every mind (which is, after all, a very limited process in a tiny
physical system of less than 2 liters of volume), the total range of
meaningful experience is strictly limited; hence the individual life
experience beyond a point
becomes senseless and eventually, we can see only increasingly painful,
even nauseating, repetition.
For these reasons, it makes no sense to patch up the “hardware” of our
body endlessly. You wish to do that only if you have not yet lived.
Eventually, the body must be totally replaced, with the tremendous
benefit
that we can
start with a fresh mind through the blessing of "drinking from the
river of
forgetting". If we think about this deeply, we can understand that
we really need this total forgetting: it is necessary for life to
be totally rejuvenated. Life of the very old, is not the life as we
know it as
young persons. We need not worry about our core, our thirst for
life and its experience, because all this comes with every “I” and is
everywhere. The
urge
into life always
creates new brains with blank memory for the new experience of a fresh
life with young, beautiful, glowing bodies, fresh desires and
interests, unspoiled
hope, with all the prospects of spring. We see them all around us and
we should do everything to help prepare the world for this, in its deep
sense our own future! Work for a better world and deeper life
experience! Life receives its greatest possible value only if we
can do precisely this.
Notes and Literature
[1] Albert Schweitzer in his prophetic Verfall und Wiederaufbau der
Kultur (München,
1923) has positively expressed what is
needed in
a time of “Decay and Reconstruction of Culture”. He wrote
after Word
War I with foreboding of more conflagration to come. Today, the
cultural situation has not improved since then. The 20th century has
effectively
destroyed the old European humanistic culture, barbaric ideologies have
caused untold misery for countless millions, and the world has not been
able yet to replace this lost part of our culture in the sense of a
respected common frame in
which the people can live together in harmony and security. It
does not mean that we are at the end of our culture because the
technical - scientific - medical part is stronger than ever. But
the loss of the humanistic part has its consequences, because we are in
great danger to sink into a pure materialistic - hedonistic
civilization in which people feel isolated and empty. This is a
condition that makes them highly susceptible to cults, ideologies and
fanaticism - which cannot solve their problem.
[2] Of course, various sciences deal with man, however, with
the exception of psychoanalysis and special areas of psychology, they
deal with their subject in a strictly objectivist way. Behaviorism,
e.g., is a particularly objectivist part of psychology where even the
existence of a mind is not recognized by some as a scientific issue
(Essay 12, note [3]).
[3] When I speak of the thirst for life, or the urge into
life, I do
not imply a special life force as the Vitalists claim. Modern science
holds Vitalism
for a mistake and views the subjective experiences as the result of the
systemic action of all natural forces that are involved in the basic
sensory and signal transmission in the total system of the neurons that
are the seat of our awareness, but also of our drives (stimulated by
the chemistry of the hormones). For our purpose, it makes little sense
to go into deep physical details - the experience of
awareness and of our Self is undoubtedly created by the systemic action
of the total body. The weakness of materialism is that it ignores the
all importance of the subjective experience. In contrast to this is the
view expounded here which is essentially Naturalism with a mystical
enlightenment.
[4] To keep the distinction objective - subjective firmly in mind
helps
to clarify many issues. As noted by Bertrand Russell, we enter
philosophy when we recognize the problem of time. Is it objective?
In this case we could assign to it some kind of "existence".
Going here in search of objectivity, we
first note that, since the events happen in different locations and
time, they can be
conceived as ordered in an abstract "configuration" space of 4
dimensions.
The current scientific understanding is not yet clearly settled at this
point. For many this configuration space is taken as a real space,
which would assume an
objective existence of time, e.g., Stephen W. Hawking
(Essay 8 part 2 Note [14]). I believe his terminology goes too far and
is misleading. For
an
observer, local coordinates of space and time are used as reference of
measurements, but only the combination of
space-time has an absolute meaning (in our computations). It is clear
that this particular moment of time
and the
location in space that we experience depend on who is
observing. Therefore, this should be taken as subjective data without
a claim
to an objective existence. On the other hand, we can even deny an
objective "flow" of time and consider the Universe as static, where we
become aware only of a flow because of our brain
processes. This would not be the old deterministic idea of the world as
a clockwork. We merely assume that the
future exists in some way. The idea is suggested by relativity
theory in the Minkowski form. It is a consequence of strict objectivism
and is not a view shared by all relativists. The main
argument in favor of this static idea of time is this: Since
simultaneity is relative, reality cannot be split
into past, present, and future without
picking an arbitrary observer. Therefore
there can't be an objective lapse of time, but only a space-time
interval. But this is only
part of an involved argument. Even Einstein himself wrote in a letter
shortly before his death
that he held the distinction of past, present, and future to be a
persistent illusion.
Does the Future Exist?
YES
VACILLATING
NO
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleatics
Einstein
Heracleitos
Minkowski
Bondi
A. Eddington
K.
Goedel
James Jeans
Bergson
W.
Quine
H. Reichenbach
Whitehead
C.de
Beauregard
E. Meyerson
A. Gruenbaum
Milic Capek
Herrman
Weyl
Paul Langevin
T.
Gold
F. Hoyle
As Weyl puts it: The world does not
happen, it simply is. With this, it would not be clear why causality
could not act both ways in the time direction. We
must, however, remember that time is not another coordinate but the
measure of change. It is unidirectional, not
allowing, as space does, free
mobility. One could also say that objective time exists only in the
past, subjective time only in the present (the "becoming"), while
the future is purely imaginary. Superficial thinking leads us to take
time as a linear coordinate of equal standing with the space
coordinates, but this goes beyond physics and is purely
mathematical. I believe this is the crucial point and the source of
many misunderstandings. To see the world not as a
static Being, frozen in a static four-dimensional space-time where we
become aware of things by crawling on our worldline, - but as a
world of creative
"becoming" is to us the more natural, because subjective, view. It does
not preclude epistemological idealism which holds the
time phenomena, i.e., change, as inseparable from the process of
objectivation because this is again taken from a different perspective.
Furthermore, the determination of the now is impossible
without the
arbitrary selection of the subject (often called "the observer") who
is
looking at the world. When
we speak of the future, e.g., we must specify whose future, Socrates'
or ours. For the strict objectivist, therefore, the world does indeed
not
happen, it is. It is a paradoxical situation, that the
consistent application of objectivist principles (find a
description of the world which reflects reality as it is, independent
of the observer) leads straight into epistemological idealism which
must deny the objective existence of change and time. Inevitably in
such a discussion, we are reminded that even the simple statement "it
is", can be taken as problematic in philosophy, raising the
problem of existence, etc.
Does the future exist? Every thought is an event which occurs at
a definite instant in time. Therefore, every experience is
referenced to this Now (the "nunc stans" of Hobbes in his famous quote
that eternity is not time without end but the ever present Now) and so
is every meaning. We can't escape it. The same is true for the
"here" in space, the "I" as the thinking subject, etc. For these
reasons, while it is perfectly correct in the subjectivist world to see
these
experiences as the basis for the feeling of identity, uniqueness,
etc., of the beings, in addition to the different memory contents and
peculiar
differences in the objective features which are personal; -- in
the objective world, on the other hand, there is no reason to assign
any intrinsic
individuality to these different processes of the different brain
systems. We are not doing this for different electric
charges either. In fact, in the micro world there is no
possibility of distinguishing one particle from another one. It is in
the objective world that the metaphysical identity of the individuals,
and of all life, becomes obvious. I think this is strong
support for the views that have been set forth in this essay.
Copyright @2003 by Gernot M .R.Winkler. Last
Correction 08/12//2009